ACS:Law ‘Drops All File-Sharing Cases’

Solicitor Andrew Crossley has told a court that his firm, ACS:Law, has withdrawn from all its work involving the pursuit of alleged illegal downloaders, according to a BBC report.

The move is the latest twist in the scrutiny by the London Patents Court of ACS:Law’s activities in pursuing 27 cases of suspected illegal file-sharing.

Twists and turns

At the previous hearing, on 17 January, ACS:Law moved to drop the 27 cases, a motion refused by Judge Birss.

At a hearing on Monday, ACS:Law owner Andrew Crossley said the firm has ceased its activities in pursuing file-sharing cases due to threats.

“I have ceased my work…I have been subject to criminal attack. My emails have been hacked. I have had death threats and bomb threats,” he said in a statement read to the court. “It has caused immense hassle to me and my family.”

In his statement Crossley denied claims that he has sought payouts from file-sharing suspects without ever intending to take the cases to court.

“It has always been my intention to litigate and, but for the fact that I have ceased this work, my intention was to litigate forcefully in these 27 cases,” he stated.

The move is the latest in efforts by ACS:Law and Media C.A.T. – the client in whose name it was conducting the 27 cases – to withdraw from efforts to pursue the suspected file-sharers, noted Judge Birss.

“I am getting the impression with every twist and turn since I started looking at these cases that there is a desire to avoid any judicial scrutiny,” Birss told the court.

Vexation

These efforts have not, however, resulted in less vexation for the individuals previously targeted by ACS:Law.

Shortly after the firm wrote to the individuals involved to tell them it had withdrawn from the cases, ACS:Law wrote to the same individuals to say that another firm, GCB Ltd., would be continuing to “correspond” with them on the issues involved and would be glad to receive any payouts that might be forthcoming.

“In order to allow us to focus on the issuing of proceedings, our client has instructed agents, GCB Limited, to correspond with you directly in relation to the above matter in place of ACS Law Solicitors,” the letter stated.

GCB has denied being associated with either the cases or with ACS:Law. “We have no connection whatsoever with ACS Law,” GCB said on its website.

However, Crossley clarified in his Monday statement that GCB was in fact founded by former employees of ACS:Law.

Judge Birss is expected to deliver his judgement on the case later this week. A separate court hearing after that could be required to discuss the procedural failings and decide on ‘wasted costs’.

ACS:Law was subject to a denial-of-service attack in September, as a result of which the company’s entire email archive was exposed to the public, including personal emails sent and received by Crossley detailing such issues as his relationship status and automobile purchase plans.

The Information Commissioner’s Office is currently investigating the email exposure incident.