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
ACS:Law file-sharing cases finally closed, but what about costs?
By CMU Editorial | Published on Friday 18 March 2011
So, the drawn out legal debacle which has been the ACS:Law file-sharing litigation finally came to a close yesterday, albeit with an important epilogue still to come.
A quick recap. Andrew Crossley was an lawyer who seemingly reckoned he could make a quick buck by sending out legal letters to suspected file-sharers on behalf of dodgy (often pornographic) content owners, accusing the recipients of copyright infringement and demanding damages. Critics said Crossley’s legal arguments were flawed and that he had no intention of ever going to court to put them to the test, ie his system was based on intimidating net users who didn’t understand intellectual property law, couldn’t afford legal advice, and didn’t want their porn consumption on public record, to just pay up.
Crossley denied these allegations and, in a bid to silence his critics, took some cases to court. Where it turned out his legal arguments were indeed very flawed and so Crossley’s lawsuits, letter writing operation and entire business fell on the floor with one big bang.
Aside from picking holes in most of Crossley’s legal arguments, Judge Colin Birrs was also very critical of the lawyer’s entire operation, accusing the ACS man of deliberately trying to avoid judicial scrutiny.
The fact that Crossley, after finally realising how flawed his legal arguments were, tried to have his lawsuits dismissed, and then didn’t show for a court hearing, and then shut down his entire company, hasn’t helped overcome Birrs’ very low opinion of the man.
The judge refused to let Crossley withdraw his lawsuits, ensuring ACS’s legal actions were fully scrutinised so there was no doubt about how weak they were. So much so it was only this week, when legal representatives of the defendants requested the cases now be closed, that Birrs agreed to end Crossley’s torment.
However, there remains the issue of legal costs. It would actually be rather unusual for a judge to force ACS:Law to cover the so called ‘wasted costs’ of the defendants in this case, which are almost certainly in excess of £100,000. But, Birrs said on Wednesday, this is not a usual case and that therefore he is seriously considering making ACS liable for those costs, not least because its client, MediaCAT has gone out of business. Though, then again, so has ACS:Law, which poses another question, will Birrs make Crossley personally liable for those costs?
Some think he might, despite Crossley’s legal rep in court (Crossley himself did not attend) insisting his client made a big fat loss from his sue-the-fans operation. Though, arguably, that was because it was a sham that got caught out before going into profit.
A final ruling about costs is still to come, that being the epilogue to this story that will bring everything to a close. Well, possibly. Legal reps for the defendants are now saying they are considering suing Crossley for harassment in relation to his letter writing campaign.
