// Home / News

File-sharing lawyer avoids big ICO fine because he's "too poor"

By Nicole Kobie

Posted on 10 May 2011 at 13:36

ACS Law's Andrew Crossley has been fined only £1,000 for a data breach - managing to dodge a £200,000 punishment by claiming not to have the means to pay.

Crossley's firm sent out letters demanding settlement payments of £500 or more to those accused via IP address evidence of illegally downloading copyrighted material. The few cases brought to court have since been dropped, and Crossley has shut down the firm.

The breach came after Crossley's letter campaign drew the attention of the Anonymous hacking group, which targeted the ACS Law website in retaliation. Following denial-of-service attacks, a flaw in the website leaked online emails containing the details of 6,000 accused illegal downloaders.

Find out more

ACS Law's file-sharing case: news roundup

The ICO noted the leaked emails listed the credit-card details of accused file-sharers, as well as references to their sex life, financial status, and the material - some of it pornographic - they were accused of downloading.

“Sensitive personal details relating to thousands of people were made available for download to a worldwide audience and will have caused them embarrassment and considerable distress," said Commissioner Christopher Graham.

"The security measures ACS Law had in place were barely fit for purpose in a person’s home environment, let alone a business handling such sensitive details," said Graham.

Fine reduced

As punishment, the Information Commissioner was going to issue a £200,000 fine to ACS Law, but has dropped the fine to only £1,000 after Crossley "made a statement to lawyers that he was of limited means," an ICO spokesman told PC Pro. The £1,000 fine will be reduced to £800 if Crossley pays on time.

The ICO has been criticised for not making full use of its ability to fine up to £500,000 for serious data breaches, and the £200,000 punishment would have been its harshest punishment to date.

"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 said. "Penalties are a tool for achieving compliance with the law and, as set out in our criteria, we take people’s circumstances and their ability to pay into account.”

When asked whether the ICO had taken any measures to verify Crossley's financial status, the spokesman was unable to comment at the time of publication.

Aside from spilling details of alleged file-sharers, the leaked emails also revealed Crossley was deciding whether to follow his recent purchase of a Bentley with a Ferrari. The Patent County Court heard ACS Law was pulling in £180,000 a month from the anti-piracy letters.

Crossley told the ICO that the attack cost his firm £20,000.

Subscribe to PC Pro magazine. We'll give you 3 issues for £1 plus a free gift - click here

From around the web

User comments

So he's technically bankrupt then? Don't lawyers lose their qualifications when they go bankrupt (or is that accountants), aside from not being able to take on any debt to get another supercar?

Most worrying statement about this story is the last two paras. What are the ICO playing at?

By Aspicus on 10 May 2011

One wonders where the money has gone that they were raking in. Has any of it been returned to the people falsely accused who paid up without going to court?

And has he sold the Bentley to help pay his debts? As noted in the article, we have yet to find out if anyone checked his claim of being "a bit skint".

By Mosher on 10 May 2011

@mosher

Who ever said Hominid Nocturnus (blood sucking lawyers) were human?

Well, a "legal precedent" has been set. The next time the Music And Film Industry Association (MAFIA) want to extort money for the alleged download of one MP3, the answer is -
"Sorry, but I'm strapped for cash."
If it works for a lawyer it could work for anyone. Who ever heard of a poor lawyer?

By cheysuli on 10 May 2011

ICO should be sent threatening letters by dodgy lawyers for that howler

If he can't find the cash then they should take property and goods to the value of £200k. The fine shouldn't have been reduced on the grounds he is skint when he clearly is not. I would like to see how many bona fide bankrupts have orders for new Ferraris in mind.

By mr_chips on 10 May 2011

So have I got this right...

...there are cases around the world where people of far more "limited means" than him have been fined extortionate amounts of money for downloading a few songs and yet he gets away with something serious using that argument?

Is the ICO taking backghanders from the MAFIAA?

Can we all try this the next time we get fined?

Take his house and his car and any other possessions away from him if he can't supply the cash, or better yet send him to prison!

By omnisvalidus on 10 May 2011

This does not seem right to me

I wonder what kind of message the ICO think they are sending out to anyone else who thinks that they can handle potentially damaging personal data carelessly?

I think Crossley has gotten off scot free.

By revsorg on 10 May 2011

Shame the Pirate Bay guys didn't try this defence...

If I get done for speeding I'm gonna say I'm skint so only give me one point and a £5 fine :)

By TiredGeek on 10 May 2011

Wrong Charge

The definition of extortion is "...a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion."

Assuming that none of the cases against ACS brought would have been rejected (we will never know as they were dropped), it implies that their actions were unlawful and hence that Andrew Crossley should be tried for extortion....

By barrettj on 10 May 2011

Unbelieveable

This story actually disgusts me!
If he wasnt a lawyer in the first place he wouldn't get away with it! the scumbag probably consulted some of his industry connections to seek advice on how to get away with it lightly anyway. ICO you really do dissapoint me

By HolisticLA on 10 May 2011

So send him to jail

Well if he has no dosh just give him, ooh, 6 months? I bet he finds £200k down the back of the settee pdq.

By JohnHo1 on 10 May 2011

SECONDED .. Send him to jail

@JohnHo1
-----------
The complaint is not of civil stature but of Criminal breaches in law.

I am not surprised in the detail, however, the ICO PROVES it is simply INCOMPETENT.

By lenmontieth on 11 May 2011

@lenmontieth

I have to disagree. The ICO isn't simply incompetent. It is a complete and utter waste of taxpayers money.

By jontym123 on 11 May 2011

ICO =

Chocolate fireguard.

By revsorg on 11 May 2011

Two-Tiered Law

The law looks after it's own. Case of one law for the masses and one law for them.

I bet he had legal aid to fight his case.

By baldeagle812 on 12 May 2011

DId someone say ICO?

From personal experience, the ICO is not fit for purpose: even after agreeing a breach of various aspects of the DPA, nothing more than an advisory was issued about better handling of data! Oh, against a law firm - surprise! Then the ICO finished off by breaching its own rules anyway, so are we surprised??

By ghirson on 13 May 2011

Leave a comment

You need to Login or Register to comment.