Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
The lawsuit over Network Solutions’ domain availability searches was announced on February 25, 2008. Plaintiffs alleged that Network Solutions held names after people searched for them, leaving those searchers able to register the names only through the company. A federal court approved a settlement in 2009, but that approval was not a finding that the alleged conduct occurred. ICANN, also named in the original suit, was dismissed before answering, according to a later filing by the organization.
What the 2008 lawsuit alleged
On February 25, 2008, Network World reported that Los Angeles law firm Kabateck Brown Kellner had announced a federal class action against Network Solutions and ICANN in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint’s central allegation was that Network Solutions held domain names after a person searched for their availability on its website, so that person could buy the searched-for name only through Network Solutions. This was the plaintiffs’ account, not a court finding. Network World’s February 25, 2008 report described the claim as domain-name “front running.”
Lead counsel Brian Kabateck, identified in the report as his firm’s managing partner, compared the alleged practice to asking a car dealer about a black convertible and then being forced to buy it from that dealer. He argued that the search would create a monopoly for Network Solutions over the name and leave consumers facing the price it demanded. That analogy expressed the plaintiffs’ theory; it was not a judicial conclusion about how the search system worked.
Why the company said it held searched names
The 2008 report described a competing explanation attributed to Network Solutions: temporarily holding searched names was meant to protect them from “domain tasters,” who registered names speculatively and deleted them within a five-day grace period. The plaintiffs’ lawyers disputed that explanation. The available account establishes that the two sides offered competing explanations, not which one accurately described the practice or its effects.
#1 Best Overall
What the settlement record shows
In 2009, the federal court approved a settlement judgment and found the settlement fair, reasonable, and adequate, while approving its allocation plan. The judgment defined two purchaser subclasses:
| Settlement subclass | Who it covered | Approximate registrations |
|---|---|---|
| Same-session purchasers | Purchases made in the same session as the relevant search | 62,661 |
| Later-session purchasers | Purchases made within four days after a prior search in a different session | 50,433 |
These figures are registrations associated with the settlement classes, not a count of people proven to have suffered financial harm. Settlement approval resolved the class claims under the agreement; it did not decide that Network Solutions had committed the alleged conduct. The court docket and settlement judgment provide the class definitions and approval.
Rank #2
The court record also says 113,094 class members received notice, one objected, and 16 opted out. It approved $171,994 in attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of costs. Those are settlement-administration figures, not measures of the number of affected consumers or the value of losses.
What happened to ICANN
ICANN was named in the original action, but it did not remain a settling defendant. In a filing in a separate 2011 case, ICANN said that plaintiff McElroy voluntarily dismissed it with prejudice on March 4, 2009, before ICANN answered. The filing also said ICANN neither settled nor admitted liability in the action. This procedural account comes from ICANN’s October 17, 2011 filing; it is distinct from the settlement reached by Network Solutions.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallHow to read the prices reported at the time
Network World reported that the plaintiffs’ lawyers said Network Solutions charged $34.99 for the lead plaintiff’s sought name, while a competing registrar would charge $9.99. These were historical prices quoted by counsel in 2008, not current rates and not an independently verified comparison of registrar prices. They illustrate the price argument made in the complaint, but do not establish what any customer pays now.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What this case does—and does not—establish
The case is a 2008 class action about a claimed search-triggered sales advantage, followed by a 2009 settlement approval. “Front running” is the allegation’s label in this account, not an adjudicated finding. The court’s approval resolved the claims through settlement rather than a verdict on the underlying allegations.
The cited case materials do not establish Network Solutions’ current registrar policies, current prices, or whether the described practice continues. They also do not provide a dependable broader statistic for how often domain-name front running occurred. The class and notice counts should therefore be read as settlement figures, not as prevalence or harm estimates.
Quick Recap
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.
Recommended Free Tools
