Slashdot Mirror
The $54 Million Laptop
Stanislav_J writes "It happens to the best of us: you drop off your laptop at the local branch of some Super Mega Electronics McStore, go to pick it up, and they can't find it. Lost, gone, kaput — probably sucked into a black hole and now breeding with lost airline luggage. It would make any of us mad, but Raelyn Campbell of Washington, D.C. isn't just mad — she's $54 million mad. That's how much she is asking from Best Buy in a lawsuit that seeks 'fair compensation for replacement of the $1,100 computer and extended warranty, plus expenses related to identity theft protection.' Best Buy claims that Ms. Campbell was offered and collected $1,110.35 as well as a $500 gift card for her inconvenience. (I guess that extra 35 cents wasn't enough to sway her.) Her blog claims that Geek Squad employees spent three months telling her different stories about where her laptop might be before finally acknowledging that it had been lost. For those who follow economic trends, this means that a laptop's worth is roughly equivalent to that of a pair of pants."
I ask because, if the courts allow the MPAA to sue kids for tens of thousands PER SONG for simply sharing a copywritten work, then why not let her sue for tens of thousands for each of HER original works?
Because she gave them the hard drive with the works, and Best Buy made no representation that they would either preserve nor protect the data on that hard drive?
If the MPAA created a marketing deal where they handed out CDs with Britney Spears MP3s on them, and then you lost one, it's not like they could sue you for that either. Copyright law covers COPYING, not LOSING.
paintball
First of all, it's working - she is getting media attention.
So what you are saying is, every time a customer does like the resolution to a customer service problem, they should file a multi-million dollar lawsuit to generate media attention so the company is forced to give them what they want?
Even if the problem is the customer?
Maybe instead of tying up thousands of dollars on lawyers, and hundreds to thousands of tax-payer dollars on court resources, the appropriate remedy for a poor customer service experience is not a multi-million dollar lawsuit, but instead taking your business elsewhere?
A civil suit is an appropriate remedy for redress when you have suffered significant harm* at the hands of another party. This lawsuit fails on both counts - the harm was not significant, and the other party is not responsible. (The legitimate harm caused (loss of laptop) was compensated with a replacement/refund, and the inconvenience was just that, and more than adequately compensated with the $500 gift card. The loss of private data was not Best Buy's responsibility.)
* By significant harm, I mean some harm above and beyond normal inconvenience encountered in the course of being a consumer - like having to wait an extra 10 minutes for your burger, or extra trips to the store because your laptop isn't ready yet.
paintball
Let's say I check into a hotel. I'm there before checkin, so I leave my bags at the front desk, and they are stolen. Ooops, I had my $1,000,000 in diamonds in one of those bags. Is the hotel responsible for the bag's content? Of course not. I'm an idiot for keeping $1,000,000 in diamonds in a suitcase.
The customer was apparently willing to keep unprotected private data on the hard drive of her laptop. Best Buy may be responsible for her laptop being stolen. Best Buy is NOT responsible for there being private data on the laptop when it was stolen. They exercised at least as good of care of her laptop as the customer did, and if it was good enough for her, it's good enough for them, even if the end result was different.
paintball
However, the fact is, this duplicitous woman won't make it past summary judgment and should also be sanctioned. That's absolutely factual. What's that, you say? How dare I not side with the poor little downtrodden woman? Well, I laid out in another post how her case will meet the same fate as the judge with the multi-mullion dollar dry cleaning mentioned in the article. For those who don't keep up with these things, we're looking at a judgment of ZERO dollars and she will get to pay Best Buy's legal fees. In fact, I explained, if I were counsel for Best Buy, I would push to sanction her, her lawyer, and her lawyer's firm as well.
I won't go into the specifics and rationale again, though, because we're fast-approaching the point at which somebody should just pay me for my time. Furthermore, that earlier post got modded "Flamebait" because 14 year-olds who hate their parents and win the Slashdot mod point lottery don't really cotton to actual lawyers, with all their "statutes" and buzzkilling "rules"--just the less prickly and more fakey variants who put on the big boy pants and Google a few statutes. So instead of laying out that prior post verbatim, let me suck up to Slashdot readers at this late hour, sip some Kool-Aid*, and pretend, pretend, pretend along with you. Let us forgo all knowledge of civil procedure and join you on your journey. I will try, at least:
RTFA - the laptop was stolen from Worst Buy, most probably by an employee, as it was in a "secure area". As such, they are liable for the contents - it has nothing to do with any warranty or protection plan.
Yes, there is an incredibly boring rule we inherited from the English in the year of god-knows-when that relates to a duty of care when you entrust your property to another in this fashion. There was clearly a breach of that duty. But as a nod to the elaborate game of connect-the-dots plaintiff's counsel has tried to play to create a juicer damages claim for what was on the laptop: Those laws don't apply to bits and bytes. At all. Next please.
Worst Buys' sloppy procedures and/or dishonest employee(s) are the proximate cause. They're liable.
Uh oh! Somebody's seen at least one courtroom drama on television and possibly even two. The "proximate cause" of what exactly? The loss? Yes, and? She's already been compensated for the laptop, thinking it clever to give away the gift certificate as well. That's not how that works at all, and she's in for quite a surprise at trial. I feel like this is leading up to something. Extra points for calling them "Worst Buy," too. That's almost as clever as "Micro$oft." OK and then...
She's entitled to be made "complete" - and that involves compensating her for the laptop, its contents, and her lost time while they lied to her about it being stolen.
We say made "whole." Your way sounds pretty dumb, ours sounds a little more mysterious. You're also not right at all. Plaintiff is "entitled" to compensation for the laptop alone. It ends there. Yes, seriously. P doesn't receive damages for the oh-so-precious data, nor is P compensated as a matter of law for the time unreasonably wasted trying to retrieve her property using the least effective means available. If you want an amplified response, and a full explanation as to why, I'll need a PayPal payment. You see, I am a deposed Nigerian Prince...
They originally offered her $750.00. Not even the price of the stolen laptop. And that's only after months of jerking her around.
This is just you re-telling her story. Damnit! I thought for sure you'd go down some elaborate, winding road of on-the-spot legal judgments. But alright. To cast doubt on how this person handled the situation:
Most reasonable people don't mess around with phone calls and friendly reminders for this l