This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.
Legal
More ACS:Law shenanigans in court
By CMU Editorial | Published on Wednesday 19 January 2011
So, another day and another chapter in the legal sitcom that is ACS:Law, starring that (seemingly) bumbling fool Andrew Crossley. Or, as it turned out, not – the lead player in this story being mysteriously absent. Perhaps he’s still doing panto.
So, yes, ACS:Law is the London-legal firm which has, in recent years, been spearheading the sue-the-fans approach to tackling online piracy. The company most famously works for porn makers, though does have a few smaller music and movie clients on their books. As previously reported, ACS first caused a little concern over the allegedly threatening and misleading nature of the letters it mailed out to suspected file-sharers, and then lots of concern when its website was hacked and – somehow – that resulted in the private information of hundreds of suspected file-sharers being leaked online.
Some claim that ACS’s business model is based on the theory that most accused file-sharers will settle out of court, however strong the legal case against them, especially if they are accused of illegally accessing pornographic content. The legal firm can then take a cut of the out of court damages settlement.
But ACS main man Andrew Crossley always insisted he was happy to take cases to court if accused file-sharers refused to respond or settle. But when he did just that last year, in a bid to get eight default judgements in his client’s favour against accused file-sharers who had failed to respond to legal letters, it turned out Crossley’s attention to detail was somewhat lacking, never great in a court situation.
First, it turned out that three of the file-sharers had, in fact, responded to legal letters, while there was no evidence that three others had ever been sent them. Second, the claimant named on the lawsuit was an agent representing copyright owners – MediaCAT – rather than the owners themselves, which isn’t usually allowed under copyright law.
And third, Crossley’s legal case in part relied on the assumption there was a legal obligation on web users to safeguard their wifi networks from third party use, a contentious opinion with no English legal precedent for which a law firm better than ACS is probably required to ensure judicial support.
Following that bungled court appearance, and with the judge hearing the case, Colin Birrs, of the opinion most ACS lawsuits displayed “unusual features”, the Patents Court ordered a ‘directional hearing’ to review the 27 other copyright infringement cases brought against suspected file-sharers by ACS on behalf of MediaCAT, with a view to deciding how said cases should be handled. This hearing took place earlier this week.
Somewhat suspiciously, once this review was in the diary, ACS suddenly started writing to the 27 defendants last week saying the copyright cases against them were being dropped. But the Patents Court insisted the hearing should go ahead anyway, not least because if ACS is dropping all its cases at this late stage, some of the defendants’ lawyers are pushing for the law firm to cover their client’s costs.
Though, alas, not much could be said at the hearing, mainly because at the last minute Crossley sent in a letter from his mum saying that due to “an unfortunate family car accident at the weekend” he would not be able to attend.
According to TorrentFreak, which is covering this case in more detail, there was some discussion with MediaCAT representitives, who did show up, regards the issue of whether they – as agents of copyright owners – could actually launch legal proceedings for infringement, but with Crossley a no show little was resolved and the whole thing was adjourned to next week.
Meanwhile, as all this was going on, a new letter was being sent out to those accused file-sharers who haven’t settled but who have not, as yet, been targeted with actual legal proceedings. Again according to TorrentFreak, this new letter said that out of court settlement payments should now be made to a new company – GCB Limited – rather than directly to ACS:Law.
Cynics might wonder if that’s a move to stop any new money generated from out of court settlements from entering the bank accounts of ACS:Law, which is facing various fines and legal claims in relation to its sue-the-fans work and that aforementioned data spill.
GCB was previously a dormant company seemingly reactivated for the simple reason of collecting new monies from accused file-sharers. TorrentFreak say its registered address belongs to a firm of accountants who originally registered the limited company for a client. They say they had no idea the company was now being used by ACS for this purpose and have terminated their relationship with the firm as a result. Meanwhile, the phone line given for GCB in the aforementioned letter is now playing a recorded message saying the company is no longer colleting monies on behalf of ACS or its clients.
So, there you go, fun fun fun. All eyes are now presumably on the next court hearing on this matter on 24 Jan.
