BT and TalkTalk lose Digital Economy Act appeal hearing

Internet service providers defeated once again

BT and TalkTalk have lost their legal challenge on the legality of the Digital Economy Act after the Court of Appeal rejected their case.

The two internet service providers (ISPs) have been locked in a long-running legal battle with the government over the legislation, which was introduced in April 2010, and which they claim is illegal under European law.

The government won the initial case that the two firms brought but they were given the right to take their case to the appeals court after winning the right to have the case re-heard in October.

However, on Tuesday a panel of three judges ruled that the firm's claims were without merit and that the DEA should stand.

TalkTalk said it was disappointed to lose the appeal but said the ruling did provide additional legal clarity. It added that it was now considering its option on whether to continue with its legal challenge.

"We are reviewing this long and complex judgement and considering our options," it said.

"Though we have lost this appeal we will continue fighting to defend our customers' rights against this ill-judged legislation."

BT had not responded to a request for comment from V3 at the time of publication.

Unsurprisingly the decision by the Court of Appeal was welcomed by rights holder groups, with the director general of the British Video Association, Lavinia Carey, arguing the DEA was a vital measure to protect the future income of creative industries.

"The video industry generates the single largest source of returns on investment for film producers and takes the greatest hit in terms of damage inflicted by illicit file-sharing of video content," she said.

"The DEA contains measures that could see members of the public have their internet access blocked if they are found to have downloaded copyrighted material illegally on three separate occasions."

BT and TalkTalk lose Digital Economy Act appeal hearing

Internet service providers defeated once again

BPI chief executive Geoff Taylor, added that the latest legal ruling should convince the ISPs to put aside their grievances and work to implement the law.

"The courts have confirmed, once again, that the DEA is legal, proportionate and fair and can now be implemented," he said.

"The ISPs now need to work constructively with government and rights holders to implement the Act."

Peter Bradwell of the Open Rights Group heavily criticised the decision, arguing the law was based on "hearsay and assumptions, not proper facts or analysis" and that "significant problems remain".

"Publicly available Wi-Fi will be put at risk. Weak evidence could be used to penalise people accused of copyright infringement. And people will have to pay £20 for the privilege of defending themselves against these accusation," he said.

"The government needs to correct these errors with a proper, evidence-based review of the law."

Adam Rendle, a copyright lawyer at international law firm Taylor Wessing, said the government would view the decision as a "significant victory" and would mean letters can now start to be sent, but said the public may take umbrage at this situation.

"We now have to wait for the Ofcom Initial Obligations Code to be published and approved before the warning letters start arriving on file sharers' doormats. The Code will contain the detail on how the process will work," he noted.

"The government had already announced that the more controversial website blocking measures in the DEA would not be introduced, but it would not be surprising to see public outcry at the warning letters process similar to that which greeted ACTA and SOPA."

Some of the sting of the DEA has gone, though, after Ofcom told the government to shelve the elements of the legislation relating to website blocking on the grounds it was unworkable.

However, rights holders have used the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act to have file-sharing sites blocked, including Newzbin 2, placing the same obligation on ISPs to block customer access to sites as the DEA was seeking to place on the statue books.