iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
The lawsuit over alleged domain-name “front running” was announced in 2008, not newly filed. Plaintiffs claimed Network Solutions held names after users searched for them, giving the registrar an advantage in selling those names. A federal court approved a settlement in 2009; that approval resolved claims under the agreement, not a finding that the alleged conduct occurred.
What the 2008 lawsuit alleged
On February 25, 2008, Los Angeles law firm Kabateck Brown Kellner announced a federal class action against Network Solutions and ICANN in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As contemporaneously reported by Network World, the plaintiffs alleged that Network Solutions held domain names after people searched for their availability on its website. Under their account, a person who searched for a name could then buy it only through Network Solutions.
“Front running” was the plaintiffs’ label for this alleged search-triggered sales advantage. The reported claim was not a court finding that Network Solutions had locked up names or forced customers to buy from it.
Recommended Free Tools
Lead counsel Brian Kabateck compared the practice to asking a car dealer about a black convertible and then being forced to buy that car from the dealer. The article also reported that plaintiffs’ lawyers said Network Solutions charged $34.99 for the lead plaintiff’s sought name, while a competitor would charge $9.99. Those were historical prices attributed to plaintiffs’ counsel in 2008, not current prices or an independently verified market comparison.
#1 Best Overall
How Network Solutions reportedly explained the practice
Network Solutions’ reported rationale was that holding names people searched for would protect them from “domain tasters”—people who registered names speculatively and deleted them within a five-day grace period. The same report said plaintiffs’ lawyers disputed that explanation. These are competing accounts reported at the time; the available court record does not establish either as a judicial finding.
What the court approved in 2009
In 2009, the federal court approved a settlement judgment and found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, approving its allocation plan. The judgment described two purchasing subclasses:
Rank #2
- Used Book in Good Condition
- Same-session purchases: approximately 62,661 registrations involving purchases in the same session as the relevant search.
- Later-session purchases: approximately 50,433 registrations involving purchases within four days of a prior search in a different session.
These figures describe registrations covered by the settlement’s class definitions, not a count of people proven to have been harmed. Settlement approval resolved the class claims under the agreement; it was not a verdict that defendants committed the alleged conduct. The class definitions and approval appear in the court judgment.
What happened to ICANN
Although ICANN was named in the original 2008 suit, it did not settle that action. An ICANN filing in a separate 2011 case states that lead plaintiff McElroy voluntarily dismissed ICANN with prejudice on March 4, 2009, before ICANN answered. The filing says ICANN did not admit liability. This procedural account comes from ICANN’s filing; it is distinct from the settlement involving the class claims.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What the settlement figures do—and do not—show
The court record states that 113,094 class members received notice, one objected, and 16 opted out. It also records approval of $171,994 in attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of costs. These are settlement-administration figures, not measurements of how many people were harmed or proof of the alleged practice.
The record therefore supports a limited conclusion: the case ended through a court-approved settlement, with claims organized around purchases made in the same session as a search or within four days in a later session. The sources cited here do not establish current registrar policies, current prices, or whether the practice continues today.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
