Feeds

Judge mulls 'wasted costs' as ACS:Law cases close

'Out of norm conduct' could mean payout for anti-piracy lawyers

The essential guide to IT transformation

A London court yesterday officially closed the book on allegations of illegal file-sharing brought by ACS:Law against 26 defendants.

In February, senior patent court Judge Colin Birss QC heavily criticised the law firm for pursuing alleged file-sharers with threatening letters and then ditching the cases, which led to claims that ACS:Law never had any intention of bringing the "accused" to court.

Ralli Solicitors, which is representing five of the defendants in the cases, is seeking £90,000 in costs. The BBC reports that Judge Birss is mulling whether ACS:Law should pay up.

ACS:Law and its client Media CAT fired off thousands of threatening legal missives to alleged illegal file-sharers, offering them the chance to pay a £495 settlement rather than face going to trial.

Typically, judges do not demand "wasted costs" from legal representatives.

"If ever there was a case with conduct out of the norm it was this one," said Judge Birss, which seemed to indicate that ACS:Law may cop a hefty pay-out bill.

Andrew Crossley, who founded ACS:Law and is currently under investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, was not in court on Wednesday. He said in January that he was quitting the cases that went to trial in a patent court in London earlier this year, citing "immense hassle" to him and his family.

Crossley's barrister Paul Parker said his client shouldn't be liable for the costs and claimed that Crossley had spent £750,000 on pursuing alleged online pirates. His firm was operating at a loss and made £300,000 from people who did pay the fines.

That figure suggests that more than 600 people paid up to avoid facing ACS:Law in court.

“Media CAT and ACS:Law have a very real interest in avoiding public scrutiny of the cause of action because in parallel to the 26 court cases, a wholesale letter-writing campaign is being conducted from which revenues are being generated," said the judge at a court hearing last month.

"This letter-writing exercise is founded on the threat of legal proceedings such as the claims before this court.” ®

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

More from The Register

next story
'Stop dissing Google or quit': OK, I quit, says Code Club co-founder
And now a message from our sponsors: 'STFU or else'
Top beak: UK privacy law may be reconsidered because of social media
Rise of Twitter etc creates 'enormous challenges'
Ex US cybersecurity czar guilty in child sex abuse website case
Health and Human Services IT security chief headed online to share vile images
Uber, Lyft and cutting corners: The true face of the Sharing Economy
Casual labour and tired ideas = not really web-tastic
Don't even THINK about copyright violation, says Indian state
Pre-emptive arrest for pirates in Karnataka
The police are WRONG: Watching YouTube videos is NOT illegal
And our man Corfield is pretty bloody cross about it
Oz biz regulator discovers shared servers in EPIC FACEPALM
'Not aware' that one IP can hold more than one Website
Apple tried to get a ban on Galaxy, judge said: NO, NO, NO
Judge Koh refuses Samsung ban for the third time
prev story

Whitepapers

Top 10 endpoint backup mistakes
Avoid the ten endpoint backup mistakes to ensure that your critical corporate data is protected and end user productivity is improved.
Implementing global e-invoicing with guaranteed legal certainty
Explaining the role local tax compliance plays in successful supply chain management and e-business and how leading global brands are addressing this.
Backing up distributed data
Eliminating the redundant use of bandwidth and storage capacity and application consolidation in the modern data center.
The essential guide to IT transformation
ServiceNow discusses three IT transformations that can help CIOs automate IT services to transform IT and the enterprise
Next gen security for virtualised datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.