Suppose a spam email tells you that you've earned $1m. To get the funds the email goes on to tell you to email firstname.lastname@example.org. My question revolves around why Gmail doesn't block "email@example.com" on the spot when it detects such an obvious fraud (which it correctly marks as spam), so that less savvy users don't take the unfortunate step of getting defrauded out of their savings with little to no recourse.
A real life equivalent might seem to be a driver who waits for the hitchhiker they picked up while the latter does a bank heist, and continues on with their passenger after they're done. Surely such a well meaning albeit naive driver wouldn't stand a chance in court if they said that it's because they've a section 230-like protection.
Also, given the amount of spam I receive that actually use Gmail accounts, I presume -- but have not checked -- that the accounts do not get disabled quickly by Gmail and others. (Some do answer, with amusing results.) This is on the basis that fraudsters would use an actual domain name if email account providers did block these emails quickly.
Why do Gmail, Hotmail, etc. get away with enabling bank wire fraud? Is section 230 indeed the reason that they do? Has this ever been tested in court as a class action in the US or elsewhere to see where it leads?
To clarify what is being asked:
This is not about blocking e.g. Gmail accounts that send spam, nor is it about detecting spam. Rather, the question is about blocking e.g. firstname.lastname@example.org in emails that Gmail already identifies as spam (with near 100% accuracy) in a format that revolves around:
Congratulations, someone gave you lots of moneys. Please email email@example.com for instructions on how to collect it.
Further, the question is not why doesn't Gmail stop such emails from being sent. Rather, it is: Is section 230 indeed the reason that they get away with not shutting down accounts like "firstname.lastname@example.org" in the above example quickly when they detect such emails without being held liable? Has this ever been tested in court as a class action in the US or elsewhere to see where it leads?