fairSync International — a trading name of Stington & Partner Legal GmbH, based in Cham, Switzerland — is currently sending out “non-binding licence offers” for music in Instagram posts, with sums in the mid four-figure range per post. Anyone who does not react, or reacts wrongly, receives a formal cease-and-desist letter from the German firm Hild & Kollegen as the next step — since October 2026 in Austria as well. Licence offer or cease-and-desist letter: we review your letter and tell you how to react correctly.
JUVE Ranking IP/IT Ranked 2025 — IP, Trademark & Copyright Law 
AI Awards 2024 Leading Civil Litigation Lawyer of the Year — Austria The letters follow a fixed pattern — and are deliberately structured differently from a classic cease-and-desist letter.
fairSync International is a trading name of Stington & Partner Legal GmbH, based in Cham (Canton of Zug). It acts as a licence dealer for music labels — for instance for All Ways Dance Ltd, based in London — and collects the licence fees as contracting party in its own right.
A sound recording was used in an Instagram post, typically in a Reel or video on a business profile. What is objected to is the use over a particular period — from the day of publication to the date of the letter.
What is offered is a retrospective licence covering the use so far and continued use up to a cut-off date. The price is calculated per post, the offer period is around ten days, and payment is to be made exclusively through an online portal. No cease-and-desist undertaking is demanded at this stage.
Those who do not react receive a formal cease-and-desist letter from the German firm Hild & Kollegen (Augsburg) on behalf of All Ways Dance Ltd — since October 2026 in Austria as well. The letters concern Instagram Reels using tracks from its catalogue, currently for instance “I'm Not What Happened To Me” (Good Vibes Tribe). They demand a cease-and-desist undertaking, damages, a flat fee for securing evidence and legal fees. Where the risk of repetition has already been removed, what remains is a payment demand, coupled with the announcement that the matter will otherwise be handed to an Austrian lawyer. For uses and licence claims in Austria, Austrian copyright law applies in principle, even where rights holder and law firm are based abroad. Abroad, the other side can in principle only assert the “damage” incurred there.
The word “non-binding” invites two reactions: simply paying to be left in peace, or simply putting the letter aside. As a rule, both are the wrong route.
We advise against it. The sums demanded are as a rule wholly excessive. Anyone who accepts the offer pays the full price for every single post — without it having been examined whether the claim exists at all and what amount is appropriate.
The offer itself commits you to nothing. The infringement it relies on does not disappear as a result, however — and neither does the possibility that a formal cease-and-desist letter with an injunctive claim follows as the next step.
What matters is removing the risk of repetition — through a cease-and-desist undertaking backed by a penalty, and that applies even where the letter does not demand one. Any later injunctive action then loses its basis. This matters because in copyright cases the injunctive claim is usually valued at an amount in dispute of €57,000 — the litigation cost risk is therefore far above the licence price offered. Practice already bears this out: letters sent after such an undertaking come without an injunctive demand and without legal fees.
Then an undertaking is expressly demanded — usually in pre-drafted form, together with a payment demand and a short deadline. The enclosed undertaking is regularly drafted more widely than necessary and should never be signed unchecked. Recipients in Austria should take particular care: the pre-drafted undertaking enclosed with letters from Hild & Kollegen subjects the agreement to German law and makes Munich the exclusive place of jurisdiction. Anyone who signs it as it stands risks having any later dispute — over a contractual penalty, for example — conducted in Germany. The same applies here: don't simply pay, don't ignore it — react correctly.
Our aim: the right response makes further action as unattractive as possible for the other side. Which tactic is right in your case is something we discuss with you on the basis of the specific licence offer or cease-and-desist letter.
These letters come with short deadlines and can trigger considerable cost risks. We keep the free initial assessment clearly separate from any further legal work — that only follows if you actually instruct us after the conversation.
What matters most is the strategy: we aim it at making court proceedings against you as unattractive as possible for the other side. To that end we assess soberly how burdensome such proceedings would be for them to run, what risk they would carry and where they would have to be brought. Where the letter comes from and where you are based or resident also plays a part.
You call, we take the time for a short general assessment — how plausible the demand is, the rough range, how urgent action is, and what stage you are at (licence offer or cease-and-desist letter).
The initial assessment is free and without obligation. Only then do you decide how to proceed.
We go through the specific letter in detail, discuss it with you and set out your options along with the opportunities and risks. After that you know where you stand — and can decide at your leisure whether we should act for you.
In many cases an undertaking backed by a penalty is the decisive step, even where none is demanded: it removes the risk of repetition. In parallel we settle on the best strategic response to the payment demand — matched to your actual scope of use and your appetite for risk.
The aim is to settle the matter quickly, as cost-effectively as possible and out of court. If a claim has already been served, or the other side turns to the courts, we represent you with decades of litigation experience — through every instance if need be.
We don't promise outcomes — that would not be serious. What we can tell you: we keep costs comprehensible from the outset, and the entry point is deliberately low so that nobody reacts wrongly out of worry about legal fees.
Free of charge. A short general assessment on the phone costs nothing. You will learn whether — and how urgently — action is needed.
Flat fee of €200 net. We go through the specific letter in detail, discuss it with you and set out your options along with the opportunities and risks. After that you decide at your leisure whether we should act for you.
Hourly rate €380 net. If you then instruct us, in our experience around two hours is often sufficient. That covers settling the strategy, drafting the cease-and-desist undertaking and the response to the other side. If a claim has already been served, the effort depends on the proceedings.
Measured against licence demands per post and an injunctive claim valued at €57,000, that is a manageable investment — and the point at which the course is set.
fairSync is not the only sender of such letters. You'll find the broader picture here: Music cease-and-desist letters on social media. There is a separate page on the current wave concerning a single track: “Sunny Bossa”.
Read on: Music cease-and-desist — overview · Copyright cease-and-desist letter
We examine whether the claim is justified and, above all, whether the amount is appropriate — and we tell you how to react. On business days we react quickly, within 24 hours at the latest. Directly with Dr. Tonninger or Dr. Albrecht.
