Yes, you can, and there's nothing the victim can do about it. Many service providers won't even give you the details of the person who submitted the notice so you can sue them (Google, for example).
I guarantee it's buried in their TOS that you can't sue them for inability to deal with emergency situations. Relatedly, do you remember all the smartphone pop-up warnings about lack of emergency-line (e.g. 911) access when using a wifi connection?
Even still there would be no cause for legal action... what would the damages be?
They could simply shut off the service for the customer like every other service provider in the world would do...
By that logic, if someone uses a phone book to harass you via telephone, the phone company is liable.
Or, for a more up-to-date example, if someone uses a DNS provider to find a server's IP address and do a DDOS attack against it (as is constantly happening to KF), the DNS provider would be liable.
I thought about it, but honestly it took a lot of time and energy out of me already, I just don't want to deal with them again.
I just won't ever do business with them again, and I tell my story from time to time to people that ask my opinion about ISPs.
I'm not even sure I have a case, I looked a bit online and as you said, lying is not illegal even if in cases like this that doesn't sit very well with me.
In your case, isn't having a counter notice mechanism a requirement? I guess you could have sued them as well for that? But I understand, I don't want to have to sue every company I do business with, that's not a healthy environment even though it probably would be better for everyone in the long run.
Not exactly. Some countries have laws in place that prevent a provider from removing service due to non-payment to a business. Instead they must follow a process, including physical paper notices, before removing service.
DO should have done something like that as well, just cutting off service because you sent some emails is kinda shitty.
Claiming it was against the terms might be an easy out for them but is silly since being a target is outside of your control, for the most part. Hosts will usually null route customers without sympathy to protect other customers so it's the price of doing business.
No, one cannot. The law left the door wide open for service providers to work out the situation with customers, so long as they do it quickly (I believe the actual term in law is "expeditiously").
Blaming the law because the service provider isn't following it is absurd.
To be fair, users of many internet services exposed themselves. The warnings about that were loud and clear. I don't know if using their free service counts as a formal business relationship, that might make recourse more difficult. I think the service provider has the right to close any and all relationships unilaterally.
How, the phone owner, the state agency, granted permission, the actual users died. Who'd have the basis to sue under what claims?
If you thought you had a claim I guess you could sue to block the order, but that's up to the courts to decide and that would take precedence over an eula.
Who are you saying is accused? AT&T or the customers? I don't believe there is any legal proceedings related to any of this?
I think OP's point was that if this bothers you and the recent de-platforming of people and websites does not, maybe you should rethink your position. But maybe I misread OP?
reply