[vitus]

The combative stance that he's taking really doesn't do him any favors in resolving the issue.

Lawyer: "I've confirmed that at least one UK IP address is blocked."

Regulators: "We've confirmed that at least one UK IP address is not blocked."

In what world is the correct response "Dear regulators, you're incompetent. Pound sand." instead of "Can you share the IP address you used so my client can address this in their geoblock?"

[Aeolun]

> In what world is the correct response

Any world in which US citizens in the US aren’t subject to UK laws in any case.

[holowoodman]

> In what world is the correct response "Dear regulators, you're incompetent. Pound sand." instead of "Can you share the IP address you used so my client can address this in their geoblock?"

That would imply that the client actually would like to be contacted every time Ofcom found a leak in the geoblock. Not a good idea imho.

[crtasm]

It sounds like they would welcome that, e.g. in the update to the post

>They’re definitely not treating it like a public safety matter, where they know how to reach us and know that I generally respond within the hour.

[holbrad]

I this is exactly how you should respond to outrageous demands.

The UK should pound sand.

[vitus]

I get that it's satisfying to tell them to go away because they're being unreasonable. But what's the legal strategy here? Piss off the regulators such that they really won't drop this case, and give them fodder to be able to paint the lawyer and his client as uncooperative?

Is the strategy really just "get new federal laws passed so UK can't shove these regulations down our throats"? Is that going to happen on a timeline that makes sense for this specific case?