Slashdot Mirror
AOL Settles Class Action Suit Over Client Software
An anonymous reader sent in news that AOL is settling a class action suit over their AOL 5.0 software, which usurped people's dial-up networking settings when installed. There's a website for the suit and a
news article about the settlement. Of course, you have to admit you use AOL.
It's about time big companies realize that they can't just take over someone's system because their software is installed. It's not just AOL; programs like Realplayer and Quicktime do this also. Hopefully this settlement will discourage this type of behaviour in the future.
Settlement 15.5 Million
Amount to consumers - 8.7 million
the rest goes to lawyers!
Almost half- goes to lawyers the rest get split up between everyone who claims. So fill out your claim form and sit by the mail box waiting on your check for $1.00. But don't lose the check stub! You've got to pay taxes on that money next April.
This kind of crap just burns me up. AOL throws 15 mil at a problem (I guess they skip sending free CD tins for like a day)- a few lawyers make a killing and everybody else gets jack.
Real victory for the consumer here. And did the lawyer balk at settling? Of course not- they just hit the powerball and won 7 million.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
From the earlier article:
"The suit seeks damages of up to $1,000 for each of the 8 million consumers estimated to have installed the software."
From the later article:
"America Online has agreed to pay $15.5 million... Under the plan, consumers would be paid about $8.1 million, with the rest going mostly to the attorneys."
That's about $10 per consumer. Looks like two orders of magnititude were lost in the shuffle. Maybe the plaintiffs should consider a class action lawsuit against their own counsel?
The settlement page indicates that you have to prove damages by producing a receipt showing that your computer was screwed up / unstable / unable to dial any other isp / etc. and you had to have it fixed. What money does a person get if they fix it themselves, or their granddaughter comes over and makes it all better?
Yes, I used AOL at that time, because it was the only service in the area I was living in that would allow me access. The only connection available was dial up, as this was rural area. Did the connect to AOL work? Yes, but it also prevented me from dialing into my work and connecting to the local system there.
I guess it doesn't matter at this point. This suit only allows for people who willingly used the AOL service, yet did not know anything was wrong with their system. Funny how the only people who would be able to know something was wrong are the same persons being excluded (because they are able to provide their own solution).
You keep going until you die..."Me".
This translates to the right general effect
I really don't understand what you mean. If AOL gets screwed and they pass it off on the insurance co, and the insurance co passes it back by raising rates, do you think that AOL is the one getting screwed? Absolutly not. They are just going to raise thier prices, thus passing it back to the consumer.
Everyone seems to cheer when a big company gets screwed somehow, but I hate to see it personally. Every single time it's the consumer who ends up paying for it. It's just like when someone wins a $50 million dollar medical malpractice suit against a hospial. Everyone says "yeah, get 'em they are way over paid anyway". Is the hostpial really getting screwed? No, they just raise thier rates to pay for it. Who does that affect? The insurance co's. What do they do? Raise thier rates. Who does that affect? Usually our employers. What do they do? Stop paying for heath insurace for employees. So who got screwed by the malpractice suit? Us. Same thing here, who gets screwed by AOL paying out all kinds of cash? AOL customers, who are not the ones doing anything wrong. (nessisarily)
Sigs are out of style, so I'm not going to use one...oh wait..
I'm trying to remember when it began. Which version of Windows was it that detected the presence of OS/2 on the hard drive and offered to remove it "to free up disk space?"
I'm sick to death of competitive installations. When I put my mouse over an "upgrade software now" button I feel like I'm playing Russian roulette and am just about to pull the trigger.
What are the chances that I'm going to disable something else I use? Yes, there's a huge grey area: sometimes the effect is innocently (bad SQA). Sometimes it's semi-intentional, the software equivalent of the car rental clerk saying "sign here" over a page of 50%-gray type on a 33%-grey background. You know, what does this gobbledegook about 'making the the default application for opening your media files' mean? I guess I'll just push the return key and take the default....
Sometimes I think it's intentional. Hey, we're just sharp, competitive businessmen, kicking competitors in the groin is what made this country great...
I think needs at the very least to be a "truth-in-installation" law. The installer should disclose clearly, in plain language, EVERYTHING it's going to do in terms that are meaningful to the consumer. ("Increase stability, and, oh, yes, enforce the license agreement by technical means and, by the way, send information to us over the Internet which, according to our just-changed privacy policy we can share with our trusted partners...)
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!