Dynadot โ€” .com Registration $8.99

.tv Class action suit against Versign???

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

rodash

Established Member
Impact
13
Is anyone interested in investigating the possibilities of launching a Class action suit against Verisign over premium renewal fees?

I have no idea whether Verisign has acted legally or illegally in allowing some premium domain name registrants to renew their domains at normal reg fees, while continuing to charge other registrants a much higher (premium) fee, but I take the view it would be worth looking into.

It seems to me that there could be restraint of trade, for starters, in that premium-fee payers are unable to sell their domains in the same way that non-premium-fee payers are, and this is a situation brought about by Verisign.

Rather than people insult me and abuse me for making this suggestion, could we please have intelligent debate about this.
 
0
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
GoDaddyGoDaddy
:hi:

I was the first person to publicly suggest the opinion of possible class action legal malaise with regard to the unfairness (and poorly executed; including charging no-more-Premium "Premium fees" for the supposed difference) of the "new pricing scheme" IMHO. :yell:

This is, and continues to be, a Hornet's nest! :o :imho:
Good Luck,
Jeff B-)
 
0
•••
First off for a class action you need $5 million in damages in the US, I cannot speak for any other country.

Secondly you technically own nothing, you have a lease, that can change at any time, which is in all T&C for every extension and every registrar.

Restriction of trade would be tough, JohnTV just sold Italy.tv for more than Germany.tv and Japan.tv and the name had $750 renewal. So I guess Verisign would use that.

I am not really sure Rodash. I think someone like John Berryhill although this not his area, would have greater knowledge.

In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23 and 28 U.S.C.A. ยง 1332 (d).

Class action lawsuits may be brought in federal court if the claim arises under federal law, or if the claim falls under 28 USCA ยง 1332 (d). Under ยง 1332 (d) (2) the federal district courts have original jurisdiction over any civil action where the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and either 1. any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State different from any defendant; 2. any member of a class of plaintiffs is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state and any defendant is a citizen of a State; or 3. any member of a class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a State and any defendant is a foreign state or a citizen or subject of a foreign state.[1] Nationwide plaintiff classes are possible, but such suits must have a commonality of issues across state lines. This may be difficult if the civil law in the various states have significant differences. Large class actions brought in federal court frequently are consolidated for pre-trial purposes through the device of multidistrict litigation (MDL).[citation needed] It is also possible to bring class action lawsuits under state law, and in some cases the court may extend its jurisdiction to all the members of the class, including out of state (or even internationally) as the key element is the jurisdiction that the court has over the defendant.

Typically, federal courts are thought to be more favorable for defendants, and state courts more favorable for plaintiffs. Many class action cases are filed initially in state court. The defendant will frequently try to remove the case to federal court. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005[2] increases defendants' ability to remove state cases to federal court by giving federal courts original jurisdiction for all class actions with damages exceeding $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.[3] It should be noted, however, that the Class Action Fairness Act contains carve-outs for, 'inter alia', shareholder class action lawsuits covered by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and those concerning internal corporate governance issues (the latter typically being brought as shareholder derivative actions in the state courts of Delaware, the state of incorporation of most large corporations).[4]

The procedure for filing a class action is to file suit with one or several named plaintiffs on behalf of a proposed class. The proposed class must consist of a group of individuals or business entities that have suffered a common injury or injuries. Typically these cases result from an action on the part of a business or a particular product defect or policy that applied to all proposed class members in a uniform manner. After the complaint is filed, the plaintiff must file a motion to have the class certified. In some cases class certification may require additional discovery in order to determine if the proposed class meets the standard for class certification.

Upon the motion to certify the class, the defendants may object to whether the issues are appropriately handled as a class action, to whether the named plaintiffs are sufficiently representative of the class, and to their relationship with the law firm or firms handling the case. The court will also examine the ability of the firm to prosecute the claim for the plaintiffs, and their resources for dealing with class actions.

Due process requires in most cases that notice describing the class action be sent, published, or broadcast to class members. As part of this notice procedure, there may have to be several notices, first a notice giving class members the opportunity to opt out of the class, i.e. if individuals wish to proceed with their own litigation they are entitled to do so, only to the extent that they give timely notice to the class counsel or the court that they are opting out. Second, if there is a settlement proposal, the court will usually direct the class counsel to send a settlement notice to all the members of the certified class, informing them of the details of the proposed settlement.

In federal civil procedure law, which has also been accepted by approximately 35 states (through adoption of state civil procedure rules similar to the federal rules), the class action must have certain definite characteristics: (1) the class must be so large as to make individual suits impractical, (2) there must be legal or factual claims in common (3) the claims or defenses must be typical of the plaintiffs or defendants, and (4) the representative parties must adequately protect the interests of the class. These four requirements are often summarized as numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. In many cases, the party seeking certification must also show (5) that common issues between the class and the defendants will predominate the proceedings, as opposed to individual fact-specific conflicts between class members and the defendants and (6) that the class action, instead of individual litigation, is a superior vehicle for resolution of the disputes at hand.
 
0
•••
...definitely reading material to be absorbed seriously...

Thanx, Ray!
 
0
•••
I don't know John Berryhill personally but others might. He owns many .tv including Football.tv, and he is considered by some as the #1 domain attorney out there. If anybody knows him, please run this by him. If not, I can.

Thanks, Jim
 
0
•••
...
 
Last edited:
0
•••
The issue should be brought before the courts of Tuvalu.
 
0
•••
There really is some shite talk about this extension!
Class action? FFS!
 
0
•••
0
•••
For parties interested, I would say your best bet is to cause some sort of organized effort that focuses on questionable and unsavory business tactics related to Enom, a subsidiary of Demand Media,at a time they are reported to be looking into an IPO.

They may look to quiet such noise if it got loud enough and the timing may never be better to cause some sort of public discourse related to "business practices" of a company that may never be more sensitive about its image.

The problem is this would take a well organized effort by a group of people (Domainers) who are not known for being able to combine forces, even when it benefits them, as egos often get in the way, and it is easy to "talk" rather than put in work.

The above strategy would would not rely on a court of law, but rather the court of public option, in relation to how this would look to potential investors.

There has been much talk about who actually is calling the shots as far as the premium policy. My take is that despite what some may say, Enom, if it so choose could put the pressure on VeriSign to work out some sort of deal if it wanted and VeriSign would agree. VeriSign made the call to get rid of all premiums. They already had a deal in place with Enom regarding legacy premiums. It seems clear, Enom had a contract entitling them to a certain portion of money for the life of a premium domain they sold as part of their exclusive deal. Enom was blindsided by their contract being pulled and would rather ALL premiums still be intact.

Yes VeriSign makes more money on the legacy premiums and I am not saying they have no say here. I am saying that right now there is a lot of good cop/ bad cop going on with Enom and VeriSign and that if Demand Media had a vested interest in seeing the legacy premiums go away, I believe they could push the right buttons to do so.

If a contract exists between Enom and VeriSign related to their exclusive control over premium .tv domains, (a safe assumption), then VeriSign may have their hands tied by that deal and could be subject to a lawsuit from Enom if they take away premiums that they (Enom) sold under there contract with VeriSign, unless of course, Enom works out a deal with VeriSign releasing them of their obligation.

Also keep in mind, do not take what VeriSign says at face value as far as the legacy issue. There are reasons behind the scenes they may be trying to take the heat off Enom right now.

One final note: The reality here IMO is that when the economics make sense for Enom, they will work out a deal with existing members to get rid of premiums. That would only happen, the way I see it, from 1 of 3 things happening, all involve their bottom line being hurt.

1. Mass premium drops (which may or may not happen)
2. People mass transfer there non premium domains out of Enom.
3. Demand Media is dragged through the mud at a time they are looking at a potential IPO.

I see no reason for them to change policy. Of course I hope I am wrong.
 
0
•••
For parties interested, I would say your best bet is to cause some sort of organized effort that focuses on questionable and unsavory business tactics related to Enom, a subsidiary of Demand Media,at a time they are reported to be looking into an IPO.

They may look to quiet such noise if it got loud enough and the timing may never be better to cause some sort of public discourse related to "business practices" of a company that may never be more sensitive about its image.

The problem is this would take a well organized effort by a group of people (Domainers) who are not known for being able to combine forces, even when it benefits them, as egos often get in the way, and it is easy to "talk" rather than put in work.

The above strategy would would not rely on a court of law, but rather the court of public option, in relation to how this would look to potential investors.

There has been much talk about who actually is calling the shots as far as the premium policy. My take is that despite what some may say, Enom, if it so choose could put the pressure on VeriSign to work out some sort of deal if it wanted and VeriSign would agree. VeriSign made the call to get rid of all premiums. They already had a deal in place with Enom regarding legacy premiums. It seems clear, Enom had a contract entitling them to a certain portion of money for the life of a premium domain they sold as part of their exclusive deal. Enom was blindsided by their contract being pulled and would rather ALL premiums still be intact.

Yes VeriSign makes more money on the legacy premiums and I am not saying they have no say here. I am saying that right now there is a lot of good cop/ bad cop going on with Enom and VeriSign and that if Demand Media had a vested interest in seeing the legacy premiums go away, I believe they could push the right buttons to do so.

If a contract exists between Enom and VeriSign related to their exclusive control over premium .tv domains, (a safe assumption), then VeriSign may have their hands tied by that deal and could be subject to a lawsuit from Enom if they take away premiums that they (Enom) sold under there contract with VeriSign, unless of course, Enom works out a deal with VeriSign releasing them of their obligation.

Also keep in mind, do not take what VeriSign says at face value as far as the legacy issue. There are reasons behind the scenes they may be trying to take the heat off Enom right now.

One final note: The reality here IMO is that when the economics make sense for Enom, they will work out a deal with existing members to get rid of premiums. That would only happen, the way I see it, from 1 of 3 things happening, all involve their bottom line being hurt.

1. Mass premium drops (which may or may not happen)
2. People mass transfer there non premium domains out of Enom.
3. Demand Media is dragged through the mud at a time they are looking at a potential IPO.

I see no reason for them to change policy. Of course I hope I am wrong.

Your thoughts are most engaging on this subject and are appreciated. The timing may indeed be most opportune for the legacy holders. But the ball has to be run with and it is now definitely in their court...

Thanks for your extensive observations...
 
0
•••
Dynadot โ€” .com Registration $8.99Dynadot โ€” .com Registration $8.99
Appraise.net
Unstoppable Domains
Domain Recover
NameMaxi - Your Domain Has Buyers
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the pageโ€™s height.
Back