File-Share Solicitor To Face Tribunal Over ‘Bullying’

The lawyer behind a wave of “bullying” letters accusing people  of illegal file-sharing has been referred to a disciplinary tribunal following complaints – but the complaint won’t be heard till 2011.

Lawyer Andrew Crossley has been referred to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT), over allegations that his company ACS Law sent hundreds of “bullying” letters, accusing people of illegal file-sharing. Consumer magazine Which? lodged the complaint in May 2009, after receiving 150 complaints that ACS Law engaged in ‘excessive’ conduct on behalf of copyright holders, including Reality Pump and Topware Interactive.

Thousands of letters

In May 2009, ACS Law began sending thousands of letters accusing people of illegally sharing copyright material on peer-to-peer networks, and demanding they pay around £500 compensation or face civil action.

Which? received 150 complaints and lodged a complaint with the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority (SRA). It also published an online guide on how to respond to letters such as those from ACS Law.

On the news that Crossley (pictured) is to face a tribunal hearing, Deborah Prince, Which?’s head of legal said: ‘We welcome this decision because we’ve received so many complaints from consumers who believe they’ve been treated appallingly by this law firm.”

Which? has lodged complaints against ACS, and against Davenport Lyons, both of whom have apparently been working on behalf of Digiprotect, a German firm whose technology and methods came in for criticism from Prince.

“They have to have proof – and this technology has not been tested in a contested hearing,” she said, because all the settlements so far have not been taken to court.

“The law has to be clarified,” she said, pointing out that “you can’t be vicariously liable for someone using your Internet connection without your consent.”

And finally, she argues that the loss to the copyright holder is surely less than the £500 they claim. “Is it proportionate to take this action when someone might have done this once, and by accident?”

Warning letters

Prince favours the approach set out in the Digital Economy Act, in which ISPs – not lawyers – must send out warning letters to suspected copyright infringers, even though this approach has been widely condemned by activists such as the Open Rights Group.

“The proposals in the Digital Economy Act are the way to go, where ISPs are required to write to consumers in the first instance,” said Prince. “Once you’ve sent that first letter out and you have had a pre-warning, if more activity is found, you look that much more culpable.”

Even better would be new digital routes to market, she said, pointing out that official copyright groups do not endorse Crossley and Digiprotect, who mostly act on behalf of more obscure publishers and pornographers.

“BPI and UK Music actively discourage brand owners and rights holders from using this technology,” she said. “It is not the way to change behaviour.”

Education and new routes to market are the way to change behaviour, she said, echoing the European Commision’s vice president for the digital agenda, Neelie Kroes, who said in April that a lack of legal download options is boosting illegal file sharing in Europe.