In October 2022, the Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) issued a decision against PhotoClaim and attorney Robert Fechner (Fechner Legal) alleging unfair commercial practices. PhotoClaim immediately filed an appeal. As of today, a final judicial decision is still pending.
Despite the unresolved legal status of the case, the AGCM decision has been repeatedly cited by third parties to question the legitimacy of our services and to discourage photographers from asserting their rights. For this reason, we are sharing the following clarification:
Here's what happened:
- PhotoClaim received notice from AGCM regarding the initiation of an investigation. The authority requested information that included personal data of our clients. As a company based in Poland, we were unfamiliar with AGCM’s procedures and believed that disclosing such data could conflict with applicable data protection laws. We communicated this concern to AGCM in a timely manner.
- AGCM interpreted our response as a refusal to cooperate. As a result, it reversed the burden of proof—meaning that instead of proving a violation, the authority treated the matter as if PhotoClaim had to prove its compliance.
- To clarify our position, PhotoClaim engaged Italian legal counsel who submitted evidence explaining our processes and those of Mr. Fechner. Although this material was submitted only shortly after the deadline, AGCM declined to consider it formally—yet still cited portions of the same materials to justify its ruling. This raises concerns about the procedural fairness of the proceedings.
- AGCM subsequently issued a fine to both PhotoClaim and attorney Robert Fechner, despite not fully considering the evidence we had provided to demonstrate compliance.
AGCM’s Allegations and Our Response:
- 1. Claim: "The payment requests appear disproportionate as they are not defined according to objective criteria relating to individual cases."
- Our position: This is inaccurate. Each case is assessed individually. Damage amounts are based on the specific duration of infringement, with detailed calculations outlined in a transparent Cost Breakdown. These figures are drawn either from the photographer’s own pricing or from well-established industry benchmarks.
- 2. Claim: "The undue influence on micro-enterprises is also apparent in the content of the settlement and the 'Declaration of Cease and Desist', which require them to admit liability and agree to a clause that creates a significant imbalance in the contractual obligations imposed on them"
- Our position: Under German law, attorneys are required to include a pre-formulated declaration in warning letters to preserve the right to initiate court proceedings. Without this document, the warning would be legally ineffective. AGCM’s interpretation, if upheld, could make it impossible to pursue legal remedies in Germany against Italian infringers for violations occurring under German law—raising serious questions under EU legal standards.
- 3. Claim: “PhotoClaim failed to supervise the conduct of Mr. Fechner… constituting non-compliance with professional diligence (‘culpa in vigilando’).”
- Our position: This is a mischaracterization. Mr. Fechner is not employed by PhotoClaim. He acts independently and is directly mandated by the photographers he represents. In fact, PhotoClaim provides administrative support to Mr. Fechner, not the other way around. Applying the AGCM’s logic would imply that any support staff or contractors assisting a lawyer could become legally liable for the lawyer’s conduct—an unprecedented stance.
- 4. Claim: “The manner in which requests are formulated is intended to induce recipients to agree to an onerous settlement to avoid foreign legal proceedings.”
- Our position: We consider it appropriate—and indeed necessary—to inform infringers of potential legal consequences if no settlement is reached. AGCM itself did the same with us, warning that non-compliance with their orders could result in administrative fines ranging from €10,000 to €5,000,000.
We are confident that a court of law will eventually review and overturn the AGCM decision. Unfortunately, the legal process in Italy has proven to be unusually slow.
Until this matter is resolved, we have suspended new enforcement actions in Italy. However, we continue to monitor copyright infringements in the Italian market and remain fully prepared to assist our clients once legal clarity is restored.
We remain committed to protecting photographers’ rights and upholding fair and lawful practices in our field.
Warsaw, 03.10.2024
Thu, Oct, 2024 
