Network Solutions Sued

[Sameh]

I saw it posted on another forum.

LOS ANGELES, Feb. 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Network Solutions has forced millions of people to buy Internet domain names from them instead of cheaper competitors through a scheme that's netted the firm millions of dollars, a federal class action lawsuit filed today by Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP states. ICANN, whose policies facilitate the scheme, is also named in the suit, filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

Full Article : http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/fe...swire200802251330PR_NEWS_USPR_____LAM061.html

 

[Pommy - The DN Doc]

Good. The b@stards

 

[lpstong]

Ouch. But again should we be so surprised of such big corporate/online business to take advantage of the small guys.

 

[Dave_Z]

Network Solutions Sued For Alleged Front Running Practice

Just got this:

http://sev.prnewswire.com/computer-electronics/20080225/LAM06125022008-1.html

Network Solutions has forced millions of people to buy Internet domain names from them instead of cheaper competitors through a scheme that's netted the firm millions of dollars, a federal class action lawsuit filed today by Kabateck Brown Kellner, LLP states. ICANN, whose policies facilitate the scheme, is also named in the suit, filed in U.S. District Court, Central District of California.

No doubt many of you are quite happy.

IMHO, the suit is rather too much. But I understand some people feel what is
happening is too much, and decided to force the issue.

 

[flamewalker]

About dang time... if ICANN can sit on their thumbs on this, then its up to the market to force the issue.

 

[Dave_Z]

About dang time... if ICANN can sit on their thumbs on this, then its up to the market to force the issue.

Actually ICANN is already taking steps, namely their considering making their
$0.20 fee nonrefundable. It's just that some people don't consider that quite
enough.

Oh well, a court's really where to go when 2 parties can't agree.

 

[labrocca]

Oh this one is gonna be good. Can't wait for the damages to be dolled out. Should be in the millions. Nsol you suck!

 

[dax44]

i give netsol 10/10 for consistency - they have been atrocious since i started 'dealing' with them in 1996 ..

 

[italiandragon]

ahhhh I`m going to enjoy it , thanks for sharing!

 

[Kate]

i give netsol 10/10 for consistency - they have been atrocious since i started 'dealing' with them in 1996 ..

I totally agree
I just checked netsol-gets-sued on their site and the .com is now taken.
They are still doing it in spite of the bad rep and the lawsuit :yell:

 

[advaita]

Haha - I wonder if they still think it was such a good wheeze ?

I just added my two cents worth - http://www.netmonetization.com/2008/02/network-solutions-being-sued.html

 

[Dave_Z]

i give netsol 10/10 for consistency - they have been atrocious since i started 'dealing' with them in 1996 ..

You're still dealing with them!? :lol:

 

[unclewalter]

They brought it upon themselves.

 

[richrf]

Since, in effect, the registrar is able to compete against their own clients, there needs to be a rule or law that registrars cannot purchase domain names. The two roles are entirely in conflict. I would suggest a petition to Congress to address this. A large organization that can act on the behest of all domain owners should start such action. I am incredulous that registrars are allowed to compete against their domain owners. Somewhere, someone, is incredibly incompetent.

Rich

 

[ihatebeans]

So we should just search billions of names.
they will have to reg em.

Everyone at once.
Even though they can drop them.

Everyone can reg em at once and cause the servers to go whammy! lol

 

[Dave_Z]

there needs to be a rule or law that registrars cannot purchase domain names.

Well, registrars aren't even required to be in the business of enabling endusers
to register and manage domain names. Besides, you'd be preventing Go Daddy
from having godaddy.com, eNom from having enom.com, Moniker from having
moniker.com...

 

[gingeman]

I think there should certainly be a rule about registrars owning a limited number of names.
I hope net sol have to fork out big here- they deserve it some of their practices are unacceptable and it may be enough to make other registrars think twice about this practice also.

 

[dax44]

i just searched for please-respect-my-privacy.com - available

let's see ...

15 seconds later:

Domain Name: PLEASE-RESPECT-MY-PRIVACY.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
Name Server: NS1.RESERVEDDOMAINNAME.COM
Name Server: NS2.RESERVEDDOMAINNAME.COM
Status: clientHold
Updated Date: 28-feb-2008
Creation Date: 28-feb-2008
Expiration Date: 28-feb-2009

:o

I thought they might ignore long addresses, but no, nothing is safe:

Domain Name: WHY-DONT-YOU-TELL-US-YOU-ARE-GOING-TO-GRAB-OUR-SEARCHES.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
Name Server: NS1.RESERVEDDOMAINNAME.COM
Name Server: NS2.RESERVEDDOMAINNAME.COM
Status: clientHold
Updated Date: 28-feb-2008
Creation Date: 28-feb-2008
Expiration Date: 28-feb-2009

 

[Jake]

Im glad.

I hope they loose :gl:

 

[TheBulldog]

Weird.

Domain Name: NETSOLISTHEDEVIL.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com
Name Server: NS1.RESERVEDDOMAINNAME.COM
Name Server: NS2.RESERVEDDOMAINNAME.COM
Status: clientHold
Updated Date: 28-feb-2008
Creation Date: 28-feb-2008
Expiration Date: 28-feb-2009