Judge rules ACS: Law's filesharing action was "amateurish", "improper"

19 April 2011

Bitterwallet - ACS- LawWhen thinking about the past actions of ACS: Law, the company that tried to bully money of of people accused of unlawful file-sharing, many words were used to describe them. Amongst the more pleasant-but-equally-damning utterances, were words like "lamentable", "improper" and "amateurish". It turns out they are all perfectly valid criticism, because that's exactly how a judge has described the law firm.

Having previously been accused of idiotic practices - ACS: Law owner Andrew Crossley asked to have guilty verdicts held against accused filesharers upheld without providing any evidence - a judge has now ruled that Crossley breached the solicitors code of conduct with his "slipshod" methods.

ACS: Law had sent out thousands of speculative letters to recoup damages on behalf of its client, Media CAT, despite the company not owning the copyright to any material that may or may not have been unlawfully downloaded. Both firms went out of business - as coincidence would have it, on the same day as one another - before the case went forward to the Patents County court.

They were taken to court anyway, and yesterday the judge had his say, stating the arrangement between ACS: Law and Media CAT had "brought the legal profession into disrepute" and that the legal firm had breached the solicitors code of conduct. According to The Guardian, Crossley could now have to pay up to £100,000 in legal costs to those he accused of unlawful filesharing.

A nation weeps with sympathy, we're sure.

[The Guardian]

TOPICS:   Technology

4 comments

  • klingelton
    is that £100k each, or £100k between the lot of em?
  • klingelton
    Also, does anyone suppose Andrew Crossley represented himself? If so - no wonder he lost.
  • Alexis
    Good. Scamming shits.
  • Darren
    @klingelton - This is not America, the courts don't award random prizes; the legal costs will be the amount of legal costs each person had to foot which could total around £100,000; not £100k each!

What do you think?

Connect with Facebook, Twitter, or just enter your email to sign in and comment.

Your comment