View source for ACS:Law

{{Short description|British law firm}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2020}}
{{Infobox law firm
|firm_name = ACS:Law
|headquarters = [[London]]
|num_offices = 1
|practice_areas = Civil litigation, commercial litigation, debt and money advice, employment law, intellectual property law
|date_founded = unknown
}}
'''ACS:Law''' was a [[UK|United Kingdom]] [[law firm]] specialising in [[intellectual property]] law.<ref name="shutdown">{{cite news|url=http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/365029/file-sharing-lawyers-acs-law-shuts-down|title=File-sharing lawyers ACS Law shuts down|author =Kobie, Nicole|publisher=[[PC Pro]]|date=2011-02-04|accessdate = 2011-02-05}}</ref> Prior to 2009, its most notable case was the defence of a British national accused of public indecency in [[Dubai]].<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7796679.stm Dubai beach sex man 're-arrested'] BBC News, 22 December 2008</ref> The firm is best known for its actions against persons allegedly [[copyright infringement|infringing copyright]] through [[peer-to-peer file sharing]]. The firm ceased pursuing file sharers in January 2011<ref name="withdrawal">{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12253746|title=Law firm ACS: Law stops 'chasing illegal file-sharers'|author =Wakefield, Jane|work=[[BBC News]]|date=2011-01-25|accessdate = 2011-01-25| archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20110125091200/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12253746| archivedate= 25 January 2011 | url-status= live}}</ref> and ceased trading on 3 February 2011.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/09/acs_law_media_cat_judgment|title=Patent judge hits out at legal tactics used against file-sharers|author =Kelly Fiveash|work=[[The Register]]|date=2011-02-09|accessdate = 2011-02-09}}</ref>
==Firm==
The main partner of the firm, and its only registered solicitor,<ref>[http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/choosingandusing/findasolicitor/view=lawfirmdetails.law?orgid=513065&searchType=L ACS:Law Information] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716024848/http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/choosingandusing/findasolicitor/view%3Dlawfirmdetails.law?orgid=513065&searchType=L |date=16 July 2011 }} The Law Society</ref> was Andrew Jonathan Crossley. Crossley was found guilty of conduct unbefitting a solicitor by the [[Solicitors Regulation Authority]] in 2012. In 2012 he was suspended from practicing as a solicitor for two years.<ref>{{cite news|title=ACS: Law solicitor Andrew Crossley suspended by SRA|work=BBC News |date=18 January 2012 |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16616803|accessdate=17 June 2015}}</ref><ref name="sra200602">{{cite web|url=http://www.sra.org.uk/documents/consumers/SDT/Crossley%209346.05_0206.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141028182323/http://www.sra.org.uk/documents/consumers/SDT/Crossley%209346.05_0206.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=2014-10-28|title=Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal - Case No. 9436-2005 |date=2006-02-02 |publication-date=2006-03-06 |last=Gifford |first=L.N. |type=Disciplinary Tribunal findings and order - judgement with summary of 2002 judgement at page 5 |publisher=Solicitors Regulation Authority }}</ref><ref name="sdt201201">{{cite web |url=http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/Content/documents/10726.2011%20-%20Crossley.pdf|title=Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal - Case No. 10726-2011 |date=2012-01-16 |publication-date=2012-02-06 |at=para. 109 |last=Barnecutt |first=J.N. |author-link=Jeremy Barnecutt |type=Tribunal proceedings and judgement |quote=The Tribunal Ordered that the Respondent, Andrew Jonathan Crossley, solicitor, be suspended from practice as a solicitor for the period of two years to commence on the 16th day of January 2012... |publisher=Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal |access-date=18 September 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160114012446/http://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/Content/documents/10726.2011%20-%20Crossley.pdf |archive-date=14 January 2016 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="TheLawyer 2012-01-17" >{{cite web|url=http://www.thelawyer.com/sdt-suspends-acslaw-founder-for-two-years/1010952.article |title=SDT suspends ACS:Law founder for two years |work=The Lawyer |date=2012-01-17 |accessdate = 2012-01-17}}</ref> Crossley was declared bankrupt by the [[High Court of Justice|High Court]] in London on 20 May 2011.<ref>[http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/367885/acs-law-solicitor-is-bankrupt ACS Law solicitor is bankrupt] PC Pro, 8 June 2011.</ref> Crossley is now a consultant solicitor at Taylor Rose.<ref>{{cite web |title=Andrew Crossley |url=https://www.taylor-rose.co.uk/our-people/profile/andrew-crossley |website=Taylor Rose |access-date=16 August 2023}}</ref>
==Action against suspected copyright infringement==
ACS:Law first started claims against suspected [[copyright infringement]] through [[peer-to-peer file sharing]] in May 2009.<ref name="davenport">{{Cite news |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/12/davenport_lyons_acs_law/ |title=Major law firm drops file sharing threats - Staff continue 'bullying' at smaller outfit |work=The Register |date=12 May 2009 |author =Christopher Williams}}</ref><ref name="response">Law Society Gazette - [http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/opinion/letters/which-hunt letter from Andrew Crossley] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101119020449/http://lawgazette.co.uk/opinion/letters/which-hunt |date=19 November 2010 }}, 9 April 2010</ref> In November 2009, they announced plans to initiate claims against a further 25,000 individuals;<ref name="t3">{{cite web |url=http://www.t3.com/news/law-firm-hands-out-thousands-of-fines-to-suspected-digital-pirates?=42559 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721060833/http://www.t3.com/news/law-firm-hands-out-thousands-of-fines-to-suspected-digital-pirates?=42559 |archivedate=2011-07-21 |title=Law firm hands out thousands of fines to suspected digital pirates |publication-date=2009-11-29 |last=Bunker |first=Adam |publisher=T3}}</ref> a batch of 10,000 [[dunning (process)|dunning letters]] were sent out in the first two weeks of January 2010.
ACS:Law say that "the majority" of people choose to settle outside of court rather than fight the claims,<ref name="piracy">{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8481790.stm |title=Piracy letter campaign nets innocents |work=BBC News|date=26 January 2010}}</ref> but others claim that only 15-40% of people threatened end up paying.<ref name="pressinfo">{{cite web|url=http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/press-index.php |title=Being Threatened - Profits from fear |publisher=beingthreatened.yolasite.com |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20091216055249/http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/press-index.php |archivedate=16 December 2009}}</ref> According to Crossley, ACS:Law had recovered almost £1&nbsp;million from suspected copyright infringers by April 2010.<ref name="response" /> In the [[Patents County Court]] in January 2011, it was revealed that Crossley took 65% of the money recovered, with only 30% going to copyright holders.<ref name="withdrawal" /><ref name="courtcase">{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12275913|title=Net piracy gets its day in court|author =Wakefield, Jane|work=[[BBC News]]|date=2011-01-25|accessdate = 2011-01-30| archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20110127095443/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12275913| archivedate= 27 January 2011 | url-status= live}}</ref> One of ACS:Law's clients was the now defunct [[Frankfurt]] based company DigiProtect, whose motto was "turn piracy into profit".<ref name="piracy" /><ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technology/newsid_7766000/7766448.stm |title=Cash demand over porn downloads |work= BBC News|date=5 December 2008}}</ref>
==Solicitors Regulation Authority investigation and tribunal==
In September 2009, complaints made to the [[Solicitors Regulation Authority]] (SRA) about the conduct of ACS:Law constituted more than 16% of all complaints to the body for the whole month,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharing-lawyers-to-face-disciplinary-tribunal-100823/ |title=File-Sharing Lawyers To Face Disciplinary Tribunal |publisher=TorrentFreak |accessdate = 2010-09-27| archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20101003042819/http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharing-lawyers-to-face-disciplinary-tribunal-100823/| archivedate= 3 October 2010 | url-status= live}}</ref> and the SRA confirmed that the firm was under investigation.<ref name="piracy" /> By July 2010, the SRA had received a record 418 official complaints from members of the public.
In August 2010, the SRA ruled that ACS:Law had "a case to answer" regarding its campaign against suspected copyright infringement, and would refer the case to the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT).
Crossley engaged the services of [[Andrew Hopper]] QC who, according to Crossley "literally wrote the SRA rules", to assist in his defence against the SRA/SDT.<ref name="arstechnica">{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/amounts-to-blackmail-inside-a-p2p-settlement-letter-factory.ars/3 |title=The 'legal blackmail' business: inside a P2P settlement factory &#124; Ars Technica |date=29 September 2010 |publisher=arstechnica.com|accessdate=2015-03-07}}</ref> In a letter to the Law Society Gazette, Crossley complained about "the repeated attempts [of ACS:Law's critics] to whip up hysteria and public outcry" regarding ACS:Law's action.<ref name="response" /> Crossley had been declared bankrupt and represented himself at subsequent hearings before the SDT.<ref name="TheLawyer 2012-01-17" />
On 16 January 2012, the SDT found Crossley guilty on seven charges, suspended him from practicing law for two years and ordered him to pay £76,326.55 in costs. A spokesman for the SRA commented "Some of those affected were vulnerable members of the public and this matter has caused them significant distress."<ref name="TheLawyer 2012-01-17" /><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16616803|title=ACS: Law solicitor Andrew Crossley suspended by SRA|work=[[BBC News]]|date=2012-01-18 |accessdate = 2012-01-19}}</ref> Crossley was allowed to work as a solicitor again from 2013 subject to conditions including a ban from owning or running a law practice.<ref>{{cite web|title=Solicitor's Record: Crossley, Andrew Jonathan-150435|url=https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/150435.article|website=Solicitors Regulation Authority|accessdate=18 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171216092954/https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/150435.article|archive-date=16 December 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref>
==Investigation by the Information Commissioner==
On 21 September 2010, the website of ACS:Law was subjected to a [[DDoS attack]] suspected to be coordinated by online group [[Anonymous (group)|Anonymous]] as part of [[Operation Payback]]. When asked about the attacks, Crossley said: "It was only down for a few hours. I have far more concern over the fact of my train turning up 10 minutes late or having to queue for a coffee than them wasting my time with this sort of rubbish."<ref>{{Cite news |url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/22/acs_4chan/ |title=Piracy threats lawyer mocks 4chan DDoS attack - 'Big whoop' |date=22 September 2010 |author =Christopher Williams |work=The Register}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/operation-payback-attacks-continue-until-we-stop-being-angry.ars |title=Operation Payback" attacks to go on until "we stop being angry |publisher=[[Ars Technica]] |date=2010-09-30 |accessdate = 2010-10-29 |author =Nate Anderson| archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20101030163703/http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/operation-payback-attacks-continue-until-we-stop-being-angry.ars| archivedate= 30 October 2010 | url-status= live}}</ref>
In May 2011, ACS:Law was fined £1000 for the privacy breach, with the Information Commissioner [[Christopher Graham]] commenting: "Were it not for the fact that ACS:Law has ceased trading so that Mr Crossley now has limited means, a monetary penalty of £200,000 would have been imposed, given the severity of the breach." Graham criticised ACS:Law for having computer security measures that "were barely fit for purpose in a person's home environment, let alone a business handling such sensitive details." The consumer group [[Which?]] described the £1000 fine as "paltry".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13358896|title=ACS:Law fined over data breach|date=2011-05-11 |accessdate = 2011-05-11 |work=[[BBC News]]| archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20110512034626/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13358896| archivedate= 12 May 2011 | url-status= live}}</ref>
==Court case and withdrawal from action against file sharers==
In January 2011, ACS:Law, acting for its client MediaCAT,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12366747|title=Firm stops pursuing net pirates|date=2011-02-04|publisher=BBC|quote=MediaCAT, ... according to its law firm. ... MediaCAT is the plaintiff|accessdate = 2011-02-05| archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20110205050917/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12366747| archivedate= 5 February 2011 | url-status= live}}</ref> attempted to gain judgements against 26 suspected illegal file sharers. The case was heard in the [[Patents County Court]] in London by Judge [[Colin Birss]]. Shortly after proceedings started, ACS:Law attempted to drop the case.<ref name="courtcase" /> It was also reported that barristers for ACS:Law failed to provide vital documents due to them being "in storage".<ref name="courtcase" /> As the copyright holders were not present in court, Judge Birss was unable to end the case in a "simple" fashion.<ref name="courtcase" /> Judge Birss criticised ACS:Law, saying the case was "mind-boggling".<ref name="courtcase" />
Through a statement read to court on 24 January 2011, Crossley announced that he was withdrawing from pursuing claims against alleged illegal file sharers, citing criminal attacks and bomb threats as reasons.<ref name="courtcase" /> In response, Judge Colin Birss said "I am not happy. 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".<ref name="withdrawal" /> On 8 February 2011, Judge Birss told ACS:Law that the claims which had been brought to court could not be discontinued without the permission of the copyright holders, and a further hearing was set for 16 March.<ref>{{cite news|url= https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12396443|title=ACS:Law told file-sharing case must continue by court|date=2011-02-08 |accessdate = 2011-02-08 |work=BBC News| archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20110209050602/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12396443| archivedate= 9 February 2011 | url-status= live}}</ref> At this hearing the cases were officially closed. The judge deferred a decision on legal costs, saying: "If ever there was a case with conduct out of the norm it was this one".<ref name="bbc2">{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12767714 |title=Judge considers costs for ACS Law |work=BBC News |date=16 March 2011 |accessdate=2015-03-07}}</ref>
==Successor firms==
During the court case of January 2011, some of the 26 individuals who had had their cases dropped by ACS:Law then received a letter from GCB Ltd., a new law firm. In court, Judge Colin Birss questioned Andrew Crossley about his relationship to GCB Ltd. Crossley admitted that the founders of GCB Ltd. had previously been employed by him at ACS:Law.<ref name="withdrawal" /> On 8 February 2011 judgment, Judge Birss commented that attempting to pursue claims through GCB whilst discontinuing the court claims was "an abuse of the court's process".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWPCC/2011/6.html|title=Media CAT Ltd v Adams & Ors [2011] EWPCC 6 (8 February 2011) |publisher=[[Patents County Court]]|date=2011-02-08 |accessdate = 2011-03-01}}</ref>
In July 2011, it was reported that some people in [[Greece]] had received emails purporting to come from ACS:Law, accusing them of file sharing and demanding payments of £1665. Andrew Crossley denied sending the emails and branded them a scam, saying that he would contact the police. The [[IP address]]es listed in the emails were not from UK.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/jul/21/acs-law-filesharing-greece?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487|title=Is ACS:Law chasing Greek filesharers?|work=[[The Guardian]] |author = Halliday, Josh|date=2011-07-21 |accessdate = 2012-01-29 |location=London}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14215510|title=Lawyer denies Greek piracy 'scam'|work=[[BBC News]]|date=2011-07-21 |accessdate = 2012-01-29}}</ref>
In 2016 The SRA removed the conditions on Crossley.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20171216092954/https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/solicitor-check/150435.article#Decision-2015-02-20 Crossley, Andrew Jonathan—150435] sra.org.uk</ref> He went on to work for Warren's Law and Advocacy, but is now practising again with his new company St Paul's Solicitors where he continues to deal with speculative invoicing cases along with data protection offences.{{Citation Needed|date=April 2024}}
== Criticism and controversies ==
===Investigations by regulatory authorities===
As well as the investigation by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, complaints have also been received by [[The Law Society]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8381097.stm Lawyers target thousands of 'illegal' file-sharers] BBC News, 27 November 2009</ref> and the [[Consumer Action Group]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/acs-law/198192-acs-law.html |title=ACS:Law copyright file sharing claims, Gallant Macmillan - and probably some others along the way |publisher=Consumeractiongroup.co.uk |date=2009-05-07 |accessdate = 2010-09-27}}</ref>
=== Quality of evidence against suspected copyright infringers ===
ACS:Law identify suspected [[copyright infringement]] through [[peer-to-peer file sharing]] by the [[IP address]] of the internet user's connection. However, ACS:Law's use of [[Logistep]]'s technology has been the subject of an investigation by [[Which?]], who said that "innocent people are being accused".<ref>[http://www.which.co.uk/news/2009/07/more-innocent-consumers-accused-of-file-sharing--179504 More innocent consumers accused of file sharing] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101001225010/http://www.which.co.uk/news/2009/07/more-innocent-consumers-accused-of-file-sharing--179504 |date=1 October 2010 }} Which?, 2 July 2009</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8129261.stm Innocents accused of net piracy] BBC News, 2 July 2009</ref> Following the batch of 10,000 letters sent in January 2010, over 150 people contacted Which? saying that they had been falsely accused.<ref name="piracy" /> In an interview with ''[[The Guardian]]'', one person who had received letters from ACS:Law commented: "ACS:Law act as investigator, judge and jury without any regard for who their actions affect."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2010/oct/01/acslaw-filesharing-accused |title=ACS:Law: The view from the accused, and the questions in the courts|work=[[The Guardian]] |author = Halliday, Josh|date=2010-10-04 |accessdate = 2010-10-13 |location=London| archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20101014092113/http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/oct/01/acslaw-filesharing-accused| archivedate= 14 October 2010 | url-status= live}}</ref>
Researchers in Washington DC found that the technology often results in false positives.<ref>[http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/index.html#papers Tracking the trackers] University of Washington Study</ref> ACS:Law responded saying "we are happy that the information we get is completely accurate".<ref name="piracy" /> A study by the [[ISP]] [[TalkTalk Group|TalkTalk]] showed that unsecured [[Wi-Fi]] networks can easily be accessed without permission, leading to innocent users being accused of activity carried out by a third party.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8305379.stm |title=ISP in file-sharing wi-fi theft |work=BBC News|date=2009-10-16 |accessdate = 2010-09-27| archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20101001084939/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8305379.stm| archivedate= 1 October 2010 | url-status= live}}</ref> Andrew Heaney, spokesman for TalkTalk, explained "the lack of presumption of innocence and the absence of judicial process combined with the prevalence of wi-fi hacking will result in innocent people being [blamed]".
===Lack of definitive court judgments===
The only records of successful court cases which ACS:Law relied upon for its letter writing campaign in relation to [[copyright infringement]] through [[peer-to-peer file sharing]] were won by default when the defendants failed to appear.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://torrentfreak.com/uk-game-piracy-the-propaganda-the-evidence-and-the-damages-080821/ |title=UK Game Piracy: Propaganda, Evidence and Damages |date=21 August 2008 |work=[[TorrentFreak]] |author =enigmax}}</ref><ref>[http://www.logistepag.com/Urteile/Beschluss%20Topware%20Interactive%20INC.pdf Court Order awarded in absence of defendant] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090902122014/http://www.logistepag.com/Urteile/Beschluss%20Topware%20Interactive%20INC.pdf |date=2 September 2009 }} Dated 3 June 2008</ref> In 2009, the firm has admitted that they have yet to successfully prove a case in court.<ref>[http://www.acs-law.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=75:file-sharing-litigation-results&catid=1:latest-news ACS:Law Latest News] Retrieved 1 December 2009. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200926151722/http://www.acs-law.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=75:file-sharing-litigation-results&catid=1:latest-news |date=26 September 2020 }}</ref> ACS:Law state that "it has been said that we have no intention of going to court but we have no fear of it".<ref name="piracy" />
===Failure to gain default judgments===
In December 2010, Judge Colin Birss [[Queen's Counsel|QC]] rejected eight attempts by ACS:Law to seek default judgements in the [[Patents County Court]]. Citing issues including the failure to establish the age of the persons who might have downloaded the material, Birss stated: "In all these circumstances, a default judgment arrived at without notice by means of an essentially administrative procedure, even one restricted to a financial claim, seems to me to be capable of working real injustice."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWPCC/2010/17.html|title=Media C.A.T. Ltd. v A [2010] EWPCC 17 (1 December 2010)|publisher=[[Patents County Court]]|date=2010-12-01 |accessdate = 2010-12-09}}</ref>
===Criticism from the music industry===
ACS:Law has been criticised by representatives of the music industry. The [[British Phonographic Industry]] (BPI) said "our view is that legal action is best reserved for the most persistent or serious offenders - rather than widely used as a first response", adding that they would not be adopting the tactics of ACS:Law.<ref>{{cite news|last=Wakefield |first=Jane |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8483482.stm |title=Law firm's piracy hunt condemned |work=BBC News|date=2010-01-29 |accessdate = 2010-09-27| archiveurl= https://web.archive.org/web/20100930104553/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8483482.stm| archivedate= 30 September 2010 | url-status= live}}</ref>
===Criticism in the House of Lords===
On 26 January 2010 [[Ralph Palmer, 12th Baron Lucas|Lord Lucas]] spoke out against the activities of law firms, including ACS:Law, calling it "blackmail" and explaining:
:We must also do something about the quantum of damages that is being sought. In a civil procedure on a technical matter, it amounts to blackmail; the cost of defending one of these things is reckoned to be £10,000.<ref name="the-stationery-office">{{cite web|url=http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100126-0003.htm |title=Hansard 26 January 2010, Columns 1309-1310 |author=((Department of the Official Report (Hansard), House of Lords, Westminster)) |publisher=parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk |date=26 January 2010 |accessdate=2015-03-07 |url-status=dead |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160129200458/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200910/ldhansrd/text/100126-0003.htm |archivedate=29 January 2016}}</ref>
===Attempts to silence Slyck.com===
ACS:Law has also been accused of attempting to silence some of their critics.<ref name="townend">{{Cite web|url=http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/538117.php|title=Slyck.com refuses to remove content following legal threats from UK|date=31 March 2010|first=Judith|last=Townend|accessdate=2010-10-01|work=journalism.co.uk|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100403203043/http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/538117.php|archive-date=3 April 2010|url-status=dead}}</ref> Three major discussion forums were started on [[Slyck.com]] in response to ACS:Law's action; many of the participants of these forums offer legal advice and actively organize against ACS:Law. ACS:Law sent Slyck.com a legal notice claiming defamation and threatening a lawsuit.<ref name=townend/><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.slyck.com/misc/ACS_Defamation_on_Slyck_(AJC_approved).zip |title=Legal Threat |access-date=24 March 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110610205448/http://www.slyck.com/misc/ACS_Defamation_on_Slyck_(AJC_approved).zip |archive-date=10 June 2011 |url-status=dead}}</ref>
==See also==
* [[Capitol v. Thomas]]
* [[Copyright law of the United Kingdom]]
* [[Digital Economy Act 2010]]
* [[MediaDefender]]
* [[Norwich Pharmacal order]]
* [[Prenda Law]]
==References==
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Acs:Law}}
[[Category:Law firms based in London]]
[[Category:Law firms of the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Defunct law firms of the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:United Kingdom copyright law]]
[[Category:Copyright law organizations]]
[[Category:Computer law organizations]]
[[Category:Internet in the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Law firms established in the 20th century]]
[[Category:20th-century establishments in the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Law firms disestablished in the 21st century]]
[[Category:21st-century disestablishments in the United Kingdom]]