-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
                             
HARRIS INTERACTIVE INC.,

                          Plaintiff,
       -VS-

MAIL ABUSE PREVENTION SYSTEM, LLC.;
PAUL A. VIXIE, Individually and as Chairman of
MAIL ABUSE PREVENTION SYSTEM, LLC.;
NICK NICHOLAS, Individually and as Agent of
MAIL ABUSE PREVENTION SYSTEM, LLC.;
INCON RESEARCH, INC.; MARTIN P. ROTH,
Individually and as President/Principal of INCON
RESEARCH, INC.; MICROSOFT CORPORATION;
BELLSOUTH.NET, INC.; QWEST COMMUNICATIONS
INTERNATIONAL INC.; ONEMAIN.COM INC.;
JUNO ONLINE SERVICES, INC.; MPX DATA
SYSTEMS, INC.; ZOOMNET, INC.; MICRON INTERNET;
SERVICES GTS TELECOM, INC.; HYUNDAI INTERNET
TECHNOLOGY, INC.; ALTAVISTA COMPANY, and
JOHN DOE,
                         Defendants.

                                 

Plaintiff Harris Interactive Inc. ("Harris"), by its attorneys, Harris Beach & Wilcox,
LLP, for its complaints against defendants alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
      


    1. Harris is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with
its principal place of business in Rochester, New York.

    2. Upon information and belief, defendant Mail Abuse Protection
System, LLC. ("MAPS") is a corporation organized under the laws of California with its

      
				-2-

principal place of business in Redwood City, California. Upon information and belief,
MAPS transacts or does business in New York or is otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

    3. Upon information and belief, defendant Microsoft Corporation
("Microsoft") is a corporation organized under the laws of Washington with its principal
place of business in Redmond, Washington. Upon information and belief, Microsoft
transacts or does business in New York or is otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of this
Court.

    4. Upon information and belief, defendant BellSouth.Net, Inc.
("BellSouth") is a corporation organized under the laws of Georgia with its principal
place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. Upon information and belief, BellSouth transacts
or does business in New York or is otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of this
Court.

    5. Upon information and belief, defendant Qwest Communications
International, Inc. ("Qwest") is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with
its principal place of business in Denver, Colorado. Upon information and belief, Qwest
transacts or does business in New York or is otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of this
Court.

    6. Upon information and belief, defendant OneMain.Com, Inc.
("OneMain") is a corporation organized under the laws of Virginia with its principal place
of business in Reston, Virginia. Upon information and belief, OneMain transacts or does
business in New York or is otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

      
				-3-


    7. Upon information and belief, defendant Juno Online Services, Inc.
("Juno") is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place
of business in New York City. Upon information and belief, Juno does or transacts
business in New York.

    8. Upon information and belief, defendant MPX Data Systems, Inc.
("MPX") is a corporation organized under the laws of California with its principal place
of business in Campbell, California. Upon information and belief, MPX transacts or does
business in New York, or is otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

    9. Upon information and belief, defendant ZoomNet, Inc. ("ZoomNet")
is a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio with its principal place of business in
Portsmouth, Ohio. Upon information and belief, ZoomNet transacts or does business
in New York, or is otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

    10. Upon information and belief, defendant Micron Internet Services, Inc.
("Micron") is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place
of business in Nampa, Idaho. Upon information and belief, Micron transacts or does
business in New York, or is otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

    11. Upon information and belief, defendant GTS Telecom, Inc. ("GTS")
is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business
in Vancouver, Washington. Upon information and belief, GTS transacts or does business
in New York, or is otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

    12. Upon information and belief, defendant Hyundai Internet Technology,
Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of California with its principal place of

      
				-4-

business in San Jose, California. Upon information and belief, Hyundai transacts or
does business in New York, or is otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

    13. Upon information and belief, defendant Altavista Company
("Altavista") is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal
place of business in Palo Alto, California. Upon information and belief, Altavista
transacts or does business in New York, or is otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of this
Court.

    14. Upon information and belief, defendant Paul A. Vixie is the Chairman
of defendant MAPS, and resides in Woodside, California. Upon information and belief,
Vixie transacts or does business in New York, or is otherwise subject to the jurisdiction
of this Court.

    15. Upon information and belief, defendant Nick Nicholas is an employee
of defendant MAPS, and resides in the state of California. Upon information and belief,
Nicholas transacts or does business in New York, or is otherwise subject to the
jurisdiction of this Court.

    16. Upon information and belief, defendant Incon Research, Inc.
("Incom") is a corporation organized under the laws of Connecticut with its principal place
of business in Norwalk, Connecticut. Upon information and belief, Incon transacts or does
business in New York, or is otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

    17. Upon information and belief, defendant Martin P. Roth is the
Principal/President of defendant Incon, and is a resident of Rowayton, Connecticut.

      
				-5-

Upon information and belief, Roth transacts or does business in New York, or is
otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

    18. This Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
§§1331 & 1337.

    19. Venue is appropriate in this District by reason of 28 U.S.C. §1381(b).

JURY DEMANDED


    20.  Plaintiff demands a jury trial of all issues by right to a jury
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b).

PARTIES


    21. Harris is a market research company with a substantial portion of its
business being Internet research. Harris has expended more than $10,000,000.00 to
construct the infrastructure, and to recruit the necessary subscribers that allow it to
create accurate representative samples for its research. Harris' ability to obtain data
from a representative sample of the United States population gives it a distinct
advantage over its competitors. Among other things, Harris performs online surveys for
the media, government, policy-making organizations, and commercial enterprises.

    22. MAPS is a self-appointed "member-supported organization" which
purports to engage in "a variety of mail abuse prevention activities." Upon information
and belief, the corporate defendants have entered into agreements with MAPS whereby
MAPS is compensated for identifying alleged Internet mail abuse activities.  Once so
identified, the corporate defendants act to restrict or block the alleged violator from
sending electronic communications to any individual or entity. As part of these activities,

      
				-6-

MAPS creates and publishes Internet mail abuse policies. MAPS also maintains a
Realtime Blackhole List ("RBL"), which identifies persons or entities which MAPS has
determined violates its Internet mail abuse policies. The RBL is designed to create
intentional network outages ("blackholes") to limit the transport of "known-to-be-
unwanted" mass or bulk e-mail. The blackholes prevent or restrict an entity such as
Harris from communicating with the individuals or subscribers that provide Harris with
the research data.

    23. Microsoft is a technology firm which, among other things, maintains
the Microsoft Network, an Internet Service Provider ("ISP"). As an ISP, Microsoft
maintains the "Hotmail" system, a web-based electronic mail provider, which provides
its subscribers with a connection to the Internet and a means of sending and receiving
electronic mail.

    24. BellSouth is an Internet access company which, among other things,
maintains "BellSouth.Net", a domain which provides its subscribers with a connection to
the Internet and a means of sending and receiving electronic mail.

    25. Qwest is a broadband internet communications company, which,
among other things, maintains "USWEST.net", a domain which provides its subscribers
with a connection to the Internet and a means of sending and receiving electronic mail.

    26. OneMain is an ISP, which, among other things, maintains the
domains "JPS.net", THEGRID.net", "USIT.Net", "MIDWEST.net", and LIGHTSPEED.net,"
which provides their subscribers with a connection to the Internet and a means of
sending and receiving electronic mail.

      
				-7-


    27. Upon information and belief, Juno is an ISP which, among other
things, maintains the domain "Freewwweb.com", which provides its subscribers with a
connection to the Internet and a means of sending and receiving electronic mail.

    28. MPX maintains, among other things, the domain "GoPlay.com",
which provides its subscribers with a connection to the Internet and a means of sending
and receiving electronic mail.

    29. Micron is an ISP which maintains the domain "Micron.net", which
provides its subscribers with a connection to the Internet and a means of sending
and receiving electronic mail.

    30. ZoomNet is an ISP which maintains a domain "ZoomNet.net", which
provides its subscribers with a connection to the Internet and a means of sending and
receiving electronic mail.

    31. GST is communications company which, among other things,
maintains the domain "Aloha.net", which provides its subscribers with a connection to the
Internet and a means of sending and receiving electronic mail.

    32. Hyundai is a technology corporation, which, among other things,
maintains the domain "animalhouse.com", which provides its subscribers with a
connection to the Internet and a means of sending and receiving electronic mail.

    33. Altavista is an Internet and communications company, which, among
other things, maintains the domain "AltaVista.com", which provides its subscribers with
a connection to the Internet and a means of sending and receiving electronic mail.

      
				-8-


    34. The unnamed defendants, denominated in the Amended Complaint
as "John Doe," are ISPs which provide their subscribers with access to the Internet and
a means of sending and receiving electronic mail and which are currently blocking Harris'
electronic mail communications with its members.

    35. Incon is a market research company that competes with Harris in
providing Internet research.

BACKGROUND


    36. Harris has been in the market research business for over twenty-five
(25) years and was one of the first companies to develop online market research
capabilities.

    37. Harris conducts a substantial portion of its market research online
using a proprietary online panel of respondents consisting of over 6.6 million individuals.
Access to this panel, which is the largest in the industry, is central to Harris' success in
the market research industry because its panel allows Harris to obtain data from a
representative sample of the United States population. The size of Harris' panel allows
it to conduct numerous surveys using large sample groups, as well as narrow focus
groups. Access to this panel gives Harris capabilities unlike virtually any other market
research firm.

    38. Individuals generally subscribe to Harris' panel through one of two
methods. First, many individuals subscribe to the Harris Poll Online through Excite, Inc.
("Excite") or its subsidiary, MatchLogic. Excite provides its subscribers with a connection
to the Internet and, thus, the ability to browse websites and navigate the Internet.

      
				-9-

MatchLogic is an Internet-based marketing and research firm, and an Excite
subsidiary. When an individual registers on Excite's website or enters a sweepstakes
sponsored by MatchLogic, he or she may choose to receive periodic invitations to
participate in the Harris Poll Online.

    39. In some instances, this registration requires the user to register with
Excite or MatchLogic and to indicate affirmatively that he or she wishes to be contacted
by the Harris Poll Online.  This election is sometimes referred to as an "active" or
"affirmative opt-in" procedure. In other instances, the user registers with Excite or
MatchLogic, but must affirmatively indicate that he or she does not want to be contacted
by the Harris Poll Online during the registration process (a procedure that merely
requires the individual to "uncheck" a box that appears on his or her screen). This type
of an election is sometimes referred to as a "passive opt-in" procedure.

    40. Individuals may also register for the Harris Poll Online through Harris
directly (usually on its website) or through companies which partner with Harris. The
registration method used by Harris and its partners requires that subscribers make an
affirmative or active election to participate in the Harris Poll Online.

    41. Once an individual registers to become a member of the Harris Poll
Online, Harris sends that individual a "welcome" e-mail message. This message:
(1) informs the member of how he or she received the invitation to become a member
of the panel; and (2) offers the member an opportunity not to participate in the poll.

      
				-10-


    42. If an individual decides not to participate, the process for removing
oneself from the Harris Poll Online is simple -- the subscriber must simply "click" on the
web address in the text and then verify the e-mail address he or she wishes deleted.

    43. Once an individual becomes a member of the Harris Poll Online,
Harris periodically sends the individual invitations to participate in online surveys.  Each
invitation again informs the individual how he or she may have become a member and
offers him or her the option of being removed from the Poll.

    44. Harris also posts a privacy policy on its website which informs
members of their right not to participate at any time and the method for removing
oneself from the poll.

MAIL ABUSE PREVENTION SYSTEM, LLC


    45. Upon information and belief, MAPS is paid by the corporate
defendants to monitor the Internet for electronic mail abuse activities. MAPS is an
organization that is neither sanctioned by, nor affiliated with, any governmental or
internal regulatory organization. MAPS insists that communications on the Internet
be mutually consensual, and it principally seeks to prevent the dissemination of "spam".
A "spammer" is a company that obtains e-mail addresses, usually without the owners
knowledge, and then sends massive amounts of unsolicited e-mail with no mechanism
for the recipient to stop receiving the e-mail.

    46. MAPS has promulgated its own standards, claiming that they are a
"statement of [the]  best current practices for proper mailing list management." A copy

      
				-11-

of these standards, entitled "Basic Mailing List Management Principles for Preventing
Abuse" is attached as Exhibit "A".

    47. MAPS' standards require persons or companies who maintain
mailing lists to use a "double opt-in procedure" before an individual can receive
commercial e-mail from a company such as Harris.  In other words, MAPS' standards
require: (1) an initial affirmative, or actual, election by an individual to register for a
mailing list; and (2) a second conforming communication which requires the user to
affirmatively or actually elect to participate for a second time.

    48. According to MAPS, all commercial electronic mailings which do not
use such a double affirmative "opt-in" methodology are "nonconsensual" and, thus,
"spam."

    49. When MAPS determines that a network or mail relay (a sender of
electronic mail technically called an Internet Protocol) has violated its policies, it posts
the name of that sender in its RBL, with the stated purpose, and clear expectation, that
such a posting will cause "intentional network outages for the purpose of limiting the
transportation of known-to-be-unwanted mass e-mail."  Put another way, once MAPS
places a name on its RBL, it knows, with virtual certainty, that the ISPs that subscribe
to the RBL will then block or restrict all e-mail communications originating with the entity
that has been posted.  Upon information and belief, the subscribing ISPs do not "choose"
to block those e-mail communications as such; the blocking occurs automatically with
subscription to the RBL.

      
				-12-


    50. The RBL is subscribed to by approximately 20,000 ISPs,
corporations, government agencies and individual. According to MAPS, over forty
percent (40%) of the Internet subscribes to its RBL.

    51. Once MAPS adds a network or mail relay to the RBL, the subscribing
entities cease to transmit electronic mail from that network or mail-relay. MAPS will
generally not remove a network or mail server from the RBL until that network or server
agrees to comply with its policies and/or other conditions that MAPS may unilaterally
impose.

    52. Upon information and belief, MAPS maintains the RBL list as part
of the services it performs for its ISPs, including the corporate defendants. Moreover,
upon information and belief, MAPS and these ISPs, including the corporate defendants,
know that MAPS' procedures can also harm entities that do not send unsolicited e-mail.
Material on MAPS' website states: "while we try to limit that connectivity loss to only [sic]
networks which are friendly or neutral towards spam, sometimes a spammer hides in and
amongst nonspammers so as to share a more positive fate with these nonspammers.
What actually happens is that the nonspammers share an unpleasant and negative fate
with spammers in that case.  In other words, if you are not willing to occasionally throw
out the baby with the badwater ... then the MAPS RBL is not for you." Knowing that its
policies and practices will harm others, MAPS requires users of the RBL, including the
corporate defendants, to sign an agreement indemnifying MAPS from any liability for its
actions "[b]ecause of the risk of damage to persons listed on the MAPS RBL."

      
				-13-


HARRIS' PLACEMENT ON THE RBL


    53. Upon information and belief, defendant Roth received an e-mail
invitation to join the Harris Online Poll sometime in July, 2000.

    54. Upon information and belief, defendant Roth received that invitation
as a result of his decision to purchase Internet services from Excite.  Upon information
and belief, Roth elected to join the Harris Online Poll panel through a "passive" opt-in
procedure.

    55. Upon receiving this invitation, defendant Roth, the Principal/President
of defendant Incon, a competitor of Harris, did not "unsubscribe" his Harris Poll Online
registration using the simple procedure contained in the e-mail invitation; instead he
attempted to "unsubscribe" by contacting (by phone and e-mail) Harris employees whom
he knew has no database management responsibility and no ability to delete his name
from the poll's registration.  Roth also chose not to contact individuals in top
management at Harris whom he knew personally, and whom he knew could facilitate the
deletion of his name from the online poll registration.

    56. Roth's complaints of spamming were first received at Harris on
July 5, 2000 (by electronic mail) and on July 7, 2000 (by phone).

    57. On July 10, 2000, an employee of Harris called Roth and informed
him that his name had been removed from Harris' Online Poll mailing list.

    58. After his name had been removed from Harris' panel, Roth, via
e-mail on July 12, 2000, nevertheless decided to "nominate" Harris' mail servers to the
RBL for "continued spamming."

      
				-14-


    59. Roth's July 12 complaint was also based upon alleged "spam" sent
to a MAPS employee, Nick Nicholas.  According to Harris' records, Nicholas has also
registered for the Harris Online Poll with Excite, again, upon information and belief, using
a "passive" opt-in procedure.  Upon information and belief, Nicholas and Roth conspired
together to have Harris placed on MAPS' RBL list.

    60. Based upon Roth's and Nicholas' complaint, and without any
reasonable investigation of the facts or any reasonable opportunity for Harris to be
heard, MAPS placed Harris on the RBL list in early July, 2000.

    61. Since its placement on the RBL, Harris has been unable to
communicate with more than approximately one-half (1/2) of its database, including over
600,000 members who have actively participated in its surveys in the past.  Harris'
inability to communicate with these subscribers has effected, and will continue to affect
the plaintiff's ability to conduct its business.

    62. Upon information and belief, Harris' electronic mail communications
have been interrupted because:
        
 
      1. defendant Microsoft subscribes to MAPS' RBL and has
blocked Harris' e-mail;
 
      2. defendant BellSouth subscribes to MAPS' RBL and has
blocked Harris' e-mail;
 
      3. defendant Qwest subscribes to MAPS' RBL and has blocked
Harris' e-mail;
 
      4. defendant OneMain subscribes to MAPS' RBL and has
blocked Harris' e-mail;

        
				-15-

 
      5. defendant Juno subscribes to MAPS' RBL and has blocked
Harris' e-mail;
 
      6. defendant MPX subscribes to MAPS' RBL and has blocked
Harris' e-mail;
 
      7. defendant ZoomNet subscribes to MAPS' RBL and has
blocked Harris' e-mail;
 
      8. defendant Micron subscribes to MAPS' RBL and has
blocked Harris' e-mail;
 
      9. defendant GTS subscribes to MAPS' RBL and has blocked
Harris' e-mail;
 
      10. defendant Hyundai subscribes to MAPS' RBL and has
blocked Harris' e-mail;
 
      11. defendant AltaVista subscribes to MAPS' RBL and has
blocked Harris' e-mail;
 
      12. the "John Doe" defendants subscribe to MAPS' RBL
and have blocked Harris' e-mail;
      

    63. Following Harris' placement on the RBL, it contacted MAPS and
several of the corporate defendants in an effort to resolve the dispute and to persuade
MAPS to remove Harris from the TBL.  However, MAPS and said corporate defendants
have refused to remove Harris from the RBL unless Harris:
        
 
      1. agrees to implement a double opt-in methodology for all new
online poll subscribers,
 
      2. agrees to send a single, new opt-in confirmation to all of its
subscribers, even including subscribers who have actively
participated in multiple Harris Poll Online surveys, and to
create a new list consisting of only positive responses; and
 
      3. agrees to refrain from sending any communication to
members of the Harris Online Poll until items (1) and (2) are
completed.
      

      
				-16-


    64. MAPS' conditions to removing Harris from its RBL are arbitrary,
unreasonable and unlawful; these conditions will also prevent Harris from conducting
certain key research projects during the month of August, 2000 (including those relating
to the Olympic games and the upcoming Presidential election), and would be cost
prohibitive to implement.  Furthermore, Harris' continued presence on the RBL is
causing, and will continue to cause, it material harm because it cannot obtain access to
the representative sample of the United States population that it needs to conduct its
online surveys and to meet its contractual commitments to clients.

DEFENDANTS' ANTICOMPETITIVE MOTIVES
IN BLOCKING COMMUNICATIONS TO
HARRIS SUBSCRIBERS


    

  1. Paul Vixie
      

    1. Upon information and belief, defendant Vixie is a member of the
Board of Directors of WhiteHat.com, Inc. ("WhiteHat"), an Arizona corporation which
provides "100% opt-in direct e-mail marketing solutions" to customers.

    2. WhiteHat's stated mission is "to provide an infrastructure and
framework for users and marketers who want to market successfully on the Internet
using e-mail correctly. By providing this framework, and the services that are based on
it, Whitehat.com will be able to assist marketers in fully benefiting from e-mail marketing
while being responsible 'net citizens.  They will be able to avoid negative reaction from
customers and prospects and will be protected from the backlash that struck many
rogue companies."

      
				-17-


    3. Upon information and belief, Vixie controls MAPS, and has
companies such as Harris placed in the RBL.  Using the threat of MAPS' RBL, Vixie
intends to and does coerce business entities into purchasing WhiteHat's services.

    4. Thus, Vixie operates MAPS, not only for the use of subscribing
ISP defendants, but for his own financial gain and to advance WhiteHat's business in the
direct e-mail market.
    

  2. The ISP Defendants
      

    1. Upon information and belief, the corporate ISP defendants, viz
Microsoft, BellSouth, Qwest, OneMain, Juno, MPX, ZoomNet, Micron, GTS, HYuandai,
AltaVista and the "John Doe" defendants, have commercial motives in blocking Harris'
e-mail to its subscribers.

    2. Upon information and belief, the corporate ISPs generate a large
proportion of their revenue through advertising	on their websites. These advertisements
may include, among other things, banners and links.

    3. Upon information and belief, the advertisers whose products are
displayed on an ISP website pay for this opportunity, however, companies such as
Harris, which send materials directly to a subscriber via e-mail, have access to those
consumers without paying the ISP for advertising space.

    4. Furthermore, the advertising from persons who send commercial e-
mail competes with the advertising sponsored by the ISP defendants.

    5. Thus, the corporate ISPs have a economic motive to block
communications such as those from Harris to its customers because they are not

      
				-18-

compensated for those communications which compete with the advertising displayed
on their site.

    6. Upon information and belief, the ISP defendants (Microsoft,
BellSouth, Qwest, OneMain, Juno, MPX, ZoomNet, Micron, GTS, HYuandai, AltaVista
and the "John Doe" defendants) subscribe to and support MAPS with the express intention
of preventing the dissemination of competing commercial e-mail to their subscribers.

    7. Upon information and belief, the ISP defendants support MAPS'
double "opt-in" policy because such policies make communicating by electronic mail
burdensome and inefficient, and thus less competitive with defendants' advertising and
services.

    8. Upon information and belief, the intent and effect of the corporate
defendants' refusal to transmit Harris e-mail to its subscribers is to maximize the
corporate defendants' revenue.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MAPS
VIXIE AND NICHOLAS (TORTIOUS
INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS AND
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONS)


    9. At all relevant times, these defendants knew or should have known,
that is was necessary for Harris to communicate with its database of subscribers to
obtain the representative sample of the United States population that it needs to conduct
its market research.

    10. When it posted Harris' name on its RBL, these defendants knew, or
should have known, that its subscribing ISPs, including defendants Microsoft, BellSouth,

      
				-19-

Qwest, OneMain, Juno, MPX, ZoomNet, Micron, GTS, HYuandai, AltaVista and the "John
Doe" defendants, would thereafter block communications between Harris and its
subscribers.

    11. Despite that knowledge, and despite knowing that the basis for
posting Harris' name on the RBL was a single complaint lodged by a Harris competitor,
these defendants placed Harris on its RBL, or caused Harris' name to be placed on the
RBL, causing the ISP defendants to block Harris' communication to its subscribers.

    12. By placing Harris on its RBL, these defendants intended to prevent,
and have prevented, Harris from fulfilling its contractual obligations to provide market
research services to its clients.

    13. Upon information and belief, these defendants knew of the existence
of Harris' contracts and agreements to provide market research services to its clients.

    14. As a result of these defendants' interference with Harris contractual
and business relationships, Harris has suffered, and continues to suffer, irreparable harm
and damages which are not presently ascertainable.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
MAPS, VIXIE AND NICHOLAS (COMMERCIAL
DISPARAGEMENT)


    15. Harris repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs
"1" through "82" above.

    16. By placing Harris on the RBL, or causing it to be placed there,
MAPS, Vixie and Nicholas represented to MAPS' subscribers, including defendants
Microsoft, BellSouth, Qwest, OneMain, Juno, MPX, ZoomNet, Micron, GTS, HYuandai,

      
				-20-

AltaVista and the "John Doe" defendants, that Harris was a source of "spam" (unsolicited
bulk e-mail) and that it regularly sent such "spam" to consumers.

    17. These representations were false and disparaging, and MAPS, Vixie
and Nicholas either knew or were recklessly indifferent to their falsity.

    18.  By their statements, MAPS, Vixie and Nicholas defamed and
disparaged Harris' business and methods of operation, causing MAPS subscribers,
including defendants Microsoft, BellSouth, Qwest, OneMain, Juno, MPX, ZoomNet,
Micron, GTS, HYuandai, AltaVista and the "John Doe" defendants, to block Harris'
communications to members of its online poll.

    19. These representations were made with the intent that MAPS'
subscribers (and others) would block Harris' communication and cause harm to Harris'
business.

    20. By reason of the foregoing, Harris has suffered, and continues to
suffer, irreparable harm and damages not presently ascertainable.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MAPS,
VIXIE AND NICHOLAS, MICROSOFT,
BELLSOUTH, QWEST, ONEMAIN, JUNO,
MPX, ZOOMNET, MICRON, GTS, HYUNDAI,
ALTAVISTA AND THE JOHN DOE
DEFENDANTS


    21. Harris repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs
"1" through "88" above.

    22. At all times relevant, MAPS has been an agent and representative
of Microsoft, BellSouth, Qwest, OneMain, Juno, MPX, ZoomNet, Micron, GTS, HYuandai,

      
				-21-

AltaVista and the "John Doe" defendants (sometimes referred to as the "ISP
defendants").

    23. By promulgating standards for Internet communication, undertaking
to identify violators of those standards on the RBL, and knowing that those listed would
have their communication blocked by RBL subscribers, MAPS, Vixie and Nicholas
assumed a duty to administer MAPS' RBL in a fair and evenhanded manner so as not
to harm those it purported to regulate and to ensure that the entities such as Harris
and their customers were not prevented from sending and receiving legitimate communications.

    24. MAPS, Vixie and the ISP defendants have breached this
duty by, inter alias:
        
 
      1. inconsistently and selectively enforcing MAPS's self-
promulgated standards;
 
      2. Abusing MAPS' ability to cause its subscribers to block
communications between Harris and its subscribers;
 
      3. Conspiring with defendants Roth and Incon, competitors of
Harris, to block Harris' communication to its subscribers;
 
      4. Placing Harris on the RBL without good and reasonable
cause; and
 
      5. Operating MAPS with the purpose of benefiting an affiliated
entity, WhiteHat, which provides commercial electronic
mailing services.
      

    25. By reason of these defendants' negligence, Harris has suffered, and
continues to suffer, irreparable harm and damages not presently
ascertainable.

      
				-22-


FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
MAPS, VIXIE AND NICHOLAS, MICROSOFT,
BELLSOUTH, QWEST, ONEMAIN, JUNO,
MPX, ZOOMNET, MICRON, GTS, HYUNDAI,
ALTAVISTA AND THE JOHN DOE
DEFENDANTS


    26. Harris repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs
"1" through "93" above.

    27. These defendants have purportedly undertaken to provide a service
to the public, and have represented that only the names of those entities that send
unsolicited bulk commercial e-mail are placed on the RBL.

    28. In fact, these defendants provide this "service" in an inconsistent,
selective and deceptive manner by, among other things:
        
 
      1. treating network or mail relays with identical mailing list
policies unequally by placing some on the RBL while allowing
others to operate unabated;
 
      2. placing network or mail relays on the RBL as a result of
competitors' complaints while not listing the competitors for
similar (or more egregious) practices;
 
      3. causing the communications of certain networks and
mail servers to be blocked even though most of these networks
and servers' subscribers consent to and actively participate
in those communications; and
 
      4. operating the RBL with the purpose of benefiting an affiliated
business entity, WhiteHat, without disclosing that interest.
      

    29. By reason of the above deceptive practices, which are prohibited by
Gen. Bus. L. §340, these defendants have deceived and confused consumers of the
service and the public at large.

      
				-23-


    30. As a result, Harris has suffered, and continues to suffer, irreparable
harm and damages in an amount not presently ascertainable.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST MAPS,
VIXIE AND NICHOLAS (DEFAMATION
PER SE)


    31. Harris repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs
"1" through "98" above.

    32. Defendants MAPS, Vixie and Nicholas have made various false and
defamatory written statements that Harris was engaged in the business practice
of "spamming."

    33. These statements, which had the effect of impugning Harris'
business reputation, unequivocally referred to Harris and were communicated to MAPS'
subscribers, including defendants Microsoft, BellSouth, Qwest, OneMain, Juno, MPX,
ZoomNet, Micron, GTS, HYuandai, AltaVista and the "John Doe" defendants and others.

    34. The statements made by MAPS, Vixie and Nicholas were false and
defamatory in that Harris does not send a subscriber electronic mail unless the
subscriber registers with Harris or a partnered company and elects to receive mailings
for the Harris Poll Online.

    35. The false and defamatory statements by MAPS, Vixie and Nicholas
caused injury to Harris' reputation and business.

    36. Defendants MAPS, Vixie and Nicholas knew that these statements
were false, or acted in reckless disregard of their falsity, at the time they were made.

      
				-24-


    37. The defamatory statements published by these defendants have
caused and continue to cause, Harris irreparable harm and damages not presently
ascertainable.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
DEFENDANTS MAPS, VIXIE AND NICHOLAS,
INCON AND ROTH (CONSPIRACY TO
TORTIOUSLY INTERFERE WITH PLAINTIFF'S
BUSINESS)


    38. Harris repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs
"1" through "105" above.

    39. Upon information and belief, defendant Incon was and is engaged
in the business of market research in direct competition with Harris.

    40. Harris has developed an Internet database for the purpose of online
polls upon which its business is dependent.

    41. The defendants Vixie, Nicholas, Roth, Incon and Maps conspired
among themselves for the purpose of depriving Harris of the means to communicate with
the members of the Internet database, thereby depriving it of the means necessary to
conduct its business.

    42. In furtherance of that conspiracy, defendants Roth and Incom, in
consort with defendant Nicholas, wrongfully complained to MAPS and Vixie about Harris'
electronic mailing practices and alleged that Harris has engaged in "spamming."

    43. These complaints were false when made, and were made with the
purpose of interfering with and disrupting Harris' business to the ultimate advantage of
Roth and Incon.

      
				-25-


    44. As a result of Roth, Incom and Nicholas' complaints to MAPS, MAPS
and Vixie wrongly placed Harris on its RBL, causing numerous ISPs to block Harris'
communications to the members of the online poll.

    45. Blocking Harris' communications to its poll members has caused,
and continues to cause, irreparable harm to Harris' business by preventing it from
conducting its market research over the Internet. Harris has suffered damages in an
amount not presently ascertainable.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
DEFENDANTS INCON AND ROTH
(TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE)


    46. Harris repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs
"1" through "113" above.

    47. Upon information and belief, defendants Incon and Roth knew of
Harris' contractual agreements and commitments to its customers to provide market
research through Internet surveys, and further knew that any interruption in Harris'
communications with its subscribers would cause it irreparable harm.

    48. Upon information and belief, defendants Roth and Incom intentionally
"nominated" Harris to MAPS' RBL by make false allegations that Harris sent Roth and
Nicholas unsolicited electronic mailings.  Incon and Roth so nominated Harris for the
RBL for the sole purpose of interfering with Harris' business and contractual relationships
with its subscribers.

    49. MAPS placed Harris on its RBL as a result of Roth and Incom's
"nomination".

      
				-26-


    50. Since its placement on the RBL, Harris' communication to its
subscribers have been blocked, resulting in Harris' inability to provide services to its
clients.

    51. By reason of the foregoing, Harris has suffered, and continues to
suffer, irreparable harm and damages in an amount not presently ascertainable.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
DEFENDANTS INCON AND ROTH
(COMMERCIAL DISPARAGEMENT)


    52. Harris repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs
"1" through "119" above.

    53. In nominating Harris to MAPS' RBL defendants Roth and Incom
falsely stated that Harris was engaged in "spamming" (the dissemination of unsolicited
bulk commercial electronic mail).

    54. Defendants Roth and Incom made those false statements with the
intent to harm Harris and its market research business to their benefit. Moreover, these
defendants knew these statements and representations were false when made or were
recklessly indifferent to their falsity.

    55. As a result of those false statements and representations, MAPS
placed Harris on the RBL, and MAPS' subscribers, including the ISP defendants, have
blocked Harris' electronic mail communications to members of its online poll.

    56. By reason of the foregoing, Harris has suffered, and continues to
suffer, irreparable harm and damages not presently ascertainable.

      
				-27-


NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
DEFENDANTS INCON AND ROTH
(DEFAMATION PER SE)


    57. Harris repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs
"1" through "124" above.

    58. Incon and Roth's written "nomination" of Harris to MAPS' RBL for
purported spamming was false and defamatory.

    59. Incon and Roth's nomination, which was intentionally false and made
for the purpose of disrupting and injuring Harris' business reputation, was communicated
to various employees of MAPS, including defendant Nicholas, as well as others.

    60. The false and defamatory statements by Incon and Roth caused,
inter alia, injury to Harris' business reputation.

    61. By reason of the foregoing, Harris has suffered, and continues to
suffer, irreparable harm and damages in an amount not presently ascertainable.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST
MICROSOFT, BELLSOUTH, QWEST,
ONEMAIN, JUNO, MPX, ZOOMNET, MICRON,
GTS, HYUNDAI, ALTAVISTA AND THE JOHN
DOE DEFENDANTS _ (TORTIOUS
INTERFERENCE)


    62. Harris repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs
"1" through "129" above.

    63. Harris has business and contractual agreements and relationships
with clients to provide market research services, to provide these services it is necessary
for Harris to communicate with members of its online poll.

      
				-28-


    64. At all times relevant, these defendants have known of these
contractual and business relationships.

    65. By refusing to transmit Harris' communications to the members of
its poll, defendants Microsoft, BellSouth, Qwest, OneMain, Juno, MPX, Zoomnet, Micron,
GTS, Hyundai, Altavista and the "John Doe" defendants have interfered with Harris'
contractual obligations and business relationships.

    66. These defendants' refusal to transmit Harris' communications to its
subscribers is unjustified, unreasonable and unlawful and was done with the sole intent
of causing Harris to breach its contractual obligations, to interfere with its business
relationships, and to otherwise harm Harris.

    67. By reason of the foregoing, Harris has suffered, and continues to
suffer, irreparable harm and damages in an amount not presently ascertainable.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST 
MICROSOFT, BELLSOUTH, QWEST,
ONEMAIN, JUNO, MPX, ZOOMNET, MICRON,
GTS, HYUNDAI, ALTAVISTA AND THE JOHN
DOE DEFENDANTS (FEDERAL ANTITRUST
VIOLATIONS)


    68. Harris repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs
"1" through "135" above.

    69. The subject matter of this allegation, among other things, includes the
provision of Internet advertising services, which is the relevant product market.

      
				-29-


    70. The relevant geographic market is the United States, in which Harris
conducts the majority of its research surveys and in which the defendants provide a
significant portion of Internet advertising.

    71. Upon information and belief, by subscribing to MAPS, the ISP
defendants conspired among themselves to refuse to deal with Harris and other senders
of commercial e-mail by refusing to carry their communications over their transmission
networks.

    72. By their actions and their refusal to deal with Harris and other
senders of commercial e-mail, the defendants have caused anticompetitive effects in the
Internet advertising market in the United States.

    73. These anticompetitive effects include the blocking of large amounts
of commercial electronic mailings, which contain advertisements. This blocking reduces
the output of such advertisements, the effect of which is to lessen the competition with
defendants' advertising	services and increase the price for the advertising services
offered by the defendants.

    74. Harris has been damaged by this conduct, which is in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1.

TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE
ISP DEFENDANTS (FEDERAL ANTITRUST
VIOLATIONS)


    75. Harris repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs
"1" through "142" above.

      
				-30-


    76. The ISP defendants have willfully attempted to monopolize the
Internet advertising market by predatory conduct -- subscribing to MAPS' RBL and
refusing to deal with Harris and other senders of commercial e-mail by refusing to carry
their communications over their networks.

    77. Because they control a significant portion of the Internet, those
defendants have a dangerous probability of successfully monopolizing the United States
Internet advertising market.

    78. For the foregoing reasons, those defendants have violated §2 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §2.

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST 
THE ISP DEFENDANTS (FEDERAL ANTITRUST
VIOLATIONS)


    79. Harris repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs
"1" through "146" above.

    80. The ISP defendants have monopolized the United States Internet
advertising market by predatory conduct -- subscribing to MAPS' RBL and refusing to
deal with Harris and other senders of commercial e-mail by refusing to carry their
communications over their networks.

    81. By reason of the foregoing, those defendants have violated §2 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §2.

      
				-31-


FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST 
THE ISP DEFENDANTS (FEDERAL ANTITRUST
VIOLATIONS)


    82. Harris repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs
"1" through "149" above.

    83. The ISP defendants have willfully conspired among themselves to
monopolize the United States Internet advertising market by predatory conduct --
subscribing to MAPS' RBL and refusing to deal with Harris and other senders of
commercial e-mail by refusing to carry their communications over their networks.

    84. By reason of the foregoing, the ISP defendants have violated §2 of
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §2.

FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST 
THE ISP DEFENDANTS (FEDERAL ANTITRUST
VIOLATIONS)


    85. Harris repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs
"1" through "152" above.

    86. By subscribing to MAPS, the ISP defendants have combined to form
an organization in the nature of a trade association to, among other things, regulate the
transmission of commercial e-mail over their networks.

    87. MAPS' (and hence the ISP defendants') practices are unreasonably
restrictive of competition because, although MAPS and the ISP defendants purport to
maintain neutral policies against unsolicited commercial e-mail, they:
        
 
      1. treat networks and mail relays with identical policies unequally
by "blacklisting" or placing some on the RBL while allowing
others to operate unabated;

        
				-32-

 
      2. place networks and mail relays on the RBL as a result of
competitors' complaints while listing competitors for
similar (or more egregious) practices;
 
      3. cause the communications of certain networks or mail relays
to be blocked even though most of these networks' or relays'
subscribers consent to and actively participate in those
communications; and
 
      4. block the communications of certain networks or mail relays
while the communications of certain networks or mail relays
associated or affiliated with the ISP defendants are not
blocked.
      

    88. The practices resulting from the ISP defendants' association through
MAPS are unreasonably restrictive of competition because they: 
        
 
      1. reduce output;
 
      2. favor certain competitors in the Internet research industry
while disadvantaging others;
 
      3. favor Internet advertisers in association with the
defendants while disadvantaging others; and
 
      4. otherwise harm competition.
      

    89. Harris has been damaged by the ISP defendants' conduct, which
violates §1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1.

SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST 
THE ISP DEFENDANTS (DONNELLY ACT
VIOLATIONS)


    90. Harris repeats and realleges the allegations contained in paragraphs
"1" through "157" above.

    91. By reasons of the foregoing, the ISP defendants have violated
§340(1) of the New York General Business Law.
    




				-33-

WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands:

    

  1. Judgment for compensatory damages against all defendants in an
amount to be determined upon the trial of this action, but which,
upon information and belief, exceeds $50,000,000.00, including
prejudgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, and the costs and
disbursements of this action, as well as treble damages on the
antitrust claims.

  2. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined upon the trial of
the action; and

  3. Such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.


Date: August 8, 2000                HARRIS BEACH & WILCOX, LLP

                                    signature

                                                              

                                    Paul J. Yesawich, III
                                    Laura W. Smalley
                                    Gregory J. McDonald
                                    Attorneys for Plaintiff
                                    130 East Main Street
                                    Rochester, New York 14604
                                    Telephone: (716) 232 4440


				-34-
				-35-
Exhibit A: a copy of "Basic Mailing List Management Principles for Preventing Abuse"