Home »

UK ISP News Archives

⇆ Speedtest

✎ Review ISP

✔ Compare ISP

★ Top 10 ISPs

UPD6 Ralli UK Solicitors Confirm ACS Law Illegal ISP File Sharing Case Has Ended

Posted: 15th Mar, 2011 By: MarkJ

UPDATE As an update to the original article, the judge has now officially thrown out ACS:Law's case (see the bottom of this news item for further updates as they come in).

Solicitors at Ralli, a national UK law firm, have said that they do not expect ACS:Law (Andrew Crossley) / MediaCAT to be joined by the associated copyright holders in today's hearing at the London Patents County Court (Judge Birss QC). Such a move would mark the official discontinuation of ACS:Law's controversial case against 27 individuals, those whom it had accused of taking part in "illegal" internet copyright infringement.

A Spokesperson for Ralli told ISPreview.co.uk exclusively:

"It is unlikely at this stage that the copyright holders will join the case, and we expect them to be officially discontinued [today]."

ACS:Law made its money by "bullying" customers of broadband ISPs with dubious settlement demands ("speculative invoicing"), worth hundreds of pounds, for alleged "illegal" copyright P2P file sharing activity, often mistakenly (here). The letters also threatened court action against those that refused to pay.

Until recently ACS:Law, which is currently awaiting a Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) ruling over its actions (here), had never taken any of its cases to court, which lead to a great deal of criticism. However, a few months ago this all changed, when the firm attempted to do just that and thus prove the credibility of their evidence. Suffice to say that the attempt backfired spectacularly.

Related News:
11th Dec 2010 - ACS Law UK Loses Illegal Broadband ISP File Sharing Case against 8 Suspects
18th Jan 2011 - UPD ACS Law UK In More Hot Water Over Illegal Broadband ISP File Sharing Cases
22nd Jan 2011 - Lawdit Predicts End of Illegal UK Copyright ISP File Sharing Settlement Letters
25th Jan 2011 - ACS Law UK Quits the Illegal Copyright ISP File Sharing Settlement Letters Game
5th Feb 2011 - Internet Copyright Infringement Solicitors ACS Law UK and MediaCAT Shut Down
8th Feb 2011 - UK Judge Prevents Defunct ACSLaw from Killing Internet Copyright File Sharing Cases
14th Feb 2011 - UPD Ex ACS Law Worker Quit after Firm Knowingly Targeted Innocent UK ISP Users

ACS:Law attempted to escape further scrutiny of its bungled case and apparently flawed evidence by shutting down ("ceased trading"). However the judge (Judge Birss QC) refused to discontinue and moved to carry the case forward, which would also prevent the firm from resubmitting its cases again in the future. The One Show (BBC1 TV) recently ran a passable summary of events.

As it stands the only way for ACS:Law's case to continue would be for the copyright holders (i.e. ACS's clients) to join the proceedings, which seems highly unlikely given the current state of play and ACS:Law's already poor standing within the court. Few would want that kind of association.

The lawyers for the defence, which are largely represented by Ralli, also indicated that they would continue to pursue the firm and potentially even Crossley himself for legal costs. This will be part of a separate hearing. The case will resume at 10:30am this morning and we'll update accordingly.

UPDATE 7:22am

We've had another update from Ralli.

Michael Forrester, Ralli's Intellectual Property and Media team, said:

"If the cases are dismissed tomorrow the hearing is then likely to deal with wasted costs i.e. whether Media C.A.T or ACS:Law themselves must pay the defendants costs.

Wasted costs are an unusual order only made in cases where a Court determines that a legal representative has acted unreasonably, negligently and improperly.

Before making any order for wasted costs, the legal advisor against whom and application is made must be given the chance to submit evidence in their defence.

If the Defendants' application tomorrow is successful this will only complete stage one of the wasted costs procedure. If stage two is reached, another hearing will have to be convened for that purpose.

If you were sent these letters, and had not acted as the letter claims, please contact us on harassment@ralli.co.uk for a free assessment of your case. We are currently gathering clients with view to a group action for harassment as a result of these letters."

UPDATE 1:28pm

We've had it confirmed that Judge Birss has just officially discontinued the cases brought by ACS:Law. It looks like the copyright holders did not turn up to carry the case forward. Ralli's (defendants/clients) costs have also been raised (they're asking for £90,000), albeit not yet agreed upon. More soon..

UPDATE 5:14pm

The debate over costs has appeared to drag on a bit and is delaying our coverage. We don't want to mention anything if a moment later it's going to change. Hopefully we should have some further details very soon.

UPDATE 8:12pm

May have to wait until tomorrow to find out what will happen with the costs issue and whether ACS:Law will be forced to cough up the cash. At least, for those involved, the cases are over with.

UPDATE 17th March 2011 - 8:19am

A BBC article this morning confirms that Ralli is seeking costs of £90,000 for five of the accused that it represents. The debate over this, as we hinted yesterday, continued long into the afternoon and has yet to be decided upon.

Interestingly ACS:Law (Crossley) claimed that it had operated at a loss by spending £750,000 on pursuing net pirates while making £300,000 from people paying fines. This appears to contradict other evidence and Mr Crossley's own previous boasting (email leak) about how much money he was raking in.

Last year's ACS:Law email leak revealed that approximately 11,000 warning letters had been sent by 28th April 2010 and of those some 30% chose to settle.

UPDATE 17th March 2011 - 3:46pm

Ralli has just issued their full update, pasted below.

The 27 file sharing actions brought by ACS: Law on behalf of their client Media C.A.T. were struck out by the Patents County Court yesterday. National law firm Ralli represented a number of the Defendants.

Background

The 27 cases were the first to be taken to Court following tens, if not hundreds of thousands of letters sent to consumers by ACS: Law accusing them of downloading media on “peer to peer” networks over the internet.

Media CAT Ltd tried to discontinue the proceedings against alleged infringers shortly before the first hearing. His Honour Judge Birss QC refused to allow the claims to be dropped without a hearing which was in two parts on 17 and 24 January.

Judgment was finally given at another hearing on 8 February.

Judgment on notices and documents

Giving Judgment, HHJ Birss QC refused to allow the notices of discontinuance to stand. He held that the notices were an abuse of the Court’s process and would give an “unwarranted advantage” in that:

“the notices … avoid judicial scrutiny of the underlying claims on which the Norwich Pharmacal orders were based which, despite the purported discontinuance, are (or were) being pressed ahead in correspondence against many other individuals.”

Also, HHJ Birss QC found that attempting to discontinue the proceedings without the original copyright owner and other exclusive licensees of the work being joined would give them an advantage. This is because any such discontinuance would not impose the same conditions on those not parties to the proceedings.

Yesterday’s hearing

At the last hearing on 8 February, Media CAT were given until 22 February to join other parties who had rights in the copyrighted works sued upon by Media CAT. This would normally include original copyright owners and exclusive licensees of the work in question. Adding parties in this way would allow the cases to be discontinued in a way that protected the Defendants’ rights.

However, contrary to the court order, no other parties were added, and the actions against the Defendants were struck out.

Michael Forrester of Ralli's Intellectual Property and IT team noted that:

“Our Clients are extremely pleased that these matters have finally come to a close. They have always maintained that they did not infringe copyright in the works alleged and can now put the matter behind them. However, it has been incredibly distressing for them to receive letters and Court papers in this way. They would have rather never been put in this position to begin with.”

The hearing then went on to deal with wasted costs. This is an unusual order only made in cases where a Court determines that a legal representative has acted unreasonably, negligently and improperly.

Mr Forrester explains that:

“Wasted costs orders allow the defendants to recover their costs from the other side’s legal representatives. In this case it deals with whether Media CAT or ACS: Law should pay the Defendants’ costs.”

Following the full day hearing yesterday, Judgment is expected on wasted costs shortly.

Ralli comments

National law firm Ralli represented a number of defendants in these matters. Michael Forrester of the Intellectual Property and IT law team commented on the Judgment:

“We are pleased with the outcome for our clients in these cases. It was important for all the Defendants in these matters that discontinuance was properly obtained so no collateral advantage could be obtained against them by anyone not a party to these proceeding”

The Judgment highlights a number of legal and technical difficulties with these cases which we had advised our clients of throughout

We are dealing with cases where consumers have explained how they cannot possibly have uploaded or downloaded copyright protected material, but they are still pursued.

The legal basis for the claims made against these alleged file sharers involves complex legal and technical principles. These are extremely difficult for a lay person to understand and can mean an innocent person is being pursued.

It can be incredibly upsetting for people to receive these letters and they may well have a claim in harassment, so I am urging them to come forward.”