"Geez, the Lawyer had the weakest arguement "
I don't recall making an argument. Sex.com was not registered under the current NSI contract, which is crucial in understanding the difference between that case and the size.com case.
However, it is readily understandable that 3 weeks of screwy whois data has easily caused the same, if not more, amount of damage that several YEARS of lost revenue from sex.com did.
"in the end you'll cause Pool and domainname.come enough bad press that they will loss revenues that maybe they'll get off their tails .."
Oh, yes, by all means... everyone will boycott Pool, for certain.
Sure, spend a couple of hundred bucks filing an action, and the day after you serve the papers, they'll probably fix the whois. It will probably be more expensive, but no less efficient, than simply being persistent and polite. If I were them, however, after fixing your problem, I would inform you that you are no longer authorized to use Pool and that they reserve the right to refuse service to you in the future.
By all means, send me a check and I'll get started. Gosh, what was I thinking.
"that doesn't make it legal, fair, or ethical"
A $500 liability cap on a ten dollar contract? You think a court will find that unconscionable? Dream on.
So let me get to this idea of "fair". "Fair" is where you come to me, offer me ten bucks to do something for you, and I assume the risk of losing 15 million.
Oh, yeah... that's fair. uh-huh