Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Sued Over Fall Update Issues
Gamespot is reporting that a rumour that's been floating around has, for once, turned out to be true. Microsoft has been sued for breach of contract and negligence in connection to the Xbox Live Fall Update. From the article: " Stating that the affected consumers number in 'at least the thousands,' the suit contends that Microsoft is refusing to repair or replace the broken systems unless the users pay 'up to $140' to ship it back to the company. The plaintiff is demanding that Microsoft pay at least $5 million in damages for breach of contract to those affected by the Fall Update problems, and an additional amount of at least $5 million in damages for an unfair or deceptive act under the CPA. Should Microsoft argue that it had no agreement to breach with the affected users, then the plaintiff contends Microsoft was negligent, and should be made to pay at least $5 million in damages." It should be noted that Microsoft has responded by saying it has offered to completely cover the cost of systems affected by the update, including shipping.
I played the xbox360 at my bother in law's over the thanksgiving holiday. I was pretty impressed with the graphical power and gears of war is the first shooter I didn't feel clumsy with when playing with a controller. But the system has eaten his oblivion disk twice (he had a store wipe it once) as well as leaving circular scratches on his call of duty 3 disk that prevent several midgame levels from loading.
Microsoft claims that the machine cannot be moved while on with a disk in it or it will do this to the disks. He claims he didn't move it. My feeling is there's no excuse for the machine doing that regardless. Skipping, rebooting midgame, hell even erasing your saved games...are all understandable or acceptable. But, a machine that destroys your $60 game disks, that can't be easily backed up, because you bumped into the entertainment center is unacceptable IMO. Its definately not a terrible machine power wise, but what did they save? $3 or something putting the piece of junk dvd player in the machine?
And then you have the reports of updates bricking the consoles and it doesn't really instill a lot of confidence in the system. And what is with the 90 day warentees? As I understand it this is becoming industry standard for consoles. I know the console market is pretty competitive, but even PC parts which are often installed by people with limited expertise and are very price competitive still all offer a 1 year warentee at least. I guess when you're selling systems at a loss the urge to cut costs wherever you can is pretty strong. But as a consumer, when I see the company not even willing to stand behind the product for a year I start to think there's something fishy going on.
You are mistaken in thinking that it only affected modded 360s.
Also, MS should of pulled the update as soon as it was apparent it was killing 360s, but they didn't and it affected a lot more units because of that.
I managed to get £50 worth of GAME vouchers to compensate for the update killing my 360, but it was the 3rd time my 360 needed replacing due to shoddy hardware/software.
A company can be sued for negligence and violation of the consumer protection act if it can be shown that it did know or should reasonably have known about the problem, and failed to take action to prevent it. It has nothing to do with a willingness to fix it.
I don't mean to imply that this is a valid lawsuit, but a good counter example is car seat belts. Lets imagine that CAR COMPANY A produces a car that it turns out has faulty seat belts. Even if the car company issues a recall and offers to completely pay all costs of repairs (which it no doubt would), it can still possibly be sued if it can be shown that the error was the result of negligence and not of innocent or unforseeable error (or even more seriously, if it can be shown that it KNEW about the problem and didnt act to fix it).
Again, I dont think this applies to this case, and i doubt this case has an ounce of merit, but Im just saying that Microsofts willingness to replace and pay for shipping does NOT completely shield them from a lawsuit, if the lawsuit was valid