Brulines equipment is 'legal'

You have it wrong David. Many people who have rigidly stuck within their tied agreements have fallen foul of inaccurate Brulines data - accused of buying out and subsequently paid fines to their pubco under threat of having their lease revoked unless they cough up compensation. Such people are in a strong position legally but most do not understand the strength of their position which is the legal onus is on the pubco to PROVE the accusation with verifiable evidence to support the 'hearsay' evidence provided by the beer volume monitoring equipment.

Faced with standing up to the pubco against a fine they find themselves confronted with the prospect of expensive drawn out litigation looming against a giant company that has full time legal teams on retainers who take no prisoners. They assume the costs, the time, the stress and the fight will all lead to them inevitably being much worse off in the short run and likely to lose in the end. So they pay up and shut up. It's great for customer relations but who cares? Once they 'admit' guilt by paying a fine the pubco has them by the short and curlies and they won't say boo to a goose in future when the BDM turns up.

I know of a recent case where Brulines equipment having just been carefully totally recalibrated by a Brulines technician, immediately returned a recorded volume dispense record that was out by 30% - as it happens this time it was in favour of the tenant - a positive variance... if that happens when Brulines are on the case and watching it happen on perfectly balanced kit, how on earth can ANYONE take the general in service data seriously?

What this announcement means at base is that ANYONE being accused of buying out where Brulines data is the only evidence of doing so - can simply refer to this news and tell the pubco: "it's not W&M approved. Go to hell. Please".