UK: High Court Rules Digital Economy Act Legal and Proportionate

Last Updated: 28 April 2011
Article by Chris Watson, Susan Barty and Scott Fairbairn

The High Court has passed down judgment in relation to a judicial review brought by two of the UK's largest Internet Service Providers relating to the legality and proportionality of the Digital Economy Act. The Court ruled on Wednesday 20 April 2011 that the Act was legal and proportionate. The decision paves the way for the Government to press ahead with its plans to prevent and punish illicit peer-to-peer downloading of content in breach of copyright. The Court also ruled that the Government's costs order, which sought to establish that ISPs should bear 25% of all of the costs associated with the scheme, was unlawful.

To view the article in full, please see below:

Full Article

The Digital Economy Act (DEA)

The DEA was passed into law in April 2010 and includes controversial provisions to prevent and penalise various electronic means of copyright infringement, notably peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing.

The DEA sets out a number of measures to prevent online copyright infringement. The first of these are:

  • an obligation on Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to notify subscribers that their accounts have been associated with copyright infringement; and 
  • an obligation on ISPs to compile and keep anonymised lists of those subscribers associated with copyright infringement; these may be provided to rights holders on request.

Together these are known as the 'Initial Obligations'.

In addition to the Initial Obligations, the DEA also includes controversial further powers allowing the Secretary of State to require ISPs to impose 'technical measures' against subscribers identified as repeat infringers, (which may include disconnection), and to enable the Secretary of State to draft new regulations to govern the Court's powers to grant injunctions against websites associated with copyright infringement.

The Government also drafted a costs order, the Copyright (Initial Obligations)(Sharing of Costs) Order 2011, which would govern the allocation of costs associated with the implementation of the Initial Obligations (the "Costs Order") and allocated the costs associated with the Initial Obligations so that rights holders would pay 75% of the qualifying costs and ISPs 25%.

Judicial Review

BT and TalkTalk's application for a judicial review of the 'online infringement of copyright' provisions of the DEA was based on five grounds:

  1. The Government should have notified the European Commission under the Amended Technical Standards Directive which they faild to do.
  2. Provisions of the DEA are not compatible with the E-Commerce Directive (Directive 2000/31/EC) which provides that ISPs may not be held liable for data going though their networks. 
  3. Provisions of the DEA are not compatible with the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive (Directive 2002/58/EC).
  4. Measures contained in the DEA are disproportionate in their impact on ISPs, consumers, business subscribers and public intermediaries.
  5. Measures contained in the DEA infringe the Authorisation Directive (Directive 2002/20/EC as amended by Directive 2009/140).

It's Alright By Me

Mr Justice Penneth Parker of the Administrative Court decided the following:

1.  The primary purposes of the 'notification requirement' under Article 9 of the Amended Technical Standards Directive (ATSD) is to allow the Commission and Member States time to propose any amendments which may remove or reduce restrictions on the free movement of services or the freedom of establishment, and also to serve transparency, legal certainty or allow Member States to accommodate forthcoming EU legislation. If a 'technical regulation' (as defined) is not duly notified it is unenforceable at national level.

After reviewing the case law, Parker J ruled that as the Initial Obligations were not currently legally enforceable or suitably particularised in an industry code nor (in the absence of a code) do they currently have legal effect for individuals, they do not currently qualify as 'technical regulations' and so need not be notified under the ATSD.

2.  It was contended that the DEA infringed Articles 12, 15, and 3(2) of the E-Commerce Directive (ECD).

Article 12 ECD states that Member States should ensure service providers are not liable for information transmitted on their network where they do not initiate or select the receiver of the transmission and do not select or modify the information contained in the transmission.

Parker J concluded that this provision was primarily intended to protect an ISP where a person has unlawfully placed material in the public domain from liability in respect of that particular infringement. The legislation specifically allows Member States to authorise the courts or competent administrative authority to order an ISP to terminate or prevent infringements so long as the ISP is not made liable in respect of the infringement itself. The financial penalties which ISPs may be liable for in the DEA relate to breaches of the obligations in it, not to the underlying infringements. The DEA contains procedures designed to put appropriate controls on those subscribers who, despite other measures, have persisted in copyright infringements and was not contrary to Article 12.

Article 15 ECD states that Member States shall not impose a general obligation on service providers to monitor the information which they transmit, or actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity. Parker J ruled that the DEA does not impose an obligation to monitor information, nor does it impose an obligation actively to seek such facts or circumstances. Rather copyright owners will be carrying out the monitoring and ISPs' role will be limited to identifying wrongdoers, keeping records and sending letters.

Article 3 states that Member States must not restrict freedom to provide information society services across the EU. Parker J ruled that at this stage, prior to the formalisation of an industry code and the notification of it to the Commission and other Member States, he could not conclude that the DEA would inevitably breach this provision.

3.  The thrust of this ground of objection under the Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive was that the initial obligations would require ISPs and copyright owners to process "personal data". Because ISPs were effectively authorised to do so by compulsion of law the issue centred on the role of copyright owners.

Parker J ruled that such processing was necessary and fell within a derogation under Article 15(1), which allows restrictions to the principles of data protection where such restrictions constitute a necessary, appropriate and proportionate measure. While this Article does not refer to intellectual property rights, Parker J referred to case law of the Court of Justice (C-274/06 Productores de Musica de Espana v Telefonica) that supported an approach that the provision, as construed by the Court, should indeed cover property rights including copyright protection. As a result the data processing involved was considered to be permissible under Data Protection legislation.

4.  The Authorisation Directive provides a scheme for electronic communications networks and services to allow any person who wishes to provide such networks and services to do so in accordance with publicly available conditions. In the UK, Ofcom has drawn up "General Conditions of Entitlement". Parker J confirmed that the obligations under the DEA need not be included in them.

The claimants also argued that the initial targeting of only the six largest fixed line ISPs for compliance with the Initial Obligations would discriminate in favour of other ISPs and service providers of mobile services. Parker J believed that it was reasonable and proportionate to concentrate on the larger ISPs and that the problem of customer migration was speculative at this stage. As mobile networks are less conducive to online copyright infringement it was proportionate not to include them at present; Ofcom had a duty to monitor the situation and it would, if appropriate, be possible to include them later. 


5.  The final ground of objection raised by the Claimants was that the DEA was disproportionate. In particular the claimants argued that the contested provisions represent a disproportionate restriction on the free movement of services, the right to privacy, the right to free expression or to impart or receive information.

Respecting the Role of Parliament

Parker J took the position that judges must be careful in seeking to make assessments that are more properly rightly made by Parliament. The Courts should afford particular deference to elected and accountable decision makers where those decisions concern subjects that are matters of social and economic policy and politics:

"How these competing and conflicting interests should be accommodated and balanced appears to me to be a classic legislative task, and the court should be cautious indeed before striking down as disproportionate the specific balance that Parliament has legislated."

Parker J was also influenced by arguments that freedom of expression (unlike, for example, the right to life or the prohibition on torture) were not absolute fundamental rights but fundamental rights which could be restricted and competent authorities enjoy a wide margin of discretion in that regard.

Parker J rejected the arguments on the grounds of proportionality and that the DEA does not pursue a legitimate aim, concluding that it promotes the aim of judicial protection of copyright. In relation to a number of related arguments he also felt that it would be premature or inappropriate to conclude that the effect of the measures would be disproportionate.

Costs Order to be Rewritten

Parker J did however find in favour of the Claimants in finding that the Costs Order was unlawful and in breach of the Authorisation Directive. In essence Article 12 of the AD states that any charges on service providers should be limited to certain specified costs. Parker J found that some of the costs that ISPs had to pay under the Costs Order, namely "qualifying costs", amounted to administrative charges which would be unlawful under Article 12.

While the Costs Order will need to be redrafted, it seems to have been deemed unlawful only in so far as certain administrative costs could not legally be included in it; the Government will need to develop a different mechanism for allocating costs, but this is unlikely to present a significant obstacle to the Government's plans.

Full speed ahead?

The decision paves the way for the Government to press ahead with its plans to prevent and punish illicit P2P downloading of content in breach of copyright. Ofcom is expected soon to publish a final form industry code to govern the workings of the Initial Obligations.

This article was written for Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free online information service. To register for Law-Now, please go to

Law-Now information is for general purposes and guidance only. The information and opinions expressed in all Law-Now articles are not necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give professional or legal advice. All Law-Now information relates to circumstances prevailing at the date of its original publication and may not have been updated to reflect subsequent developments.

The original publication date for this article was 26/04/2011.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.