PaeTec argued that MonsterHut originally presented itself as a fully consensual e-mail marketing service that sent targeted e-mails to internet users who had previously agreed to receive them. PaeTec also said that its contract entered into with MonsterHut expressly prohibited spam. However, PaeTec claimed that MonsterHut was sending spam to those who did not want to receive it.
MonsterHut successfully argued that the restrictions on sending spam only applied where over 2% of people who received MonsterHut e-mail complained. This was despite PaeTec stating that this 2% complaint threshold applies to all of MonsterHut’s legitimate business activities and that MonsterHut was mis-representing the terms of the contract.