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."

Comments

Somewhat justifiable

[KingSkippus]

She's not the loon that the submitter tries to make her out to be. There are a bunch of mitigating factors here, and I highly suggest anyone who complains about her actiosn dig a little deeper.

The thing that really ticks me off more than anything is that the lady paid $300 for one of those ripoff store warranties. This kind of money is normally pure profit for companies, since very few people actually collect on it. However, when someone does have a problem, I expect them to fulfill their obligations on it, not lie and jerk around the customer who bought it for THREE MONTHS. To fix a friggin' POWER BUTTON.

Also, please keep in mind that she admits that she does not expect to actually win $54 million. The reason she chose that amount is because, as stated, they've been lying to her and jerking her around for three months, and this was the only way she felt that it could get any attention.

Normally, I frown upon these cases myself for being a drain on the system and a waste of time. But seriously, read what she's gone through before deciding that she's out of line for trying to punish them for how stupid they've been. She may not be 100% right here, but I don't think that she's 100% wrong, and I have to admit that I hope she gets a pretty high payout to strike a punitive blow against the company for its practices.

Re:Somewhat justifiable

[erick99]

This is the same store whose Geek-Idiot who tried to sell my son desktop RAM for his notebook despite Jameson telling the guy repeatedly that he needed SODIMMs and, either way, the kit the guy was selling him was not going to physically fit. I went into the store later that same day and found the same Geek. I asked him if he had any idea what an SODIMM was and he admitted he didn't. At that point an older guy walked out from behind and looked over and said, "he's right you know, he needs SODIMMS." Now, this might have been okay had the Geek guy not been "certified" and had not really given Jameson a lot of grief for not taking his "expert" advice.

Re:Somewhat justifiable

[orclevegam]

I know a girl that got a job with the "Geek Squad". She's a computer illiterate, who thinks that AOL is the pinnacle of modern communications. I wouldn't trust most of the "Geek Squad" to replace a fuse, no way in hell are they getting their hands inside the guts of any of my systems.

Re:Somewhat justifiable

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather than reading TFA or TFB, I'm going to say that if she wanted to make a point, why not just ask for a million dollars. Oh and 35 cents. Asking for 54 million is just ridiculous and makes her look like someone who's just hoping to profit from a frivolous lawsuit, no matter WHAT her story is.

I agree that replacing her lost laptop is not going to cut it, even with a 500 dollar gift certificate. If all she had was that one laptop and all her personal emails, documents and photos were on it, then she is due a -reasonable- additional amount. If her story is true, then add to that a little more for the stress and anger she must have felt while dealing with people not willing to own up to what had happened and then finding out they had been jerked around for no reason. In addition, they should pay court fees. Then you have a reasonably fair settlement. If what she says is completely true, then I would have also commended her for taking the trouble of going to court and showing companies that they cannot just lose people's belongings and then say "oops." However, since she's sueing for 54 million, I'm not quite sure she's not secretly hoping to get a rather hefty settlement that will make her very glad that they lost that laptop...

Re:Somewhat justifiable

[Xzzy]

However, when someone does have a problem, I expect them to fulfill their obligations on it, not lie and jerk around the customer who bought it for THREE MONTHS.

Experiences with these in-store warranties can vary quite a bit. Obviously this lady had a bad one. When I was gifted an xbox several years ago, the person who bought it for me got a 2 year warranty on the thing. Up until then I'd always felt the warranty was a waste.. but a year later the xbox went tits up. Took it into the store and they refunded me no questions asked in about 20 minutes.

There had even been a price drop recently, and the store credit they awarded me reflected the original purchase price, not the current price. So I even even got a "free" gift card out of it that made up the difference.

In general these warranties are stupid (would you like to spend $20 to guarantee your $15 keyboard??) but in the situation of gadgets that have no significant personal attachment (video game console, no. laptop with lots of personal data, yes) I think it's worth considering.

Re:Somewhat justifiable

[rfunches]

I guess this isn't a one-time problem with "losing" a laptop. A family member purchased a laptop at CompUSA (well before they folded) and got an extended warranty because every laptop purchased by the family has at least one hardware failure outside of the manufacturer's warranty. In this case the laptop was sent back on the extended warranty because the wireless card had died. Two weeks later, no laptop, and a call to the store yielded nothing. A week later, the store admitted they had no idea where the laptop was, even after calling the service center. It took another week and threats of a lawsuit for them to finally cough up the repaired laptop. You know it's bad when you have to threaten legal action. One of these days, someone will sue and gain class-action status...and the companies will "offer" an additional year or two on the warranty at no charge, and still hold equipment hostage.

FWIW, that card failed again. And again. It should've been declared a lemon by now. Worst $1200 I've ever seen spent on a computer.

Re:Somewhat justifiable

[RCanine]

All of this headache would have been avoided if she just checked her local flea market.

Re:Somewhat justifiable

[irenaeous]

If the only factor in the case was the theft of the laptop, you would be correct. However, there is more involved in this case. IANAL, but it apppears that Best Buy broke a number of laws -- sometype of Fraud for repeatedly lying about the theft of the laptop, more fraud by crediting her credit card and sending her a gift card on the pretense that she had agreed to that as a settlement, plus violating Washington, DC's security breach notification laws by not telling her about the potential data loss. It seems to me to make Best Buy criminally negligent and liable for more that simple damages for the loss of the laptop.

It seems to me that she has very legitimate concerns. She admits that the $54 million dollar claim is a publicity stunt of sorts. It appears to be working. I think that this ars technica article does a better job of describing the case.

Re:Somewhat justifiable

[Toonol]

You're completely neglecting the intentional and deliberate fraud that Best Buy perpetrated for months, breaking the law. Not to mention statutory requirements about lost consumer information, etc.

As I said in another comment, when they claim to not be responsible for lost data, that might be true in the case of destroyed data... hard drive wipe, whatever. No way does that absolve them of lost as in negligently misplaced or stolen data.

Pervasive and systemic fraud of this nature, which I'm sure Best Buy does engage in, does occasionally result in very high punitive fines. That was the nature of the oft-cited McDonalds hot-coffee incident. I believe there was a similar case against Sears Automotive. $300 fines do not always force companies to reform abusive policies.

I love business and capitalism. Free market for the win. But that doesn't mean companies should get away without penalties when they are caught doing obviously deceptive acts.

Re:Somewhat justifiable

[Xabraxas]

The thing that really ticks me off more than anything is that the lady paid $300 for one of those ripoff store warranties. This kind of money is normally pure profit for companies, since very few people actually collect on it. However, when someone does have a problem, I expect them to fulfill their obligations on it, not lie and jerk around the customer who bought it for THREE MONTHS. To fix a friggin' POWER BUTTON.

Three months is nothing. Manufacturers can be worse than this. They can hold your product until the warranty expires even if it broke down on you in the the first month. These things happen all the time. The service centers that repair these things are massive and they have thousands of products going in and out everyday. Things are bound to get lost once in a while. This woman doesn't have a shot in hell of winning. Most places don't have guaranteed turn around times and don't guarantee your data either. Exactly what kind of case could she possibley have? She claims the laptop was stolen and that a false ticket was made for it but I don't see anything to back that up. Best Buy may have treated her badly but I don't think they did anything that broke the law or contract they had. Personally I wouldn't want to believe that there are people with less than stellar character working in one of these places, handling my data but I'm also not naive. If you're worried about identity theft then secure your data. Trusting anyone with your private data is just stupid. As for compensation they were more than fair. They paid for the laptop +$500. They even offered her more money than that at one point.

Re:Somewhat justifiable

[Lost Engineer]

Indeed, I was just thinking that if I gave them my new liquid cooled box someone might end up dead and I'd be liable (the coolant is anti-freeze).

Re:Somewhat justifiable

[wgoodman]

Back when I still shopped (and quite liked) Best Buy, I purchased a car stereo there on an open box special. Since it was an open box, I decided to get the extra warranty on it. A year or so down the line, the stereo started to overhead and actually started to shred a few cds (I'd put a newly burnt CDR into the stereo, it wouldn't play the disc and upon ejecting it a lot of the reflective coating was scraped off. This occurred with several brands of CDR so it wasn't just cheap media) When I took the stereo in, I was told it would take ~a month to fix, I figured that was acceptable since according to the fine print if they couldn't fix it I'd get a new stereo so it was win/win.

A month later, I received the stereo back, put it in my car and headed home. On the way it overheated and shut down. I returned the stereo, told them that it was still broken and asked about a replacement under the warranty. I was told that they had to attempt to repair it three times before they could give a replacement, a bit irritated, I gave the stereo back for the second time, and a month later, a third.

Eventually, they had tried three times to fix the stereo and I was therefor entitled to "a replacement of comparable performance." They then told me that they would credit me the original purchase price towards a new stereo, despite stereos in that price range being significantly lower in "performance". Eventually I decided to just get a cheapo stereo and keep the rest of the store credit for a future purchase (which I was told I could do) After checking out with the POS stereo, They changed their minds and said that they weren't required to give me the difference as store credit. Since I had already gotten a replacement stereo, why should they then pay me to get one as well. When I asked to return the POS stereo and get something that would at least use most of the replacement amount they said that i had already received the replacement, that it was non returnable, and had security escort me out of the building.

I fully believe anything she says about the crap Best Buy put her through while trying to get a repair.

Re:Somewhat justifiable

[Vectronic]

Yeah... but is she cute?... whoops, I mean... did her job envolved taking apart computers? just because you know someone who got hired as a Secretary, or a Proof-Reader of E-Mails or something doesnt mean the entire organization is faulty...

Re:Somewhat justifiable

[Eivind]

It's loony.

I consider it beyond question that they provide her with a new laptop (or equivalent amounts of cash).

They should also compensate her for not keeping their promises, being without a laptop for weeks or months has an inconvenience-cost. $500 may be low for this, but reasonably it's a few thousand max.

Third, it *may* be reasonable for them to compensate her for her time dealing with them, -SHE- estimates 200 hours, if she normally nets $40/hour that works out to $8000. (assuming you accept her estimate)

Fourth, if they where grossly neglient it may be apropriate to treble damages punitively.

But add this up and you get ($8000 + a-few-thousand + cost-of-laptop) * 3 = in the ballpark of $45.000

This is a -VERY- high amount to pay for a stolen laptop, but not insane to claim. (if you'd -get- it is a different question)

Multiplying this amount by 1000, for a total of 3000 times actual damages is however straigth-out batshit crazy.

I'm suggesting that $50K in damages for -ONE- stolen laptop badly handled would be enough to get the attention of most stores...

Re:Somewhat justifiable

[plague3106]

I have to agree; "losing" someone's thousand dollar item should not be an option period. I also doubt they lost it at all, one of their employees probably stole it. BB is well known for seemingly higher than average employee theft.

Being a national store, $54 million should be enough to get them to rethink how they select who will be hired.

Re:Somewhat justifiable

[orclevegam]

No, and Yes. Pretty much all the members of "Geek Squad" are supposed to be computer techs, it's their job to repair the systems customers bring to them. From what I've seen on the couple occasions I've seen them working (once when buying a new laptop, for some reason they insist on powering it on in the store and running it through a check list, and a couple other times working on other peoples systems while I was waiting at customer service) they have a set of standard diagnostic tools that are more or less automated and spit out a message of what it thinks the problems with the system are. How accurate the tools are I can't say, although I'd bet they aren't going to catch anything your average slashdot reader would miss. I suspect it's these tools that make BestBuy think they can get away with hiring untrained people to work as techs, going on the assumption that all they need to do is click the buttons to run the software and it'll do the tech work ignoring the fact that even after that they still need to do any actual hardware repairs if needed. Of course, for all I know anything more complicated than installing new RAM gets sent off to some central workshop where they keep the real techs.

Re:Somewhat justifiable

[jcr]

She's not the loon that the submitter tries to make her out to be.

So, she's demanding fifty-four million bucks because she's so calm and collected?

Sorry, this is asinine. The purpose of tort litigation is supposed to be to make someone whole after a loss due to someone's negligence or malfeasance, not to be a lottery where you file to get rich if you get lucky on jury selection. This woman should have the case dismissed, and she and her attorney should be sanctioned for filing it.

-jcr

If a single .MP3 is worth...

[CyberLord Seven]

...then I have no problem with her claim.

What the summary didn't include

[drcagn]

Was that what Best Buy did was illegal. From ars technica:

"Campbell's tax returns were on her laptop, and Best Buy apparently violated Washington, DC's security breach notification laws by not telling her about the potential data loss. And the potential for data theft as a result of missing equipment is no laughing matter: the state of Ohio, TSA, IRS, US Department of Transportation, and the Veterans Administration have all lost equipment (often laptops) that have forced them to alert millions of citizens to watch out for identity theft. Campbell says that she still hasn't heard from Best Buy on that particular issue, and has been forced to incur extra costs to monitor all of her accounts for suspicious activity."

On top of that, the victim also notes that she herself thinks 54 mil is too much, but thinks it is necessary to get the media attention to make Best Buy do the right thing.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080212-victim-54-million-best-buy-lawsuit-stupid-but-necessary.html

Re:What the summary didn't include

[KublaiKhan]

Pretty par for the course for Best Buy, from what I understand.

It occurs to me that a business that was licensed and bonded, and insured, that performed the same kind of base maintenance activities that the so-called "geek squad" charges an arm and a leg for, would be capable of stealing a significant portion of the market niche from the 'geek squad' simply by nature of having a tangible guarantee that you'd get your system back intact.

Re:What the summary didn't include

[CSMatt]

Nah. She's just sore because some idiot thought that she was the CEO of Campbell's Soup and sued her because he burned his tongue on his chicken noodles.

Re:What the summary didn't include

[provigilman]

Campbell's tax returns were on her laptop, and Best Buy apparently violated Washington, DC's security breach notification laws by not telling her about the POTENTIAL data loss

You're missing the point. When the other entities mentioned lost those laptops, do you think they knew their contents? Probably not. The point is that the consumer needs to be notified immediately in case there is sensitive information on there...not lied to for months on end while some script kiddie with a part time job at Best Buy is POTENTIALLY using her SSN.

It's precisely because Best Buy didn't know what was on her computer that they're required to notify her about it.

Re:What the summary didn't include

[whoever57]

Best Buy fucking lost this lady's personal machine, and they are not responsible that way for whatever personal data (and illegal porn) she might have had one it.

Had Best Buy notified her immediately about the loss, I could agree with you, but instead, they lied about it -- to the extent of an employee creating a fabricated entry in their systems. It's the delay and lying that makes them responsible IMHO.

Re:What the summary didn't include

[SlashdotOgre]

On top of that, the victim also notes that she herself thinks 54 mil is too much, but thinks it is necessary to get the media attention to make Best Buy do the right thing.

She seems to want a minimum of $100,000 according to her blog http://www.bestbuybadbuyboycott.blogspot.com/ which I feel is a bit much even for what she claims to have gone through. From her blog:

3) Full compensation ($25,000, per my letter to Mr. Feivor) for my direct expenses and time related to restoring my property and resolving this issue. 4) Treble and other damages in the amount of $75,000, for the completely unnecessary 6- month ordeal Best Buy has put me through.

Yeah, what happened sucks, but I'm of the opinion what she's asking for is still a bit unreasonable. I'm by no means an apologist for Best Buy, in fact I really dislike them, but I think 54 mil is completely ludicrous and $100,000 is a bit greedy.

Re:What the summary didn't include

[jedidiah]

They sell tax prep software.

It's very foreseeable.

Re:What the summary didn't include

[Andy_R]

It's going to take a considerable blow to the corporate bank balance before top management at Best Buy will stop treating the loss as 'yeah we lose some cash to mad women now and then' and actually spend time and effort on making sure this never ever happens again.

While $100,000 is more than enough to *give to her*, I'm not sure it's anywhere near enough to be *taken from them*.

Re:What the summary didn't include

[Darinbob]

How about $10,000, with $1,000,000 to a charity of her choice, firing the people responsible, plus a public apology and admission of guilt? Then she wouldn't be "greedy". Is it the amount that is making people upset, or that she may get some of it?

How does her possible motivation to get a little money excuse the reprehensible cover-their-asses actions of Best Buy?

Re:What the summary didn't include

[Volante3192]

Yeah, $100,000 is pocket change to Best Buy. The thing is, what's to stop Best Buy from changing their policies after something like this? Do the equation.

Number of lost laptops a year = A
Cost of a lawsuit over a lost lawsuit = B

Cost of implimenting policies to track customer hardware = X

If A * B < X, why bother changing policy?

This is the same reason the return on the McDonald's coffee case was so high. Simply telling a company to change isn't enough. Gotta hit them where it hurts: the threat of repeat, expensive lawsuits.

Re:What the summary didn't include

[dubbreak]

but I think 54 mil is completely ludicrous and $100,000 is a bit greedy.

Punitive damages really don't have much to do with greed on the part of the plaintiff , but rather punishment on the defense side. If the judge thinks Best Buy was negligent and should be punished, then the amount has to be significant enough for them to "hurt" and want to avoid it in the future.

Best Buy is a big company. My guess is it'd take more than a million dollars to make them flinch.

Re:What the summary didn't include

[The Evil Couch]

On top of that, the victim also notes that she herself thinks 54 mil is too much, but thinks it is necessary to get the media attention to make Best Buy do the right thing.

I'm no lawyer, but publicly admitting that you think that your own case is bogus sounds like a horrible, horrible thing to do. Especially when you admit it in communications to the legal counsel of the defendant, who has filed to dismiss the case.

Re:What the summary didn't include

[Volante3192]

You have a very high regard for this 'market' you speak of... The market goes there because there's fuck all else. Circuit City? Closing stores. CompUSA? Gone. Fry's? Rare and worse than Best Buy even.

Re:What the summary didn't include

[TapeCutter]

"and has been forced to incur extra costs to monitor all of her accounts for suspicious activity"

How dumb do you have to be to 'monitor' your accounts instead of simply notfiying your bank? Will her bank be next in line for not reading slashdot to find out she needed new account numbers?

Re:What the summary didn't include

[dbIII]

Call me paranoid if you wish but I never sent a laptop in for repair without removing the hard disk. The things are very easy to remove and it is always possible the user will want some file from it while the machine is offsite in addition to the chance of losing the thing.

Re:What the summary didn't include

[Artifakt]

As i understand it, her claim is that the entry was made after the first lawsuit (in small claims) was filed. You say irresponsible, I say it's at least one of: tampering with evidence, court fraud, or perjury. (Assuming her claim to know the date of the data entry can be fully proven, of course).

Re:What the summary didn't include

[Joe The Dragon]

CompUSA is now http://www.tigerdirect.com/

Re:What the summary didn't include

[AJWM]

Microcenter is pretty good in my experience -- the prices are often better than any other brick'n'mortar, I've had no hassle returning stuff, and returned stuff that they do re-sell is clearly marked as such and discounted.

That said, I'm sure somebody will pipe up with a bad experience they've had. No place is perfect, but some are definitely worse than others. (They also don't have a lot of stores, but they are occasionally opening new ones, more than can be said for some of the others.)

Re:What the summary didn't include

[phillymjs]

The problem with Micro Center is they've only got something like 20 stores in the entire country.

I do prefer them when I need something faster than next day, though. There was a CompUSA 20 minutes away from me, but I would still drive for an hour to go to Micro Center if I needed a part the same day.

I pretty much only shop at Best Buy when I get a gift card from someone or I'm spending other people's money.

~Philly

Re:What the summary didn't include

[raehl]

Now *THAT* would be bad.

Read what she's gone through?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Correction: read what she says she has gone through.

Blogging is a creative art.

Re:Read what she's gone through?

[Robert Y. Frost]

Blogging is a creative art.

And logging is an excretive fart.

Re:Read what she's gone through?

[Anonymous Coward]

And a fart is the cry of an imprisoned turd.

Re:Read what she's gone through?

[Malevolent Tester]

I know why the caged turd sings.

Re:Read what she's gone through?

[Kjella]

While true, I'm inclined to believe pretty much anything when a big corporation actually has made some sort of mistake. You'd be amazed how extremely few can afford to say "we haven't got a clue where your machine is, but we're trying to locate it". Most likely they think it's misregistered, misplaced or misshipped somewhere and make up some phoney answer that a lot of the time will work out. By the time it's clear something's wrong, it's pass the blame time where you try to avoid being either the scapegoat or the one to tell the customer. With luck it'll go to another support rep or clerk in the store, right? Same with those cold attempts at compensation, noone wants to take responsibility and make any sort of personal interest, it's left to a bean counter that hands you a check. It's like when you get assigned something for opening your mouth, say as little as possible and hope to pass the buck.

Re:Read what she's gone through?

[Bryansix]

Everybody in this thread is on the wrong website. You wanted Splashdot: News for Turds, Stuff that Splatters.

Re:Read what she's gone through?

[Cryolithic]

Wow. Just wow. An internets for you fine sir! If you weren't 5 funny already, I'd have modded you funny.

Re:Read what she's gone through?

[hoojus]

I must say I laughed so hard I think I could write an article on that website about what happened. Thankyou for the most entertaining /. comment I have ever read.

Re:Read what she's gone through?

[flappinbooger]

I read (most of) her blog. It is very informative regarding the grounds for her case. It's mostly letters and correspondence, not very much "creative" unless it's all fake. I didn't notice on there exactly what she does for a living, she isn't a lawyer, but regardless BBuy picked the wrong person to screw over. (well, if they screw over everyone, then.....)

BBuy is great for small things like blank CD's or DVD's or USB sticks or whatever. I'm VERY hesitant to spend over $100 there or get something large like a computer or a TV. It's an average source for disposable or consumable tech. I'd be more inclined to buy a TV or computer from Wal-Mart than BBuy. I'd probably get the same or better price, and have an easier time returning it or whatever if I needed to.

Re:Read what she's gone through?

[RealGrouchy]

And logging is an excretive fart. Only if your base system is "number two".

- RG>

Re:Read what she's gone through?

[gbobeck]

How appropriate... www.splashdot.com is a marketing company!

Re:Read what she's gone through?

[randyest]

BBuy is great for small things like blank CD's or DVD's or USB sticks or whatever.

What? Next you'll tell me BBuy has good deals on cables. Blanks and memory sticks are some of the highest profit margin items (next to cables) at those stores. If you can't wait for a shipment from an online store and don't have a microcenter, frys, or you-do-it type store locally then I guess you have no choice, but I wouldn't call that "great."

Similar Situation

[Zaphod The 42nd]

A friend of mine had a similar situation with Best Buy. He bought a computer from them, with warranty, and something (I can't recall what) went wrong, so he brought it in. He waited some two months and it never came back, with the geek squad continually telling him "this weekend we'll have it!" and each time he drove down there they'd go "nope, not yet, try next weekend." Finally, I went with him (knowing a thing or two about retail) and pulled aside the manager, and made it clear to him that we were extremely unhappy, and explaining that this simple maintainance had taken over two months. Finally, after hearing at least 10 different stories and being asked to call 5 different numbers for other people who were supposed to know where it was, we finally found out that it had been lost into the void. One would then think the problem would be resolved; but no! Apparently Best Buy and whoever shipped the laptop off to be fixed were arguing over who's fault it was and who should buy my friend a new laptop. Thats why when my stuff breaks, I fix it. Then I know where it is and how long it'll take, exactly.

Re:Similar Situation

[RingDev]

I've worked in a few different tech retail stores. And at each of them at least 1 person (usually middle management) is busted for walking off with repair units, RTVs, or stuff right off the truck.

Heck, the first CompUSA I worked at in high school, the front end manager was busted for skimming the drawers. The cage manager got busted with his van at the loading doc moving inventory out. The tech bench manager skipped town with thousands of dollars worth of memory and processors. The General Manager got busted on tax evasion. All within a year and a half time span.

I had a friend pick up a job there a year later while I was in the military, they had all new management, with new vices. Instead of ripping off the store/customers, the wound up with a bunch of small time pot dealers in supervisor/middle management positions. Not like they were doing business in the store, but their smoke breaks were a taken in back by the loading doc. On the bright side though, they got great customer reviews for their friendliness and chipper attitude.

-Rick

Re:Similar Situation

[corsec67]

Wow, compared to that kind of mess, ordering stuff from Newegg is crazy fast. Sure, it takes 3 days to arrive, but that is much less than "next weekend", even if it is only 1 week away.

Re:Similar Situation

[Toonol]

Maybe somebody can tell me if this was a scam or not?

My son (age 10) went to Circuit City, alone, to buy a computer game for $10. Paid his $10, got the game, he was happy.

But when I looked over his receipt, I noticed the transaction was for a $100 payment, with $90 change. I questioned my son, who wasn't sure exactly what happened, just that the clerk made some sort of mistake, but only actually charged my son $10, no change back.

I suspect that the clerk pocketed $90, figuring he had a kid who wouldn't notice shenanigans. Maybe it was a legitimate mistake, punching in an extra zero, but in that case the transaction should have been voided and redone. I went to the store the next day and told the manager, but he couldn't have cared less.

Re:Similar Situation

[Firethorn]

Wouldn't work with a cash transaction.

The fact that the kid gave him $10 and not the $100 noted on the sales receipt would not change what the drawer is supposed to total at the end of his shift.

X+10 = X + 100 -90.

Re:Similar Situation

[lazarusdishwasher]

Wouldn't work with a cash transaction.

The fact that the kid gave him $10 and not the $100 noted on the sales receipt would not change what the drawer is supposed to total at the end of his shift.

X+10 = X + 100 -90.

Your math is correct, and assuming the totals matched at the end of the day it is just a simple mistake.

The only flaw I can see with you reasoning is if bills over a certain amount are stored in a different location. The Wendy's I go to for lunch regularly appears to drop $20 bills into a drop safe below the counter instead of in the drawer. I have also seen gas stations do something similar. If the store policy was to put $100 bills in a separate place than the drawer the drawer total would be correct if it was $90 short, because the $90 that is short combined with the $10 payment would be offset by the $100 bill in the safe.

I have little experience in this area so, would it be possible that the drawer and the safe are not counted together or that the safe is shared amongst several employees meaning any employee that received a $100 bill could be guilty.

Re:Yawn

[Kierthos]

Because it's a slow news day? Because the magic faeries said to post it?

Why does anything get posted? Because the editors think it's worthy of getting posted, that's why.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:identity theft protection?

[provigilman]

Actually, one of the contentions of her suit is that Best Buy violated a Washington law that they have to report losing sensitive data to the consumer or something like that. Basically, they should have informed her the moment they realized the laptop was gone so that she could proper steps to protect herself from identify theft.

Not only did they fail to do that, they repeatedly lied to her and made up stories about where it was so that only months later did she actually realize that her data was at risk.

I have a full proof data protection scheme....

[iknownuttin]

I disguise all of my important data as kiddie porn. They'll never think of looking there!

Re:identity theft protection?

[jtroutman]

More to the point, when you leave your laptop or PC with Best Buy, you have to sign a statement that they are not responsible for your data. This is in case of the loss of a hard drive, or if they have to replace the entire system. If you haven't already backed your data up, they can do so for you (in most cases), but they're not responsible for it.

Re:identity theft protection?

[amccaf1]

If she had sensitive data on there, she should have pulled the HD first. Sux to be her.

But you can't expect an average computer user to be pulling apart pieces of hardware before having repairs done; it simply isn't feasible. Besides, if she did pull the HD, Best Buy would probably turn around and claim she violated the terms of her warranty and that they won't fix it.

(Alternatively, the computer "expert" behind the counter will claim (after two months) to have found the real source of the problem: the HD is missing.)

Re:Cunt?

[arizwebfoot]

You mean she belongs to the Clowns Unionist National Team?

Re:Mod Parent Up

[provigilman]

True, not to mention the fact that she seems fully aware that $54 Million is an unreaslistic sum that she'll never get. Suing for that amount did get one thing though...media attention. Now Best Buy's practices are being aired out in front of everyone.

Even if she eventually settles for legal fees + 5-10K the damage to Best Buy's rep has already been done.

Re:identity theft protection?

[cdrudge]

There is a difference between losing data because a piece of hardware is fried and/or has to be replaced, and losing the data in a usable form because they lost the laptop.

Re:identity theft protection?

[provigilman]

Yes, but having to wipe the data as part of the repair, or having to replace it, is very different than losing it. At least if it's wipes or the drive was junked you know that it's not in someone's basement while they're booking trips to Maui with your credit card info.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[arivanov]

... the damage to Best Buy's rep has already been done.

You mean, "free advertisement for Best Buy has already been done"

With the current reputation of Best Buy or PC World it is not like you can damage it any further. That will require using irrational numbers and complex math to compute it.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[orclevegam]

And if she had sued them for $10k would it have been posted on slashdot? Somehow I doubt it. The reason she put such a big sum up was specifically so the media would pay attention to the case and not let BestBuy slink away. Even if she settles out of court at this point she's accomplished her goal.

I ran into difficulties with Best Buy ...

[JoeGee]

When I finally filed a complaint with my state's attorney general the runaround ended (within a week) and I got a very prompt replacement, a written apology, and a substantial gift card. I'm upset though that my six months of $2500 television hell were only worth $200 compared to this lady's two months of $1100 PC hell being worth a $500 gift card.

Maybe I should sue Best Buy for their disciminatory ass-kissing policy ...

Incompetence ok, Lying Bad, Backups Priceless

[billstewart]

I don't fault the store for losing her laptop; it's incompetent and they should pay for it, but it happens on occasion, as do things like laptops falling off the workbench and smashing. You expect that to happen to every x% of the customers, and try to keep x small.

The local store lying about how they know where it is and they'll get it back to her Real Soon, on the other hand, and not taking responsibility for compensating her for losing it, is much closer to malice than incompetence, and they should get spanked for it. The traditional legal spanking is "triple damages".

On the other hand, she really _should_ have had backups of her data - not only do stores occasionally lose computers, but so do shipping companies, and computers break, disks crash, controllers scribble, etc., and external USB drives are cheap. The obvious first question from the store when she brought it in, after generally finding out what's wrong, should have been "Do you have backups? Let's burn you some DVDs now!"

Re:Incompetence ok, Lying Bad, Backups Priceless

[Volante3192]

Why are backups a topic in this case? It's not a matter of her losing the information, it's a matter of someone else GETTING her information.

If a bank loses a laptop with customer data on it, does the bank just go, "Don't worry, we've got backups of the data. Your information isn't lost."? Just because it's one person shouldn't make notification any different.

Re:Incompetence ok, Lying Bad, Backups Priceless

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea how hard it is to find something once it's been sent to Geek Squad City. It's hell. You call them up, try to get someone on the phone, give them the case number, they check the system (same one you are looking at that says "in repair" and they tell you the same thing you already know. Then they say they will look around and call you back. They don't call you back, you call them, the person you talked to is not there now, you start over.

All you can get is a rough estimate of it's location and status. It gets much worse if the item has to be sent back to the manufacturer (case is common with cameras). Oh boy, does that take forever to get turned around and get frustrating to no end to try to locate. I highly doubt her laptop was stolen, that records were falsified, or that she was lied to. The laptop fell through the cracks, as sometimes happens. The CIA's tried to find where it was but couldn't. Sometimes these work orders get closed either by mistake or by a manager's attempt to make the numbers look better (the longer an item is in the system, the worse the turnaround is). I have had to re-open tickets so many times when I worked at Best Buy that it made my head spin. However, several times, re-opening the ticket actually gave me the information I needed to find the item and get it taken care of. I never lied to my customers, I told them that we didn't know exactly where it was because that information is not available to us, I would give my best guess that it's either at GSC or the manufacturer being processed. Sometimes I could find out that it was being shipped, and could tell them that it should be here within a day or so. I think the lady is over-reacting honestly. Now, mod me over-rated and flame-on!

Re:Incompetence ok, Lying Bad, Backups Priceless

[joggle]

If she couldn't turn the computer on she may not have been able to make backups before hand (I didn't RTFA though). Which is why 'Time Machine' of the Macs is nice since most people wouldn't make regular backups otherwise.

Re:Incompetence ok, Lying Bad, Backups Priceless

[Zymergy]

I feel sorry for the lady in this situation. It is too bad she did not have a backup.
Still, it will be difficult for her to "prove" that she had the formula for Coke, the Cure for Cancer, or where she put her car keys, etc.. on her laptop's HDD. I wish her luck.

OTOH, I maintain two separate physical hard drives for my PC laptop.
I simply removed the original OEM HDD as soon as I unboxed my laptop and I used (Drive Copy 4.0 boot floppies) to create an EXACT clone of the original HDD (onto a larger and faster 7,200RPM Seagate HDD with 5-year warranty and shock sensors) the very same day I got my new laptop.
Guess which drive I install before I send my laptop away for *any* type of service (or if it is for be loaned, etc..) It also comes in handy when it comes time to sell the laptop onto the used market.. Nothing to unformat or undelete.. no privacy woes. (I backup my data too, just saying..)

Re:Incompetence ok, Lying Bad, Backups Priceless

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think service warranties and what you have to sign to get repairs done usually include a clause that says that the repairer is not responsible for the data that's on the computer. So they could just give her a new computer and that would be it.

This dithering on where the computer is, is simply inexcusable.

Re:Incompetence ok, Lying Bad, Backups Priceless

[billstewart]

Sure, it's possible that identity theft could happen, and if you want to file a $54M lawsuit to get their attention, that's an obvious thing to bring up. But in practice it's unlikely, while any data on the machine that she didn't back up is lost.

The most likely thing that happened to the machine is that somebody mislabeled it or mistyped some database record tracking it, so it'll sit around their warehouse not getting repaired for a couple of years until the once-expensive laptop is worth $25 on eBay, or maybe it'll get noticed earlier than that but they still won't figure out how to return it to her. Another reasonably likely possibility is that it got broken during handling and somebody didn't want to admit it. And yeah, it's possible that an employee stole it.

But if it was actually stolen, while some thieves may be skilled enough to abuse the information, it's too easy to get caught that way; better to either steal the information off the machines you're not stealing, or to wipe the information off the disk on hardware you do steal so that it doesn't get traced back to the owner.

Re:Incompetence ok, Lying Bad, Backups Priceless

[TequilaMonster]

Oh for heavens sake.

I'm sick of reading this, and sorry Zymergy for picking on your post to reply to.

Please, all of you posting, "oh, she should have had a backup, please stop the QQ", follow along slowly.

IT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH HAVING OR NOT HAVING A BACKUP!

Zip, Nada, Zilch.

She's not complaining that she lost the data, she's complaining that Best Buy allowed her data, including personal information that leaves her vulnerable to identity theft, to be stolen, and then LYING about it for months!

I've read TFA, and nowhere that I can find does she complain "Oh, they lost my data and I don't have a backup". For all we know, she /does/ have a backup!

Head -> Desk

Re:Incompetence ok, Lying Bad, Backups Priceless

[Killjoy_NL]

While you are correct, the making of backups and often also explaining the concept can't be mentioned enough.
I say this, not to complain about the woman, I just want more people to make backups of their stuff (it would save me a lot of work and it would save them a lot of worries)

FTA:

[BeeBeard]

[quote]Campbell said that she doesn't really expect to get $54 million, but chose the amount to attract attention to her case.[/quote]

When I saw the total in the summary, I immediately thought "What's the big deal, she's trying to get punatives." Then read the article and saw that it wasn't even that. As usual, if you read just a few more paragraphs beyond what is quoted in Slashdot's article summary, the whole story is skewed much differently differently.

However, there is still room for debate on the issue of whether she was treated fairly. FTA, "Best Buy spokeswoman Nissa French said in an e-mail that Campbell "was offered and collected $1,110.35" as well as "a $500 gift card for her inconvenience." The reasonable market value of the laptop that was stolen (in all likelihood by a Best Buy employee!) + $500 in merchandise? That seems like a reasonable way to try to dispose of any claim--especially since Ms. Campbell already accepted these items.

The "identity theft" argument is incredibly specious. Unless she has done something foolish that would contribute to the insecurity of the machine (credit card numbers as a text file on the laptop hard drive) or failed to backup any important data--itself a cardinal sin--then how is Raelyn Campbell's situation any different from anyone else's who has had a computer stolen from them? You know, except for the crazy, welcome-to-the-land-of-summary-judgment lawsuit that she's filed after accepting fair compensation for her loss?

Re:FTA:

[gfxguy]

The "identity theft" argument is incredibly specious. Unless she has done something foolish that would contribute to the insecurity of the machine (credit card numbers as a text file on the laptop hard drive) or failed to backup any important data--itself a cardinal sin--then how is Raelyn Campbell's situation any different from anyone else's who has had a computer stolen from them?

Password manager in your web browser... Firefox respectably doesn't save every password, but there are sites for which it has no problem that might lead to sensitive information. Moreover, there may be sites (stupid as they may be) that will accept a cookie instead of actually logging on.

Re:FTA:

[tdelaney]

One of the claims (not in the linked article) is that she did not accept the money - BB unilaterally credited her card, and sent her a $500 gift certificate which she donated to a non-profit. BB is spinning that she "accepted" the payment.

From her blog

Funds received to date total $1110.35, which were unilaterally transferred into my credit card account by Best Buy in late October -- without my knowledge or consent. The amount does not even cover the full cost of replacing the laptop itself, let alone a fraction of the value of the music, pictures, software, and other contents that were on the stolen computer, legal and court expenses, the cost of identity theft protection services that I am forced to bear for years to come, or compensation for the estimated 200 hours I have spent since May dealing with Best Buy and its agents, the replacement of my computer and its contents, and pursuing the lawsuit because of Best Buy's indifference towards my initial requests. Best Buy also sent a $500 gift card to me in mid-October (with no explanation and despite repeatedly communicating that I had no interest in a gift card that would force me to patronize their stores). I subsequently advised them that I would donate it to a non-profit organization unless they requested its return, and did so in December, after not receiving a response.

Re:FTA:

[langelgjm]

However, there is still room for debate on the issue of whether she was treated fairly. FTA, "Best Buy spokeswoman Nissa French said in an e-mail that Campbell "was offered and collected $1,110.35" as well as "a $500 gift card for her inconvenience." The reasonable market value of the laptop that was stolen (in all likelihood by a Best Buy employee!) + $500 in merchandise? That seems like a reasonable way to try to dispose of any claim--especially since Ms. Campbell already accepted these items.

Except that she didn't "accept" them. From her blog:

Funds received to date total $1110.35, which were unilaterally transferred into my credit card account by Best Buy in late October -- without my knowledge or consent.

As for the gift card:

Best Buy also sent a $500 gift card to me in mid-October (with no explanation and despite repeatedly communicating that I had no interest in a gift card that would force me to patronize their stores). I subsequently advised them that I would donate it to a non-profit organization unless they requested its return, and did so in December, after not receiving a response.

Furthermore, Best Buy should have offered more than the "market value" of the laptop - remember, this transfer was made in October, while the laptop had been missing since May

Re:FTA:

[Volante3192]

how is Raelyn Campbell's situation any different from anyone else's who has had a computer stolen from them?

A) It was left at a trusted* location, hence where it was was assumed to be known.
B) It wasn't stolen, persay. Officially, it was lost.
C) It took three months for Best Buy to fess up to losing it.

Normally when your laptop gets stolen from you, you have a pretty good idea when that happens, I would wager within 24 hours you'd know it's missing. You don't sit down at a meeting one day and realize, "Holy crap, my laptop was stolen three months ago! I better start doing something about that!"

*Let's not quibble over the definition of trusted. It was believed to be a trusted location at least, and that's what matters.

Re:FTA:

[BeeBeard]

Fair enough, but forgive me for not being so easily swayed by her attempts to refuse their offer in preparation for litigation. How kind of her.

Also, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to take plaintiff's admission that she is attempting to use the court system as a forum rather than as a way of becoming whole, except to point out that the court should sanction her, her counsel, and the firm that counsel belongs to for filing a frivolous lawsuit and falsely representing that there is a cause of action before the court.

I realize that there was a lot of inconvenient back-and-forth between the plaintiff and defendant, and so what? When you file suit, you raise the stakes while expressly promising that you are not yanking everyone's chain. When you publicly tell people that you deliberately broke that promise and are using the suit to simply advertise your cause, then you deserve to be punished under Rule 11 (or similar State rule) by the same court you thought you would "put one over on." The court system is not a playground or a forum for plaintiff to use to "get the word out" on Best Buy.

That's what vainglorious blogs are for.

Re:FTA:

[Lost Engineer]

Sounds like they were trying very hard to make it look like she was compensated.

One time I called sprint about my $100 refund they owed me. I'm offered 100 free minutes for my troubles. Later I call about the refund, and they claim the 100 free minutes were compensation instead of the refund. Unbelievable. This is probably the most morally bankrupt practice I've ever seen out of a large corporation.

Re:FTA:

[Tsiangkun]

Corporations frequently use the legal system to ensure they have the only voice that can be heard.
Many people have been silenced with the threat of legal actions they can not afford to fight, regardless of how right they may be according to the letter of the law.

Re:FTA:

[mrchaotica]

Moreover, there may be sites (stupid as they may be) that will accept a cookie instead of actually logging on.

Like Slashdot!

Re:FTA:

[anup_at_mac]

B) It wasn't stolen, persay . Officially, it was lost.
It's "per se" (two words) and not persay.

Re:FTA:

[blueg3]

"Fair enough, but forgive me for not being so easily swayed by her attempts to refuse their offer in preparation for litigation. How kind of her."

If she finds the compensation they offer unacceptable, she has to refuse the offer. For all we know, Best Buy may be trying to set up the claim that she has already accepted compensation to prevent litigation.

She did, of course, present them with demands for compensation she felt reasonable before bringing a lawsuit.

Re:FTA:

[gfxguy]

But it's hard to steal your identity with slashdot... I was thinking more along the lines of an online shopping place that remembers your credit card numbers, giving someone the ability to order a bunch of stuff even if they can't actually steal your identity.

Of course, banks, investment, and credit card companies would be horrible.

Re:You pretty much deserve all you get.

[CSMatt]

You can't claim stupidity if the person didn't even know that such a thing existed, and had almost no way of finding out how without going to some tech website that he or she hasn't heard of either. I can count on one hand the amount of people I personally know who have even heard of TrueCrypt.

Re:identity theft protection?

[nurb432]

Ignorance of the law/contract isn't an excuse.

well duh he WAS certified

[davidwr]

See definition 3 from the Random House entry, the one at the top.

Re:You pretty much deserve all you get.

[Grygus]

So crime is okay because victims should protect themselves? It is the duty of the weak and/or ignorant to bear aggression from those stronger or more informed? What a nice lawless society we should have! I don't know why I didn't see this before. Clint Eastwood's westerns taught us all we need to know about civilization.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[langelgjm]

I'm sorry but suing for an incredibly large amount of money just to make a point is a bit ridiculous and when you publicly admit that you're doing it mostly out of spite, it makes you look like an ass.

I don't think it's ridiculous at all. First of all, it's working - she is getting media attention. I doubt she could have hoped for the same attention if she wanted to settle this in a small claims court (she was willing to do so at one point, but Best Buy seems to have repeatedly ignored her). Secondly, it seems to be common practice to sue for an enormous amount of money, realizing that the court will rarely ever award that much. As for being an ass, it looks like Best Buy is the one you should really accuse - they're playing all sorts of legal paperwork games, contesting every move (read her response to Best Buy's lawyer's claim that none of the defendants were served).

Not any more unrealistic than the MPAA's figures

[JonTurner]

Yeah $54,000,000 sounds absurd. But did she have any original content on that computer? Photos, songs, stories, spreadsheets, etc.? If she created it, she owns the copyright.
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? After all, her damages are much WORSE than those claimed by the music industry -- her content has been permanently destroyed/lost, while the music industry still has their content and can continue to sell it.

(Frankly, I don't think either case deserves what they're asking. Reimburse market price or some small multiple of *actual market price* as a punitive measure -- $1100 for the laptop lady. $.99 per song for the music company.)

Re:identity theft protection?

[jtroutman]

The best outcome that can come of this is if someone, anyone out there figures out that when you give your laptop to someone else, make sure there isn't any private data on it. This is also important, as has been covered before, when you're traveling internationally.

Let's sell you a backup now

[davidwr]

"Do you have backups? Let's burn you some DVDs now!" At these types of stores it's usually like this:

The guys at [headquarters|vendor] like to erase hard drives. I'm sure you don't want anything to happen to your disk. For only $99.95 plus $49.95/DVD we can back your data up before we send your computer out for repair. Just sign here.

I made the $-figures up but I'm probably not far off.

Re:identity theft protection?

[hal9000(jr)]

Depends on the company. When I had a problem with my Lenovo T60 and had to send it in for warranty work, the guy on phone told me to pull the HD and remove any bios passwords before sending it in. Luckily the HD is easy to get to.

Managers tell you to lie

[Anonymous Coward]

I work part-time as a Geek Squad Agent within a Best Buy location (posting anonymously for obvious reasons). I have been told first-hand by more than one manager on more than one occasion to lie to a customer when it comes to damage and/or loss to their products that is the fault of Best Buy. On the numerous occasions I have protested this type of "customer service" I have been told that to admit anything is to open the company up to liability.

I roll my eyes at a lot of the complaints leveled at the company b/c I stand on the other side of the counter. However, this one is completely true and happens frequently on a wide-spread basis. I hope she wins this case and forces corporate to change a blatantly anti-customer policy.

Re:Managers tell you to lie

[MightyMartian]

Perhaps you should do your customers a failure, begin documenting this, and then turn it over to the authorities. I'm sure your state's AG's office would be interested, if you've got some proof.

Re:Managers tell you to lie

[NadaTech]

I used to work at Worst Buy and we were also told to tell the customer things that were not exactly true, like there were additional issues, backordered parts and such. The solution is to GO TO YOUR LOCAL MOM & POP computer store. You will get higher quality equipment, better waranties, better customer service, and in most cases, you will qualify for the Microsoft Buy Local Bonus Packs and get free stuff! Don't patronize the big box stores. They don't care about individual customers, only the bottom line: their wallets, NOT the customers!

Re:Managers tell you to lie

[MightyMartian]

Thanks for that one, Geek Squad Shill.

Re:Managers tell you to lie

[Anonymous Coward]

So says the "Anonymous Coward". Okay, I'll bite. I've worked for Best Buy for almost 6 years, as a Computer Tech, Double Agent, and Counter Intelligence Agent at a three different stores. I've gone through 10 service managers (of differing titles) and twice as many Sales and Operations/Customer Service managers in that time. I have seen computers damaged by in-store employees, incompetent techs at the Service Center/Geek Squad City, and numerous items shipped into the ether, never to return. The store management response has always been, "Deny, Deny, Deny" and then offer a refund/gift card. This behavior sucks and if I can lend any legitimacy to this woman's claims, which I have witnessed FIRST-HAND, then I will.

That said, I am currently employed and don't want to burn bridges with the many friends I have in the company. Hence, I am posting anonymously. So take it for what it's worth shithead.

Re:Managers tell you to lie

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I doubt that there's no liability in lying, but maybe there's less liability. It's probably time for a "Supersize Me" equivalent documentary on Best Buy, though hopefully better because I thought the premise and execution of "Supersize Me" was silly.

Re:Managers tell you to lie

[Scott Francis[Mecham]

do your customers a failure ..they'll berate you for it?

Re:Managers tell you to lie

[TheQuantumShift]

Or just stop preemptively installing the "geek squad software" on laptops. I recently had to drive 30 miles to a third store to get a sale laptop at the advertised price. The other two stores had already opened the boxes on all their remaining stock and done me the "service" (only $129.99, they'll just add that at the register... (actual quote)) Of installing some optimization crap. The saleskid could only tell me it "fixed" the registry. He quickly shut down and suddenly had other people to help when I told him I would wait while they re-imaged it. They refused to sell me the laptop without the extra charge. The guy at the third store did try to sneak the form for the "service" as part of the sale. When I actually read it and said I wouldn't need that, he apologized for having to offer it and for my troubles at the other stores and walked me and my unopened box to the register.

Re:Managers tell you to lie

[zen-theorist]

Perhaps you should do your customers a failure, begin documenting this, and then turn it over to the authorities. I'm sure your state's AG's office would be interested, if you've got some proof.

... or do them a success, and keep it to yourself.

Re:Managers tell you to lie

[karlandtanya]

I have been told that to admit anything is to open the company up to liability.

I think here we have the basis of the problem.

IANAL. I am, however, a paid consultant, and as such, I have a pretty good functional grasp of the concept of liability.

Liability is a catch-all for anything that can leave the company's ass hanging out.
An action on the part of the employee that "exposes the company to liability" would include things like making promises on behalf of the company, taking posession of the Customer's equipment, making technical recommendations to the Customer, modifying (upgrading, repairing) the Customer's property.

All of this is part of the normal course of business, and all these things involve liability for the Vendor.
In addition to the actual cost of doing the work, the Vendor expects some consideration for accepting the liablity.

The Vendor is absolutely right in trying to avoid liability without appropriate consideration.
If somebody asks me to work on their equipment, there will be some sort of contract and payment.
Part of that contract will specify just what happens if I break something, cause loss of production, expose an employee to a hazard, etc.

In this case where the Vendor has taken posession of the Customer's property, the Vendor is already liable.
If the vendor breaks it, loses it, whatever--the vendor is liable to some extent.
In my work, for example, the extent of liability is defined by Federal, State, and Local laws and regulations, the UCC, terms of the contract, and the SOPs in place at the plant where I'm working (listed in rough order of priority).

That's why it costs you so much to hire me to come to your shop and fix your machines.
In most cases, you can get one of your smarter electricians to do the job I do.
A lot of what you pay for is my promise that it'll be done right, and the assurance that if it's not done right, I'm on the hook--liable--for what I did.

This is exactly the situation for the case at hand.
Replacing a power button on a laptop does not require 300.00 (cost of the service contract) worth of effort. It doesn't require $84.00 above the actual cost of repair (per Best Buy, Macedonia, OH) either.
That money pays for Best Buy's liability.

At that point, it's too late to "avoid liability".
The Vendor has already accepted the liability, and taken the consideration (the service contract or the $84.00) for doing that.

What your being asked to do is called "fraud".

Re:Managers tell you to lie

[Arcady13]

There's no such thing as a 6gb iPod. Apple has never sold one in that size. And there has never been an iPod Classic available in 60gb; Apple hasn't sold a 60gb model in several years. The current models (of iPod Classic) come in 80gb and 160gb only. The iPod nano comes in 4gb or 8gb sizes. So you spent two hours looking for something that doesn't exist.

...and that's why *I* always...

[erroneus]

Good for you collective Slashdotters that happen to know better! I know better too! I run Linux on my Dell computer, but I kept the originally shipping hard drive in an anti-static bag in the event that support is actually needed on the hardware and they choose to run me through those ridiculous scripts. (Yes, I actually run Linux...)

Most people simply don't know better and they certainly don't know what they are signing when they sign various release documents. What they know is what they are being told and little else. Further, I have seen various cases where signed release documents filled with fine print left plenty of room for doubt in the minds of various parties including judges in cases such as these.

The plain and simple reality is that people expect certain things to happen, regardless of any release papers signed to the contrary. They buy warranties, they expect them to be honored and appropriate actions taken in a timely manner. Those simple expectations should be met and should be read in as part of the contract whether it is expressly written or not. This is the biggest reason why EULAs are too ridiculous for anyone to take seriously, because if they did, they'd never buy a license of any software at all. Many states have laws to protect against "abusive legalese" such as EULAs or anything similar.

Big companies such as Best Buy are infamous for being abusive to consumers. The more "monopoly" they become, the more flagrantly abusive they become. There are very few warranties I will actually buy: one is from Dell because regardless of how abused by some they may be, they always seem to honor them very very well and consumer trust is incredibly important in my opinion. But to buy a warranty from Best Buy? NEVER. Conn's? Not on your life. Anything I buy from those people I consider to be "disposable."

Sum Not Outrageous

[Anonymous Coward]

What usually gets over looked in these arguments is the reason for punitive damages.

It is not about compensating her loss. It is about forcing the company to change its ways. You award enough money to affect the company's bottom line, which punishes the stock holders, which puts the heat on management to stop the offending practice.

If there is not a change in practices, the clearly the award is not high enough.

So don't think of it as her getting 54 million for a laptop and aggravation, look at it as getting through to the company in the only language it understands...money.

Look at Ford and the Pinto episode. I don't think it was a high enough award. Ford should have been brought to its knees financially just to make it clear that the cost/benefit analysis of dead/burned people to lawsuit costs was waay off.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[Brian Gordon]

Ugh her blog made me facepalm hard. The Best Buy logo with "WORST" scrawled over it really puts the nail in the coffin.

Re:identity theft protection?

[MightyMartian]

Same here. When my Compaq bit the dust, the support guy told me explicitely to pull the hard drive, because it's HP's policy to wipe hard drives clean when they receive computers for repair. It took me about one minute with a Phillips screwdriver to pull out the drive. Went to work, plugged it into my desktop and burned all of my data to DVD-R.

The bonus for me was that when they sent the replacement computer, I now have a backup mini 80gb SATA drive in case the new laptop's hard drive bites the dust.

Re:identity theft protection?

[Phroggy]

Last i heard service companies ( unless they explicitly have a contract with you stating otherwise ) aren't liable for your data other the 'best effort', so i don't see how that applies.

If she had sensitive data on there, she should have pulled the HD first. Sux to be her. 1) They're not liable for destroying your data. For example, if you bring your laptop in for service and they reformat the hard drive, you can't sue them for losing the only copy you had of your wedding photos. This is completely different than losing track of your data and allowing it to fall into untrusted hands.

2) Removing the hard drive is exactly the kind of procedure that people are paying service centers like this to perform. Sure, pulling the hard drive out is an easy thing for you the Slashdotter, but the accountant has better things to do with his time than learning the difference between 3.5" SATA and 2.5" IDE. Just like preparing taxes is an easy thing for the accountant, but you might pay him to do yours because you have better things to do with your time than figuring out what percentage of your gas bill can be deducted as a business expense for your home office.

Honesty and responsibility

[fermion]

Even without any mitigating circumstances, awards such as these serve the purpose of encouraging honesty and responsibility. Even from the skewed summary, one thing that stands out was it took three months for best buy to take responsibility. Just think of how it might have turned out if Best Buy has taken this tact. After a week admit that the laptop might be lost. Offer to replace the laptop, along with a gift card, no strings attached. if the laptop is found, the customer gets that one as well.

Assuming that Best buy only loses 1 laptop per hour, that is less than 2 million dollars a year, probably mostly tax deductible. Such a policy may even provide a competitive advantage as it will clearly indicate that Best Buy is dedicated to customer service and will not jerk their customers around. We know that the opposite is true, but such a gimmick could change this.

In the end best buy will prefer to spend 2 millions dollars on lawyers rather than establish protocols to increase customer value.

How about fining the lawyer for excessive claims

[davidwr]

Fine the lawyer 1% of the difference between $54,000,000 and the part of final settlement that doesn't go to legal fees.

If they settle for $100,000, the lawyer's fine is $539,000.

Hmm, come to think about it, that would deter a lot of frivolous filings and showmanship: Fine the lawyer a small fraction of everything he asks for but doesn't get. For claims of "unspecified damages" set the amount at some ridiculously high number so the lawyer will be out over a million if he loses entirely.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[Brian Gordon]

Yeah I love how she throws in the cost of music and video on her lost computer into her justification for suing for so much. What did she buy enough to fill up an iPod? :)

Price quotes...

[tubapro12]

That's one laptop, one pair of pants, or in RIAA-land, that's 36 CD, cheap half empty CDs at that.

Re:Price quotes...

[Zatchmort]

Sure, but how many Libraries of Congress is it??

The last person to sign for it stole it...

[mikelieman]

Simple enough to figure out. That's why there's tracking numbers for UPS and Fedex.

54 million pair of pants

[watzinaneihm]

is worth exactly zero

Re:54 million pair of pants

[pembo13]

This makes a lot more sense than the pair of pants case. In this case, the laptop could have _a lot_ of personal data.

Re:54 million pair of pants

[Khyber]

She SPECIFICALLY copied that amount, recognizing how much media attention it got the judge.

Re:$54 Million

[jjohnson]

Any sum over $5,000 is excessive when viewed in terms of her costs. But do you think Best Buy would even notice a $5,000 judgement? How much of a judgement against them is required, do you think, for them to substantially change the corporate policy about deliberately lying to customers (amply documented in the rest of the thread)?

Re:Not any more unrealistic than the MPAA's figure

[fonik]

THIS.

Best Buy gets to benefit from the additional profits made by the RIAA for suing people for thousands of dollars per stolen copyrighted song. They want to reimburse exactly nothing per copyrighted file owned by their customer after stealing her laptop. They don't get to have it both ways.

Re:Not any more unrealistic than the MPAA's figure

[Brian Gordon]

Well, more than $1100; she did have to live without that computer for several months before she got offers of compensaiton. I'd call Best Buy's offer of $2000 with NDA reasonable, and $10 per song reasonable for the RIAA- there have to be punitive damages too

Punative

[nick_davison]

From what I understand, the amount has nothing to do with the value of the laptop...

It has everything to do with a refusal to acknowledge they'd lost it, making constant excuses for a long time, followed by a refusal to pay up promptly even what it was undeniable.

It was only after she threatened to sue for the large amount that they finally got around to paying the smaller amount. Until they were in danger, they weren't in any hurry to deal with it.

There's often minimal incentive to avoid repeating the mistake if all you ever have to pay is actual physical cost, ignoring value of lost data, and you can get away with postponing making that payment, requiring endless forms of validation, follow up calls where they sit on hold for hours, etc. until they give up.

The idea of punative damages is that it's accepted that a bare minimum effort doesn't come close to being adequate and a dramatically higher cost is required to spur them in to acting in the way they knew they should have in the first place.

If BestBuy had got on and acknowledge the loss, promptly paying up, they likely wouldn't be facing this. Instead, their responding only when threatened with large punative damages, demonstrated that that's exactly what's necessary to get them to truly fulfill their obligations.

Had she asked for millions the instant they lost it, she'd get laughed out of court. That they demonstrated a complete unwillingness to address the issue until they were faced with that kind of a threat is going to get noted in a court case.

She'll unlikely see the $50m+. She'll be lucky if she sees $5m that gets reduced to $500k on appeal. But the pain of facing that, getting lawyers involved and all the rest of it is going to make an impression on BB policy for the future far more than any number of angry letters will.

Can we get in on this?

[infonography]

Well, we as the whole of slashdot's community should join in this lawsuit.

Geeksquad gives Geeks (like us) a bad name.

Punitive damages

[tommyatomic]

The thing about the term "Punitive" is that it means to punish. Now if she were only sueing for $100,000 that wouldnt actually qualify as punishment for an international megacorperation like BestBuy. On a good week a single bestbuy store could easily bring in $100,000 and completely swallow the loss. So as punishments go thats akin to sentincing a three time convicted car thief to a week of comunity service. 54 million is alot closer to something that would actually punish them. Clearly she thought this out and from reading her timeline I feel that she gave them more than ample time to properly rectify the situation.

If you think it thru she started by being quite reasonable and not getting any response. Then the response she got was close to criminal. And now they are trying to make her the badguy. I hope BestBuy gets p0wn'd.

Re:identity theft protection?

[atari2600]

Totally off-topic but WA != District of Columbia. I was confused there for a second that she was from WA state.

because people are worthless, right?

[superwiz]

Frustrating someone for 3 months and promising them that they'll get their stuff back "any minute now" should cost what you take from that person -- their peace of mind for that time. Oh, and that judge didn't sue for the cost of the pants. He sued because the store provided lousy service and yet kept lying about it by keeping "satisfaction guaranteed" sign on the storefront. The material things in question are not the only part of the cost. Taking away from people the time of their lives is the biggest cost. And those who do it and then lie about it on such a massive scale (as the store in question) should pay for it. Lawsuits are supposed to compensate for the damages suffered -- not just the material things lost. To say that only the material things can cost money is to say that human beings and time of their lives is worthless.

Re:because people are worthless, right?

[stuntpope]

He sued because the store provided lousy service and yet kept lying about it by keeping "satisfaction guaranteed" sign on the storefront. To be precise, he sued for a ridiculous amount because he claimed DC consumer law stated "Satisfaction guaranteed" meant the business has to satisfy any demand the customer makes, otherwise he's not truly satisfied (he admitted this when asked by the judge on this), and he factored in his cost of having to either rent a car or take a taxi to take his clothes to a different cleaners.

You seem to be saying that any time a business makes a mistake, offends a customer, or creates a conflict, the offended customer should start the meter running on the time they spend writing complaint letters, phoning the business (and time spent on hold), money spent on printer ink and paper and postage, etc etc. I don't see that as beneficial for society. How about this: any time you take an item back as a return and you aren't following the store's return policy, or you're at the check out and disagree with the rung-up price, force them to walk to the aisle and do a price check, and you turn out to be wrong, you get charged more for the employee's time you just wasted?

We need businesses. They need us. An attitude of "you owe me big time!" is not helpful.

Re:because people are worthless, right?

[superwiz]

I am saying (among other things) that when a business advertises a "guarantee", they have to stand by it. And, yes, they are responsible for whatever suffering they cause from intentional or unintentional breaking of agreements. "It's not my fault" is not an excuse in business. A promise must be fulfilled or the party to whom it was made must be compensated for the losses that resulted from its nonfullfilment.

Re:Move along, nothing to see here...

[MightyMartian]

So the fact that Best Buy employees spent some time lying to her doesn't add up to something? I agree 54 million is ludicrous, but I think a few thousand bucks on top of the laptop, just to say "We fucked it up big time" would be in order.

Oh yeah, and firing whoever was responsible for all this nonsense.

Completely different situation

[KingSkippus]

This is not the same as "crazy pants guy". Let's count a few ways quickly:

• The dry cleaners that he was suing found his pants. This lady's laptop is still lost.
• The dry cleaners offered to reimburse him $12,000, which is orders of magnitude more than what his pants cost. Best Buy is lowballing this lady.
• The dry cleaners were a small business, and the money he was asking for would have closed their shop down and permanently saddled them with debt. Best Buy is a major corporation that can afford this payout. It will sting them, but not completely bankrupt them.
• Crazy Pants Guy probably didn't have his social security and bank account numbers in his pants when he dropped them off. This lady probably did have such information on her laptop.
• Crazy Pants Guy didn't pay $300 to guarantee that should something happen to his pants, he should be treated particularly well. This lady did.
• To my knowledge, Crazy Pants Guy didn't approach the dry cleaners and try to make nice with a good-faith offer to make things right. This lady did.

...And so on. Like I said, this is a completely different situation.

Re:Completely different situation

[Dachannien]

* The dry cleaners that he was suing found his pants. This lady's laptop is still lost.

Okay, so the remedy for a lost laptop is to be compensated for the value of the laptop when it was given into Best Buy's possession, same as with any property you give into someone else's keeping for a time. If you drop your car off at the mechanic and they accidentally drop it in a car crusher, you get the Blue Book value (or thereabouts) of your car.

        * The dry cleaners offered to reimburse him $12,000, which is orders of magnitude more than what his pants cost. Best Buy is lowballing this lady.

Not really. If she paid $1100 for the laptop new, plus $300 for a warranty, then their offer of $1100 in monetary compensation plus $500 store credit is more than reasonable.

        * The dry cleaners were a small business, and the money he was asking for would have closed their shop down and permanently saddled them with debt. Best Buy is a major corporation that can afford this payout. It will sting them, but not completely bankrupt them.

So what. Best Buy breached a contract, plain and simple. The remedy for breach of contract is to be compensated for the damages you actually suffer, unless the conduct is so ridiculously negligent that punitive damages are merited (I have other beefs about punitive damages, but I won't go into them here). That should apply regardless of how deep the pockets are that you're trying to reach into. Best Buy may have lost her laptop - heck, one of their employees may have it at home or may have sold it for crack money, who knows. But even stalling about it for three months doesn't mean that the plaintiff was any more damaged than she would have been had they owned up to it right away.

        * Crazy Pants Guy probably didn't have his social security and bank account numbers in his pants when he dropped them off. This lady probably did have such information on her laptop.

This is pretty much the only valid reason to ask the court to give the woman additional compensation, but this is dependent specifically upon DC law which specifies that the plaintiff can recover actual damages, plus court costs and reasonable attorney's fees. If actual damages turn out to be very low, the court might decide that much of the attorney's fees here are unreasonable.

        * Crazy Pants Guy didn't pay $300 to guarantee that should something happen to his pants, he should be treated particularly well. This lady did.

Then the breach of the warranty contract should result in that $300 being returned to the plaintiff as damages.

        * To my knowledge, Crazy Pants Guy didn't approach the dry cleaners and try to make nice with a good-faith offer to make things right. This lady did.

That's just the thing - her request wasn't reasonable, even from the outset, when she was asking for compensation in an amount that was well within the limits of a small-claims court's jurisdiction (to wit, $2110.35). She was attempting to get compensation not just for the computer itself (at the full retail price she paid for it a year earlier!) or the warranty fee, but for "pictures and music she couldn't replace" despite signing an agreement that Best Buy wouldn't be held responsible for her data, and for "time wasted being lied to," etc. etc.

Even if her request at the time was reasonable, it ballooned into an amount more than 25000 times as much (and, if you ignore the ludicrous $54 million portion of her current lawsuit, she's still asking the court to award her roughly 100 times as much as her original settlement offer. This is RIAA legal tactics, pure and simple, but somehow she gets away with it in the court of Slashdot opinion.

Re:Completely different situation

[dk.r*nger]

I agree with you on most points, except for this:

The dry cleaners were a small business, and the money he was asking for would have closed their shop down and permanently saddled them with debt. Best Buy is a major corporation that can afford this payout. It will sting them, but not completely bankrupt them.

I'm sure it's just pointing out the difference scale, and the fact that CPG knew he would ruin these people for life and so on - but it should be pointed out that in a free society, a firm's liability scales with the offence, not it's financial capability.

Re:Completely different situation

[xero314]

in a free society, a firm's liability scales with the offence, not it's financial capability. In a free society, a firms liability is exactly what someone can get out of them. The United States is not a free society, which is clear by the fact that there is a legal system. In the United States a firm's liability is exactly the amount that can be awarded by a jury, upheld by a judge and maintained upon appeal. The interesting thing about this system is that it allows a firms peers to decide how much they are actually liable for, and that amount can be based on it's financial capability if their peers so chose.

Re:$54 Million

[quanticle]

She's already said that she doesn't actually expect to get $54 million. She just felt that Best Buy was completely ignoring her, and said that, after exhausting all other ways to get their attention, she was turning to the legal system. The extremely large amount is to ensure that she gets Best Buy (and the media) to look at their business practices, and encourage change.

She has a case....

[UttBuggly]

Well, I read her blog. Most people, her included, tailor events to fit their memory. That said, nothing in her account suggests that she was in the wrong.

I would challenge the statement about the Best Buy employee creating a false repair record; how does she know that for a fact? That'll be a point in any instance where she has to provide evidence to corroborate that.

Overall, she got hosed by Best Buy; they should 'fess up and settle.

Personally, I've had very good luck with Best Buy and the Geek Squad. 3-4 years ago, I bought a close-out HP tower...new, in the box. The thing started randomly locking up after a few days. Reloaded it twice, scraped the bloatware off, and so on. Still died. So, I took it back and had them put it on the bench. Of course, it ran fine during their short bench test. I finally said, "I'm a much bigger geek than you kids and either the motherboard is flakey, the RAM is flakey, or (my diagnosis) the cheesey 250W PS is unstable and causing the problem. The guy looked at me for 30 seconds and quietly went to the back, brought out another sealed box, and we swapped machines. Done deal. One trip...about 30 minutes total time. I still have the PC and the PS is a POS (died last year)...replaced it with a 650W Antec PS and it's sweet.

Also had a new iPod Classic I bought for the wife's birthday go TU after a week in October; the Geek Squad replaced it instantly, no hassle, no problem.

Not the same situation in either case as the lady's stolen laptop, but I still shop at BB!

Re:She has a case....

[geekoid]

I like them to. I ahve made a lot of new friends fixing the crap they did to their customers computers/networks.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[tomhudson]

Yeah I love how she throws in the cost of music and video on her lost computer into her justification for suing for so much. What did she buy enough to fill up an iPod? :)

Obviously you didn't read the whole thing. She originally offered to settle for the cost of the laptop plus a grand to cover part of the cost of lost software, music, etc. She offered this as an alternative to her going to small claims and getting a judgment for $5k, which she probably would have gotten, given the time she's wasted getting them to even admit it was stolen in the first place, and the lies (and the fraudulently generated computer entries in their own system) to try and cover their rectums.

She agrees the amount she's asking is outrageous - and that she's doing so because maybe THAT is what it takes to get Worst Buy's attention, exp. vis. the whole "identity theft" issue.

I particularly like how she "bitch-slapped" the corporate lawyer's motion to quash.

Re:Not any more unrealistic than the MPAA's figure

[Volante3192]

That doesn't absolve them of informing her promptly that it's been lost and risking the chance that someone else would find it.

Amount is to get attention

[hengist]

From TFA:

Campbell said that she doesn't really expect to get $54 million, but chose the amount to attract attention to her case.

She doesn't say her laptop / data is worth that amount, and she knows she isn't going to get that amount, she's being smart and hurting Best Buy before they get to trial, by bringing negative publicity upon them. The amount is a blunt instrument applied to an arrogant corporation.

Re:She's a loon.

[cching]

Second, I don't see where best buy has any responsibility for any privacy implications either. You must have missed the part where a DC privacy law requires that Best Buy notify her that her laptop had been stolen. This is pretty much the crux of her argument and why she wants the money she's asking for. Pretty much destroys your whole argument.

Re:identity theft protection?

[Volante3192]

So by logical extension, never keep private data on your computer, ever, cause what if you can't power it on to remove it before leaving it with someone?

Re:Move along, nothing to see here...

[keig]

They gave her a $500 GC + a laptop.
Seems she was compensated %50 over the cost of the laptop.
Anything more is still ludicrous.

Why not set the precedent it's not though so everyone sees this as a great idea.
I feel like I am being charged too little as it is...

I seem to remember this

[unleashedgamers]

Future shop (Owned by best buy) lost my laptop a few years back, i sent it in due to the same problem I paid $2300 for the laptop but was only refunded $1200 I would have pursued what i was owed but at that time in my life i needed it and didnt have time to argue (I spent 4 months just to get that)

Re:She's a loon.

[morgan_greywolf]

Disclosure: I have purchased three laptops at Best Buy. I always buy the warranty, because I actually use my laptops for travel. I have had all three laptops serviced under the warranty, due to what I would consider wear-and-tear issues (which are covered).

Okay, so you've never had any problems. That's irrelevant to this lady's case.

First, Best Buy has no responsibility for the data lost. We all know that when you send in your computer for repair that unless you have some ueber data protection plan, data is not the repair shop's responsibility.

Mmmm...Best Buy has *some* liability for the data lost. Those waiver that say "We are not responsible blah blah blah" are almost never enforceable in a real court of law.

Third, the warranty terms are pretty clear on what the warranty is good for. Replacement of the laptop with a like laptop. So no matter how broke or lost her laptop is, all she is entitled to is replacement of the laptop with a similar model.

Not if Best Buy is negligent in handling the laptop, no. Remember, we're talking about negligence here, not warranties. The warranty is pretty much irrelevant in this case.

Bottom line, and I am not a lawyer -- but based on the business law classes I've had, I'd have to say that the lady's got a valid case from where I sit.

Re:identity theft protection?

[Spy der Mann]

If she had sensitive data on there, she should have pulled the HD first.

A non-tech person removing a hard drive... from a laptop... and voiding her warranty, sure, she should have done that, no doubt!

In related news, I'm glad that TrueCrypt 5 has been released. Might be useful whenever you send your laptop for repair and you don't want the world to know what data you have stored.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[Kaeluka]

Do you know, what her Job is and how many files have been on that hard drive? Do you know, how many unreplacable pictures could've been on that hard drive? IF IT'S TRUE, what she says, she's dammn right to sue them. What she really wants is 1) an explanation how this could happen 2) an explanation why this won't happen any more 3) 100k$ Well, that's still a lot of money - but given the situation, Best Buy deserves a little bit of beating. And negative Publicity, of course.

Re:Move along, nothing to see here...

[MightyMartian]

I don't think $500 is adequate. I'd say $5000 is. Anything less is just an insult to her. They can take out of the corrupt twits they have on the payroll.

Re:You pretty much deserve all you get.

[jaxtherat]

I dunno, the 'LOL ZOMFG PWND NOOB' argument seems to be pretty popular on slashdot.

Some nerds seem to have no problems sneering at the 'cattle' when they get in trouble through lack of technical competence, but I sometimes wonder how they would feel if they got the same treatment from mechanics whenever they needed their car fixed.

Re:identity theft protection?

[jtroutman]

That is not a logical extension of my statement. If the problem is that the system won't power on, then remove the hard drive. If you aren't technically capable, then the service that you leave it with is, so have them remove your hard drive before leaving it. The point here is that you, and no one else, are ultimately responsible for the security of your data. If you're not up to the task of securing that data, don't put it on a computer. You can still pay your bills, file your taxes and check your bank account without a computer. Doing it on a computer is a convenience, one for which you exchange a certain amount of control over your data. How much control you relinquish is up to you.

Damnit, they're right

[OMNIpotusCOM]

Best Buy fucking lost this lady's personal machine, and they are not responsible that way for whatever personal data (and illegal porn) she might have had one it. Damnit, they're right. They didn't know she had tax records or whatever on there, so they can't be held liable for that. Not only that, but if they ARE held liable for the information on there, doesn't that mean that the lady should be held liable for anything illegal she had on there? Why was I so quick to hate on Best Buy? Oh yeah, they suck.

Re:She's a loon.

[tomhudson]

You're wrong.

protection plan, data is not the repair shop's responsibility.

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.

Second, I don't see where best buy has any responsibility for any privacy implications either. It's not like someone broke into Best Buy's database and accessed information collected and stored by Best Buy. Someone stole a customer laptop with the customer's hard drive on it.

Worst Buys' sloppy procedures and/or dishonest employee(s) are the proximate cause. They're liable.

And, there's no reason to notify you that your data is on the loose when you already know you gave someone your hard drive with data.

Considering that they lied to her for MONTHS about the laptop being missing, they were worse than wilfully negligent.

Third, the warranty terms are pretty clear on what the warranty is good for.

This is not a warranty issue. If she had brought an out-of-warranty laptop to be repaired, they'd still have the same problem. Someone (almost 100% certainty an employee) stole the laptop. They have to make good on it. Or are you going to argue that I can steal your laptop, your car, or anything else if its not under worranty, and you have no recourse?

Replacement of the laptop with a like laptop. So no matter how broke or lost her laptop is, all she is entitled to is replacement of the laptop with a similar model.

She's not asking for a replacement laptop under warranty - the warranty doesn't cover THEFT!!! 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.

As a consumer, there is also an obligation to endure inconvenience in the event of a problem. It definitely sucks, but if you have something that breaks, you're going to have the inconvenience of missing that item for a while while it is fixed and/or replaced. Go buy a computer at Dell - you get a basic warranty for free (1 year parts and workmanship) and then if it's important to you, you can PAY for additional coverages like next-day replacement etc. That's a good thing - it let's the people who don't need that reliability get laptops cheaper and lets the people who do need it pay for it to have it.

Again, this is not a warranty issue - Worst Buy "lost" her laptop after it was moved to a supposedly secure area. So, either an employee stole it, or an employee was negligent / gave access to someone else, who stole it. The warranty doesn't cover theft - the store is responsible. Nobody is obliged to "endure inconvenience" while a store loses/steals their property, then lies for months about it, then generates fake computer entries to say "yes, its in the system". Both the original theft and the fake computer entries were criminal acts.

So it seems like what we're really talking about here is some best buy employees did not act in the best manner. It took the woman longer than it should have to get her laptop back.

Please RTFA -she never got it back. It was STOLEN!

The flow of information is poor. She was given a bad customer experience. A $500 gift card for a bad customer experience seems to be entirely reasonable compensation. For example, I recently had a plane flight canceled by the airline for operational reasons. They didn't communicate the situation to me very well, causing me to spend an extra 8 hours at the airport. They gave me a free, extremely restricted, travel voucher, worth about $250. I found this to be reasonable - enough for me to believe that I had experienced an isolate

Re:Move along, nothing to see here...

[Volante3192]

And what motivation does Best Buy have to change their policies after this incident?
None.

Look up Punitive Damages one of these days.

damnit, does NOT like...

[raehl]

Messed up and had a double negative, then messed up fixing it and had no negatives....

Re:She's a loon.

[bwalling]

You're not getting the difference between data loss (hard drive wiped) and data stolen or missing. Best Buy doesn't know who has her laptop. She is now at a risk for identity fraud. Instead of informing her immediately (there are laws requiring them to do this), they lied to her and jerked her around, putting her at further risk. Rather than offer her less than the laptop was worth, they should have offered her a new laptop and offered to pay for three years of a credit protection service. No reason to defend Best Buy - talk to anyone that's tried to use them. They make a habit out of abusing customers, and it's high time they get some punishment for it.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[gerardolm]

When I read the title I just thought: "Oh, God, don't tell me this is some kind of One Laptop Per Country initiative"

Re:Not any more unrealistic than the MPAA's figure

[Toonol]

Yeah, but the waiver is for lost as in 'destroyed'... not lost as in 'um, we're not sure where it is'.

The second is potentially much more damaging. I'm sure some geeksquad employee stole it, probably reinstalled windows, and uses it to browse 4chan all evening. But we don't know that for sure.

Re:She's a loon.

[Kjella]

Someone stole a customer laptop with the customer's hard drive on it. Best Buy has no way of knowing what data is on that hard drive, and frankly, if there IS private, sensitive information on the hard drive, that is again the customer's problem, not Best Buy's. And, there's no reason to notify you that your data is on the loose when you already know you gave someone your hard drive with data. If I went to a valet parking, and the guy parking left the keys in the ignition I'd say he's negligently responsible for both the car and what's in the trunk being stolen, even though he has no business looking in the trunk as long as it's within reason of what would normally be in a trunk. While you need to have a backup whenever you send the machine in for service, I hardly think it is or should be standard procedure to wipe your disk before sending it in every time you need an unreleated repair. I think it would be a rather fucked up world if you had to assume every time that any data you had on the disk would be spreading around, because you wouldn't hear about it if it happened. Yes, I know you can use encryption but I still don't think that should be necessary. The potential problem in sue-happy countries like the US though, is that instead of trying to promptly notify of thefts they're more inclined to institute a wipe-on-delivery procedure so they can't run into liability.

Re:Move along, nothing to see here...

[keig]

Yes, because losing a laptop is policy...

I didn't miss anything. Read the law.

[raehl]

Sorry, just because the loon wants the law to cover what happened doesn't mean it actually does.

The law only covers data and systems maintained by Best Buy, it does NOT cover data and systems maintained by the customer.

Re:Move along, nothing to see here...

[EkriirkE]

You forgot software and photos/media she had. Plus inconvenience fees, plus the identity theft protection fees (a good point). Whether or not she had personally identifiable/exploitable info on there is none the matter. Its a very very plausible truth until otherwise proven... which obviously can't.

Depends on who gets to do the pricing

[ReverendLoki]

Yeah I love how she throws in the cost of music and video on her lost computer into her justification for suing for so much. What did she buy enough to fill up an iPod? :)

She only had about 50 songs on there, but she was using the prices put forward by the RIAA's lawsuits.

Re:Move along, nothing to see here...

[keig]

Didn't forget it at all.
Did you read my post?
Losing that stuff is moot, they would probably have wiped the drive anyway.
Warranties, mfr or purchased don't cover software or data...

She should have had a back-up, shame on her.

Customer abuse will end - Collective Power

[FromTheAir]

We have all been abused I suspect because as individuals we are powerless and carry little weight. Of course it doesn't stop at just corporations, entire industries and individuals in governments including our representatives tend to ignore individuals and abuse them extracting wealth and providing value that does not equal the extracted wealth. Not to mention all the gimmicks and making people work hard to get money due to them.

There is the classic where if they resist your attempt to get a problem fixed most people will give up.

Thanks to technology this is going to change. I am currently working on an open project to empower the customer bases for example AT&T customers. It could even include Microsoft's customer base and every monopoly organization.

A company would be required to solve issues and maintain certain efficiency and quality, if they fall below this the customer base does not pay that months bill this cuts their cash flow seriously and gets attention and response. Of course the system will be designed to weed out "bad customers" and everyone will be required to read the manual which should help reduce business costs.

Actually the goal is to initiate a global revolution and transfer the power to the people, and give them collective control over the functions of government. It is called Participatory Self Government. The hope is to allow the citizens of the planet to take over the worlds governments.

There are the few that benefit to the detriment of the many and there days are numbered.

http://www.oneclickrevolution.com/ it is still in draft mode and the essential features will not be disclosed until working and ready

The large bureaucratic corporations and institution are no longer able to keep up with the rate of evolution and change. They are so big, inefficient and slow they will eventually collapse.

Re:She's a loon.

[Artifakt]

Plus, if the claims about altering their own in-store records after the initial claim was filed are true, Best Buy attempted fraud to prevent the state from producing a proper judgment in small claims court. Whaaa! It's so unfair! Businesses shouldn't be threatened with court cases escalating just because they committed fraud! Their management has a fiduciary obligation to the stockholders to lie and destroy evidence! It's communism, I tell you!

Re:No, it's ridiculous.

[agent_no.82]

The problem isn't the loss of data as in no longer accessible; it's the loss of data as in permanent identity theft. If the laptop fell into the hands of the wrong person it could bankrupt her for life. It was in their care, it's their responsibility.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[Teflon_Jeff]

She's just trying to bring visibility to a very bad customer service circumstance. The proble is, given some of the outrageous lawsuit amounts given (McD's coffee anyone?) it's unfortunately possible that she gets far more than she should. All it takes is 12 sympathetic idiots.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Itninja]

The rep of these retailers is pretty low to techies who know better. But to average power-user, one store is as good as another. I mean, their commercials tell you: "we're awesome". And who are you to doubt a pitch like that?

Re:Mod Parent Up

[servognome]

When a big company like Best Buy creates a problem, the best way to get that problem corrected is to make them feel the pinch. If their half-cocked "remedies" and attempts to keep the problem quiet can be chalked up to the "cost of doing business," then they will never change their practices.

At the same time the system shouldn't reward the victim. A lost laptop shouldn't be the equivalent of winning the lotto.
Of course compensatory damages should be awarded to the victim, however, the punitive damages should be awarded to the government.
This keeps with the philosophy that punitive damages are awarded to protect the public (represented by the government), while punishing the offender.
This also will reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits, since instead of the possibly winning millions, the plaintiff will at most get "fairly" compensated.

Re:Move along, nothing to see here...

[EkriirkE]

So if you bring your $2,000 civic into a shop with $100,000 rice mods and they total it, incinerating it thus making it disappear, in a drunken joy ride, you are only entitled to the $2,000? Oh.

Except..

[Khyber]

Best Buy has a very bad practice of their employees stealing data, and them trying to cover face. They've been busted using freeware for personal use only software to diagnose and repair their issues. They also have a horrible time losing laptops. I know, I happened to receive one, a laptop I never owned, and I never owned one back then. It was supposed to go to Cali, it arrived in TN.

Best Buy needs to have it's ass handed to them in order to get this crap to stop and force them to take more stringent security measures. I watch the Geek Squad work on machines, totally disobeying EVERY SINGLE ESD PROCEDURE and not even wearing ESD straps. I won't work at a Besy Buy purely for professional and ethical reasons due to what I have personally witnessed and experienced.

Re:Except..

[Leebert]

I watch the Geek Squad work on machines, totally disobeying EVERY SINGLE ESD PROCEDURE and not even wearing ESD straps.

I can't remember the last time I've actually bothered to wear a static strap when working on a computer. I used to draw the line at $20,000, if it was worth more than that I'd wear the strap. But nowdays I don't think I even bother for that.

I guess if you're doing it all day every day it is probably wise, but I still hardly fault them for that particular infringement.

Re:Except..

[Khyber]

According to most repair centers (and I've worked in one and had this lecture,) the biggest cause of damaged parts or infant-death failures is improper ESD either in initial construction/fabrication or subsequent repair/refurbishing. Hence having to send a laptop or desktop back three or four times over.

I'm sure it's been said but...

[Bryansix]

Best Buy Sucks. Just don't shop there. If you HAVE to shop there you better know what you want because it's not like you'll get help there. Most Importantly, NEVER use their computer repair department. Almost everybody knows somebody who's been burned there. My friend had a broken power button on his laptop and they formatted the hard drive!!! I shit you not. This happened. How many times do you people have to touch the hot stove and be burnt to learn not to go to Best Buy anymore?! Just say no to Best Buy.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[Tsiangkun]

if the RIAA can sue for thousands of dollar per song shared, then if she created ANY original works, text documents, music files, photographs, etc , then BestBuy has lost her original works. Clearly losing the masters is far worse than sharing a copy.

As shown by the RIAA, the crime and fine do not need to match to be considered justice in America.

I hope she gets her $54M.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Anonymous Coward]

> Yes - she did accept payment, the gift certificate. That she donated it to charity is irrelevant.

What part of "I tried to give it back, but they wouldn't take it" constitutes "acceptance"..?

Re:identity theft protection?

[Mister Whirly]

This is Slashdot, so here is the 'car' analogy.
If you were having engine problems with your car, would you remove the transmission before you brought it to the shop to have it worked on? Because if something happened to your transmission while the engine was being worked on, it wouldn't be the fault of the repair shop.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people still bring up the McDonald's coffee case? Go look up the actual facts of the case and then STFU!

That law doesn't exist though.

[raehl]

The law applies to data and systems maintained by Best Buy, NOT data and systems maintained by the customer.

Re:That law doesn't exist though.

[crashfrog]

While the system was in their custody, to be repaired by them, it was a system maintained by Best Buy.

Re:No, it's ridiculous.

[ehrichweiss]

All that depends on what she does with her laptop. I net around $150/hr with the help of mine,3 months is a lot of billable hours and wouldn't be remotely covered by their inconvenience pittance. Seeing as how it was getting a power button replaced/fixed, it would not be unreasonable to think they could potentially fix it in under 24 hours if they had the part and maybe as long as 7 days if they had to order it.

Now, to get to the real point. They lied to her and committed fraud to make it appear as though her laptop were still in the system. That complicates the situation a lot more than "she got the money for her laptop and her data wasn't guaranteed to be protected or preserved so she shouldn't sue". Best Buy isn't going to put their managers/tech staff in jail for protecting the company's interests so she has to fight to get something done about it herself.

Re:Move along, nothing to see here...

[keig]

If you can make a free 100% copy of the mods as many time as you want and restore them at will... then yes. Just... wow.

In his narrow search for "profits"

[nexuspal]

He has cost the company literally MILLIONS through his covering up and incompetence (which was done to INCREASE profits). Let this be a message to "best" buy managers everywhere...

The best of us...

[brkello]

...fix our own computers.

Re:The best of us...

[gbobeck]

While the best of us fix our own (I sure has hell do), The second best of us go to local independent shops with good reputations for repairs.

Re:The best of us...

[brkello]

Right..which leaves the worst of us to go to Best Buy. So, I guess the article should be tagged shegotwhatshepaidfor.

Re:She's a loon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Worst Buy I see what you did there.

Re:identity theft protection?

[Secrity]

Washington does equal Washington, DC. Washington also equals Washington state.

Granted, nobody I know calls it Washington; around here (National Capital Area) it is usually called "The District" or "The City" or just DC.

Different retailer, different story

[Hektor_Troy]

I work for a computer manufacturer in the EU, where we do, sadly, lose items from time to time. At the moment, lost items have been reduced to almost exclusively being lost in shipping en route to the customer's address (we ship it to their home address after repairs).

We've changed the policy of our hotliners from one of "it's still in repairs" to "we'll look into it" (followed by consulting the higher ups).

This has reduced most of the cases turn-around time from problem discovered to problem solved to around two weeks (loads of paperwork involved), but unfortunately we don't have the capacity to run continuous checks on repair times (ie, we have these repairs which seem to take a long time) nor wether or not the shipping company manages to deliver properly, so most of these cases don't come to light until the customer asks about his/her product (we do more than just computers).

Best Buy seems to have no system in place for handling such cases, which is really bad practices, because ideally you want to know just where these problems are in your chain. If things dissapear in the store, en route to an external repair shop etc., you can figure out just where to extract the money you need to reimburse the client.

Sure, 54 million dollars is a lot. Yes, cost plus 500 dollars might seems like an "okay" compensation, but looking at it from my point of view, if they (as a chain) have one case like that a day, that's more or less pocket change. No need to spend money developing a procedure for handling, hirering people to investigate the cases (i.e. people would often like their data back with computers, figure out where the store gets its money back etc.). 54 million however buys you a LOT of of procedures and hires.

As for what we do ... far as I know, we offer a full refund on the purchase or an upgrade to whatever is the newest unit available (within reason - we don't swap a 22" TV to a 47" TV). The replacement unit then comes with a new full warrenty on it.

Then again, Europe in general doesn't have tort-laws as such. It's a good thing, as we avoid some of the completely insanely stupefying lawsuits you guys have. On the other hand you have them to get some kind of minimal consumer protections - we just have politicians with a brain ;)

Re:Remove your HD's

[couchslug]

HD removal is fine for geeks, but it is more of a problem for other people because laptops do not have a standard form factor and are a PITA to work on.

Best Buy lost my iPod

[DigiShaman]

Two or three years ago, my iPod's (3rd gen) battery went out. I originally received this unit as a gift which also included some five extended warrant plan. So; I drop the unit off at Best Buy to be fixed, and proceeded to pick it up the following weekend. The funniest thing happened. You see... after the employee handed me the box, I opened it up to find....no iPod. They spent 30 minutes looking for it and even checked to see if it ended up as some store demo unit. Nope. It was gone and most likely stolen.

For me, I had a happy day for they gave me a brand-spanking new 4th gen iPod. Hell ya baby! I wasn't going to sit around and argue about it nor did I want to buy them any more time to find my original iPod. I took the offer without second guessing it =)

Re:Best Buy lost my iPod

[initialE]

Well what about the music inside it? isn't that worth anything?

Re:Best Buy lost my iPod

[DigiShaman]

No, because all my music was on my PC to begin with. When I brought the new iPod home, I just connected and resynced.

If you own an iPod, you know music transfers are a one-way. You can copy to an iPod, just not from an iPod back to your PC. It's Apple's way of preventing piracy and all that stuff.

Re:She's a loon.

[raehl]

Where's the negligence?

The problem here with regards to the private data is the negligent party is the customer, not best buy.

Let's say the government buys it's laptops from best buy. And one of them gets a broken power switch. One of them with the Veteran's Affairs patient records on it, which are not encrypted in any way. And the VA gives the laptop, with the hard drive, to best buy to repair. Best Buy then loses the laptop.

Now, who is responsible for the fact that thousands of unencrypted VA patient records were lost?

Duh, the VA is.

The customer apparently had no protections in place for their private data. Best Buy may have lost the laptop. But if the customer did not protect the data, Best Buy isn't obligated to either.

Re:I didn't miss anything. Read the law.

[cching]

Sorry, just because the loon wants the law to cover what happened doesn't mean it actually does. Her blog indicates that the DC Attorney General seems to think that she has a case. So I guess you think she's out and out lying? Reading her blog, she seems to have done her best to *not* take this to court. Indeed, she doesn't even think $54M is reasonable, she's doing it to get BB's attention. But I guess it's too much to ask that you RTFA before you post.

The law only covers data and systems maintained by Best Buy, it does NOT cover data and systems maintained by the customer. I don't even think you know which law she is claiming was violated, because you seem to be implying that she's complaining about the lost data on her HD. That is *not* the base of what she's claiming. If you take the time to read the article, you'll know that the law she's invoking is one where BB is required to notify her that her computer was stolen because of privacy and possible identity theft resulting from the theft of her laptop. She does make claims about the lost data, but that is not the base of her case.

Identity theft, priceless

[2nd Post!]

This isn't a data-protection issue (her power button was broken by the way, how do you power up and back up your laptop then?)

This is an identity theft issue. Best Buy had a laptop with personal information. Rather than inform her in a timely manner and then pay for identity theft protection, they misled her and she had to get her own, as well as a lawyer to even get Best Buy to play ball.

So rethink your point: If this is an identity theft issue (with potential credit card and social security related issues), how much is the lawsuit worth?

What a crappy piece of reporting

[OldSoldier]

That article linked to in the summary from the Minneapolis StarTribune is the worst piece of journalism I've seen in a while. It is in stark contrast to the facts of the article as reported in Ms Campbell's blogspot entry.

For example:
"Campbell, who could not be reached Tuesday," - Campbell's whole point of this is to get exposure. I seriously doubt she intentionally avoided the call. How long did Jackie Crosby give Ms Campbell to reply? 10 minutes?

"Best Buy Spokeswoman said Campbell was offered and collected $1110.35" if you read Ms Campbell's story BB deposited this straight into her credit card account w/o prior discussion. Would have been nice if Ms Crosby mentioned this fact in her news story.

"Melissa Ngo, senior counsel with the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C., ... said consumers need to get smart about protecting their data to avoid such situations." This is completely off topic.

Re:What a crappy piece of reporting

[atari2600]

Mod parent up please. Wish i had mod points.

Re:What a crappy piece of reporting

[keig]

"It is in stark contrast to the facts of the article as reported in Ms Campbell's blogspot entry." Riiiight... "facts." I'm sure the complaintant has no vested interested in embeleshing... lol... "reported"... You are killing me. ""Melissa Ngo, senior counsel with the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C., ... said consumers need to get smart about protecting their data to avoid such situations." This is completely off topic." AND total denial in the same post. A DOUBLE THREAT! This whole thread is thick with the topic...

Re:I didn't miss anything. Read the law.

[twiddlingbits]

Are you unable to comprehend what a law means? If the law says they have to cover it they have to cover it, no discussion. Tell your local cops that the speed limit law actually may not really mean you can't drive over the posted speed and watch them laff thier asses off and write you a ticket. She wins this point slam dunk. As far as identity theft, as I recall there are laws in some states (CA is one) where if your data is lost the company has to offer you ID Theft protection, thats all they would have had to do. IBM (an ex-employer) lost a data tape with my employment records and even though the data on the tap was encrypted and you'd need a mainframe tape drive to read it they gave me a years worth of ID Theft protection. Her point that BB could have settled this situation easily instead of jerking her around is perfectly valid. The lady deserves some payback for her lost time, her lost data, her lost music and possibly puntive damages as BB deliberately misled her about the status of her computer. Maybe 50K would do it, I don't know but the $54M did grab headlines, got her noticed, got 1000's of people to read her blog and gave BB a small black eye.

Re:Again, no... YOU RTFA and RTFL.

[crashfrog]

Its the customer's own personal information maintained by the customer.

Well, no, it's the customer's personal information maintained by Best Buy, because when they accepted a contract to repair her computer, they were maintaining it for the duration of the contract. If the laptop had simply been stolen in the parking lot, she wouldn't have a case. But it was stolen while in their possession, after they had accepted a contract that made them the "maintainers" of that machine.

Re:She's a loon.

[Your.Master]

I can't believe you don't think Best Buy is responsible in your scenario.

Let's put it another way, let's say VA hands over the laptop, and Best Buy employees and executives gather together to willfully distribute the patient records far and wide. VA is responsible, right? That's still a "Duh"?

They are both responsible. Distributing responsibility is not a zero-sum game. In this case, it takes everybody being irresponsible for something to go wrong. And frankly, she's hiring Best Buy for the express purpose of taking responsibility for her computer. There is a reasonable expectation that VA will hire a computer-literate person to ensure data is not lost, there is no reasonable expectation that all computer users be savvy about encryption.

Also...

[raehl]

Also, maintain and repair are not the same things either.

Best Buy agreed to repair or replace the machine. They did not agree to maintain the machine or the data.

Re:She's a loon.

[waferthinmint]

I think that after 2 months I would have filed a police report charging the store with theft and ask for criminal charges to be brought against the manager and geek squad.

The courtroom is not a forum.

[BeeBeard]

You're trying to go all "forest" while having nothing to say about this particular, unrepresentative tree. This woman is the farthest thing from a "crusader against corporations," although to her credit, she knows that that's exactly the angle she needs to have to snooker the Slashdot crowd and try to engender support.

None of that changes the fact that: Filing suit to advertise and create a forum for your cause is extremely unlawful, and people who do it are rightfully punished. Why do you think we don't frequently see "Colgate vs. Gingivitis" and other assorted bullshit? It's because the courtroom really is Serious Business, and you check that kind of thing at the door under fear of pecuniary liability.

Plus, it doesn't matter how many courtroom dramas you've seen, BSing a judge and pleading grandiose "My voice must be heard!" nonsense is a great way to lose your case and owe the court a bucket of money, under the aforementioned sanction rules. I realize this is Slashdot, so people don't like to hear about how the little guy really is in the wrong in any particular case, but I assure you that's what's happened here.

I want to get my hands on that pleading, and I want to know exactly which attorney and firm took her case, if any.

Re:No it's not.

[EverDense]

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. If the hotel kept telling you that the bags were safe and just misplaced, for months, while they KNEW they had been stolen. Yes, they would have to shoulder some of the responsibility for the loss of the contents, because they willing stopped the you, the "idiot", from making an attempt to recover them at an earlier date.

Re:No, it's ridiculous.

[langelgjm]

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?

No, that's not what I'm saying. As for the rest of your post, have you read anything from her blog? This isn't a matter of "extra trips to the store." The computer went missing in May. Best Buy quietly (and without informing her) credited about $1100 to her credit card in October, after repeated attempts at a small settlement (less than $5000). I'd say that's more than normal inconvenience, and it certainly is Best Buy's responsibility. The gift card? She told them she didn't want to patronize them any more, and donated it to a non-profit.

I agree that the private data shouldn't be an issue (and Best Buy probably has some clause in their agreements saying as much), but on the other hand, Best Buy really did fsck this one up big time.

Very few people have the means or desire to file a lawsuit like this to slap some sense into businesses that behave poorly. Hopefully her suit will teach Best Buy a lesson.

If Best Buys broke the law

[EmbeddedJanitor]

then why not just sic the cops on them?

how common is lying to avoid replacing laptops?

[radarsat1]

Just thought I'd ask if any people have personal stories related to these big stores refusing to replace their laptops.

Normally I'd just read quickly over a story like this and feel bad for the person who got ripped off, but something similar happened to me recently..

A laptop I've had for only 1 and a half years just kind of died on me.. the screen would go black and it wouldn't boot up for a day or so, until finally it just wouldn't boot altogether. So I brought it to Future Shop, since I'd purchased the 3-year warranty. Maybe I'm naive to have bought it, but I know they just "don't build things like they used to", so for some reason I thought it would be wise to have the warranty in case something went wrong.

Anyways, I brought it in and they didn't give me any problems, but said they'd call me.. Finally they got back and claimed that they had found evidence of "liquid" inside the computer, and thus it is not covered by the warranty and I should pay them $650. (I'm not paying that of course, I'd rather just buy a new one for that much money.) But the kicker is that I was _really_ careful with it, and I never ever spilled anything on the keyboard. I tried to contest it, and they said they'd get back to me, so I have yet to see what happens.

But any ways, it has made me realize that, as a customer, there's not a whole hell of a lot you can do in a situation like this. From my point of view, they must be lying, since I never got liquid on it, but from their point of view, all they have to say is, "yes, we found liquid on the computer, which is outside the terms of the warranty. Here are some photos to prove it." Of course, if it's that easy to damage the computer, what good is the $300 warranty I purchased if it won't cover it. Bleah.. and if I'd taken it apart to take pictures of the inside to prove that there's nothing overtly wrong with it, I'd void the warranty. So it's their word against mine, and face it, they can afford better lawyers. Anyone know what I can do in a situation like this?

All I can think of doing is complaining to the manager, but I doubt that would get me very far.

Re:how common is lying to avoid replacing laptops?

[langelgjm]

Not a laptop, but I had a horrible experience with Nokia a few years ago. I had a phone that was about 8 months old and refused to charge. Since it was still under warranty, I sent it to the repair center. I had no loaner phone during this period, so I was very anxious to get it back.

I waited the allotted time (something like two weeks), and called to check the repair status. After being passed around, someone told me that "two weeks" really meant 14 business days. I waited 14 business days, called again, same being passed around. Finally, after a month, I got angry, called the service center, and asked what was taking so long. I was passed around in circles, again. When I asked to speak to a manager, the technician refused, and told me the conversation was over. I told him it wasn't, and that he wasn't to hang up on me, which he promptly did.

I called Nokia again, and told the operator not to transfer me to the repair center, but to find someone, anyone, else that I could talk to. They ended up putting me through to some "Executive Resolution Department," who explained that they couldn't fix the phone, and couldn't send me a replacement, because the model had been discontinued. All they could do was refund me the purchase price for the phone, by sending me a check that would take 4-6 weeks (after I faxed them my receipt for the phone). I asked for any unaffected components to be returned (charger, battery, etc.), and they said it was their policy to throw everything away if it was determined the phone couldn't be repaired (I guess that's somewhat fair).

This last person I talked to was quite nice, and apologized for the behavior of the tech. He then gave me his personal phone number, name, and told me that he would have some "enhancements" sent to me - a designer faceplate for the replacement phone I had purchased by this time, and an extra battery.

I finally got the check. After waiting several weeks and not receiving any "enhancements," I decide to call the "personal" number. It turned out not to be personal, but just a default number for that department. I spoke to someone else, who apparently had no knowledge that I was supposed to be sent anything, but told me that he would have the "enhancements" sent to me. I never received anything, and have vowed to never buy from Nokia again. I like their products, but their customer service, at least here in the US, was abysmal.

Re:how common is lying to avoid replacing laptops?

[radarsat1]

2) In the future, I guess you should bring a witness, and ask for a tech to open the laptop in your presence, you take photos, confirm there is no "liquid", physical damage, etc. (kind of like an apartment inspection pre/post lease)

Hard when they send the laptop out to another city to get it repaired. I neglected to mention in my post that they actually made me call a long-distance number just to find out what was up.

There's more to say, but I'm tired and I doubt anyone will read this anyway...

I did, and thanks for the cleaning tip. :)

Re:She's a loon.

[raehl]

I'm not saying the store shouldn't make you a happy customer, just that the fact that a problem may have caused you some inconvenience isn't legally actionable.

And yes, if you're going to sue me for $54 million because of a customer service problem, I hope you don't come in my store either.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[Lemmy Caution]

Simple compensation doesn't create a disincentive.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[Original Replica]

I love how she throws in the cost of music and video on her lost computer into her justification for suing for so much.

As the RIAA has pointed out each copy of a song in digital form is potentially worth $150,000. She's only suing for about 360 songs worth. That's only 30 CDs, I'm sure she has that much in her collection.

Re:Again, no... YOU RTFA and RTFL.

[crashfrog]

Under the law they don't have to maintain the data to be liable; they simply have to maintain the machine.

And they were maintaining it. That's implicit in the contract to repair it.

No Employee of the Month?

[raftpeople]

Raehl, you've posted about 18 times about how she's a loon and BB didn't do anything wrong, and I'm noticing you sound defensive.

Did this incident break your streak of Employee of the Month?

Re:No Employee of the Month?

[raehl]

It's not that I didn't expect negative moderation - I'm just surprised that nobody can seem to get past 'Best Buy Bad!'

Re:No Employee of the Month?

[Capt James McCarthy]

"Even in the VERY BEST of circumstances, stuff gets stolen and/or damaged. That's life. Especially when stuff is getting SHIPPED somewhere."

In your world is business responsible for anything? Obviously passing the buck is. Congratulations. "It's not our fault. It's yours, Stupid." should replace "Thousands of Possibilities. Get Yours."

There should be a level of trust when it comes to business. But large businesses do not 'need' a single consumer, so as a single consumer, your screwed. Get some press and you get action out of the big business. See how it works. She's going to get some action now. I bet that Best Buy handled the customer with a little more empathy and respect.

If she can sue for 500 million, I say go for it. Perhaps this will be the only way for large corps to learn what consumer respect is. Probably not, but we as consumers deserve better.

Should she have left data on her laptop. To most here, no. But then again most here won't even mention geek squad as an option. What if that was her only laptop? Or she's unaware of backups? It does happen you know.

As a responsible business owner, I would have taken care of this consumer and learned from it. If Best Buy was smart, they would given her the option to burn all her data to dvds before leaving the laptop at the store. Then blanked the hard drive. All in front of her while she was with the laptop. That is what a responsible and respectable business would do.

Re:No Employee of the Month?

[raehl]

In your world is business responsible for anything? Obviously passing the buck is. Congratulations. "It's not our fault. It's yours, Stupid." should replace "Thousands of Possibilities. Get Yours."

Absolutely. But business isn't responsible for EVERYTHING either. And one of the things businesses are not responsible for is protecting undisclosed personal information on the hard drive a computer rendered for warranty repair.

If it's your data, you're responsible for it. That doesn't change unless some other party specifically does something to change it - and giving them a hard drive with the data on it without telling them that the data is there when they tell you that they don't want and won't protect your data is not something specific.

I agree that Best Buy has behaved poorly. I think the compensation offered is sufficient for the poor behavior, but whether it is or isn't doesn't change the fact that Best Buy is simply not responsible for the data on the drive. If the person didn't have another computer, doesn't understand data, or whatever, none of those things are Best Buy's problem.

Re:No Employee of the Month?

[toiletsalmon]

I see a few things here:

1) I think many people just really don't agree with your stance. I know I don't. It's as simple as that.
2) Best Buy has, by and large, not behaved in a manner that makes the typical Slashdotter happy. That's just subjective, so what can you do? Again, I really do think "Best Buy Bad!". Aagree to disagree.
3) Best Buy apparently had a legal responsibility to do some things that they didn't do, and they're being sued for it. Chances are, they'll settle out of court so it will never go far enough to have any impact on legal precedent anyway.

Again, I don't think it's an issue of "right vs. wrong", it seems to me more of an "agree to disagree" situation. Besides, why would you want to argue details with a bunch of people who didn't read the article anyway?? ;)

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[fredklein]

Why do people still bring up the McDonald's coffee case?

because it's a classic case of wild, outrageous, or ridiculous lawsuits.

Go look up the actual facts of the case and then STFU!

I am quite familiar with the facts of the case.

Stella Liebeck was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when they got coffee at a McDonalds. Instead of handling the cup safely, she placed it between her (pointy) knees, and pulled the lid off. The pulling caused the cup to rotate between her knees, spilling the coffee on her crotch. This resulted in severe burns to her groin.

The main argument was that the coffee was "too hot" at 185 degrees.. This is not correct. Firstly, the National Coffee Association (and who better to know how to properly prepare coffee?) recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." Second, coffee makers you buy for your home use water at that same temperature. (I can provide links to some online coffeemaker manuals if you doubt me.)

Another arguement the plaintiff used was that there are (gasp!) 700 other burns reported to McDonalds. 700 sounds like a large number, until you realize three things:
1) That number includes burns of all degrees. From First Degree (red skin, like sunburn) to Second Degree (blisters) to Third Degree (skin coming off). Since the number was not broken down by degree, one can only conclude that breaking the number down did not serve the purposes of the plaintiff. ie: most of the burns were mild.
2) that 700 figure was for the previous 10 years
3) that figure was NATIONWIDE.
Also, that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever.

Conclusion- clumsy biatch dumped coffee on herself. It was NOT 'too hot', she was just clumsy. It was not "unreasonably dangerous", she was just clumsy. It was her own fault, McDonalds owed her nothing.

Re:Move along, nothing to see here...

[drcagn]

She is not concerned about losing her data. What you fail to realize is that it is a Washington DC law that requires Best Buy to inform her that her laptop with her sensitive data had been lost while under their service. It doesn't matter whether she took responsible precautions with her data or not--it's the LAW that Best Buy has to do this, even if it wasn't their fault and the lady was negligent with her data. Not only did Best Buy not do what is required by law but they also lied to her for THREE MONTHS about her laptop. She should at least get the value of the laptop, the value of losing time with the laptop for three months (an unreasonable length of time to fix a simple power button), and the value of having to pay for monitoring services because of Best Buy's negligence (something Best Buy could have avoided being liable for if they had informed her when they should have). No one is saying she deserves 54 million, not even her. But Best Buy should have to pay punitive fees.

Re:Exactly.

[Fjandr]

That depends. If the valet company could prove that you always leave your car parked with the keys in it, they wouldn't be liable, because they would have exercised just as much care for your assets as you did.

I'd have to call bullshit on this statement unless you can produce an actual citation of a law that is comparable. Given some of the absurdities in US law, it wouldn't particularly surprise me that there existed such a law, but I've never heard of one. Just because a private party does negligent things with their property does not automatically excuse a third party from the same negligence when the first party's property is under their control.

Re:Not any more unrealistic than the MPAA's figure

[lordofthechia]

Let's look at 2 situations (yes an analogy):

Say a fire destroys your Doctor's office and your Medical Records are destroyed. Oh well, no harm to you.

Say the Dr's Office is Burglarized and *your* medical records are now missing, in the hands of some stranger.

A. Are these the same type of situation to you?
B. Should the Dr's Office notify you and all the affected patient's immediately?

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[Brian Gordon]

Most contemptible class? Those who hold other classes in contempt.

Re:$5,400 not $54,000,000

[pintpusher]

I can just about guarantee the fine print said her data might disappear. There's a big difference between her not getting her data back (had to wipe the drive, or the drive crashed and was replaced) and her data being *lost*. *lost* means they don't know where it is which means someone else may have that data which means that data is compromised and so are all of her accounts.

If my laptop went in for repairs and came back with the HD wiped (in the ridiculously stupid case of me actually giving my laptop harddrive to someone else, but that's a different issue), that would be fine. If my laptop went in for repairs and they told me they couldn't find it, I'd be pissed and they *should* pay for whatever it takes (including my time at my going rate) to make sure my record is clean.

It's a fine but important distinction between *losing* data -- it's been erased and *losing* data -- we don't know where it is.

Re:Not any more unrealistic than the MPAA's figure

[Smordnys s'regrepsA]

You only get that kind of money for copyrights that have been registered with the government, a process which many non-label artists forgo.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[mikael]

The problem is, given some of the outrageous lawsuit amounts given (McD's coffee anyone?)

Read up on the Facts of the case

The facts of the case, which caused a jury of six men and six women to find McDonald's coffee was unreasonably dangerous and had caused enough human misery and suffering that no one should be made to suffer exposure to such excessively hot coffee again, will shock and amaze you:

        McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.

        McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

        McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

        McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

        McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

        McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

        McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

        McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

Re:She's a loon.

[syousef]

Very good points.

Can I make one minor suggestion. Calling the place "Worst Buy" might be good parody but it does make you sound a little less than mature which may take away from all the brilliant points you made.

As for the dude you're responding to: Lately the trolls and extremists, who are happy to take any opportunity to belittle, vilify or put down other people regardless of whether they are at fault, have taken over slashdot. Nothing worse than a nerd-bully.

Re:Again, no... YOU RTFA and RTFL.

[LrdDimwit]

You're quoting from the wrong part of the law. See sect. 28-3852(b): "Any person or entity who maintains, handles, or otherwise possesses computerized or other electronic data that includes personal information that the person or entity does not own shall notify the owner or licensee of the information of any breach of the security of the system in the most expedient time possible following discovery." (Italics added)

Of course Best Buy "maintained, handled or otherwise possessed" the data. When they sold the insurance, what would you call it, if not a maintenance contract? And did they not then take actual possession of the machine, when she called on them to honor the contract? With the specific intent of fixing it because it was broken? That sure sounds like "maintenance" or "handling" to me, but she doesn't even need to prove that. She just has to prove that Best Buy possessed the data, that they lost it, and then stonewalled about it.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Lumpy]

I haven't shopped at Worst buy or Circuit city for 3 years now. And many more I know are doing the same. They are screwing the customers and the customers are starting to talk and not take it. (yes some take being anally raped 10-11 times before they get the idea, but those are our special ed people.)

Re:She's a loon.

[insignificant_wrangl]

Raehl,

I'm having a hard time understanding how you can read the law you cited and not find Best Buy at fault:

"Breach of the security of the system" means unauthorized acquisition of computerized or other electronic data, or any equipment or device storing such data, that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of personal information maintained by the person or business.

A syllogism:

1. Best Buy is a business
2. Best Buy maintains electronic devices through warranties
3. A laptop is an electronic device

Your argument that "repair does not equal maintenance" requires a very, very narrow reading of repair (and as many other posters have noted, a reading of repair not supported by the DC Attorney General). Legally, maintenance falls under the categorization of a "trade practice," which the DC attorney general defines as:

(6) "trade practice" means any act which does or would create, alter, repair, furnish, make available, provide information or services;

When Best Buy accepts the computer, they inherit the responsibility to keep that computer safe. They are at least legally responsible for notifying their client that the information has been compromised:

Any person or entity who maintains, handles, or otherwise possesses computerized or other electronic data that includes personal information that the person or entity does not own shall notify the owner or licensee of the information of any breach of the security of the system in the most expedient time possible following discovery.

So, while we all seem to agree that 54 million is a bit crazy, nothing suggests that this woman is necessarily a "loon."

Re:Mod Parent Up

[DaveMrt19]

Unlike our fine readership here at /. most people reading this story will come away with two facts: some stupid woman refused to accept the purchase price + $500 for her computer that was lost by Best Buy, and that she's now suing them for the ridiculous sum of $54 million. This will further reinforce negative stereotypes about frivolous lawsuits, people will shake their heads in despair, and move on. Best Buy's reputation will not be affected one way or the other. Most people go to Best Buy because they offer things people want to buy at a competitive price, and the store's not too far from where they live. That's all. There are no deep philosophical decisions about corporate practices and no self-righteous activism involved. I am sorry she had to go through what she claims she went through. I won't judge the facts of the story, since I haven't heard Best Buy's side of it yet. That is for the court to decide. What I will say is that her claims (even aside from the $54 million in punitive damages) seem vastly over-inflated. I also hope that if in case it turns out that she fabricated this story or parts of it, the court forces her to pay punitive damages in an amount significant to her means.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[Main Gauche]

"McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media."

Which seems to reinforce the GP's assertion that the original judgment was unreasonable.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[RobNich]

And apparently the reason McDonalds keeps their coffee hotter that other restaurants is that the hotter it is, the longer it can sit on the burner after being brewed without the flavor degrading.

So they saved money by keeping it that hot. And it was probably a LOT more than the reward in the lawsuit.

Re:She's a loon.

[STrinity]

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.

Not just any employee -- an NSA agent who was tipped off that the woman is in fact international superspy Nadia Baderinka. This is obviously a viral marketing campaign for "Chuck".

Re:Because that would be assaninely stupid?

[Idefix97]

Enough is enough!
When I go to the hospital to get a broken leg fixed and they plaster my arm instead they can claim that they made no warranty to fixing the leg?!
The only thing they needed to fix was the power button, NOT the hard drive with data.
Stop being a pedantic moron!

Re:Move along, nothing to see here...

[david_thornley]

You know, I bought a Compaq laptop a while back, and it had an overheating problem. I called Compaq, and a prepaid shipping container was at my door the next day. I sent it off, and it came back real fast.

Not all companies are dedicated to the worst customer service they can manage.

Where is everyone's empathy?

[Geezer Al]

Look, we all know that our computer is important to us. I remember an earthquake in San Francisco where people were running out of their houses naked with only the computer in their arms because their entire financial lives were on it. When the earthquake hit, I reached over my desk and held onto my 21" monitor ($2,000+ in those days) because of how important it was to my business. Yes, I wasn't and many aren't rational when it comes to our computers because we all have a love-hate relationship with it (them). So, when you bring your computer to a "repair shop" you are entrusting them with something that they must take care of. Forget that the law says they were probably grossly negligent and just try and put yourself in the customer's skin. YOU WOULD BE TOTALLY FRUSTRATED. You would have pain and anger. I strongly believe that she should get an enormous amount of money for that. And please, don't tell me that people should back up and protect their identities with safe computing. We all know that, but many do not truly understand what it means to be safe. Once, I tried to get a NASA employee to spend the money on a backup system. She said she could not spend any more money. A few weeks later, she called me up crying. She was designing a cage to hold some animals in an early space shot and all the drawings were lost and not backed up - she felt that she would lose her job. I once had to go to a Senior Manager in a large, well-known company to advise him that one of his department managers refused to buy virus protection and the Michael Angelo virus was going to hit on a specific date (I forget the date). He thanked me, gave me a bonus, and fired his manager, but I took an enormous risk in trying to get them (in the olden days) to practice safe computing. So, the bottom line is. I really empathize with the customer and I hope that she gets all the money the courts are willing to give her.

Re:Exactly.

[raehl]

I may have dumbed it down too much, and it's going to vary state by state, but in general, as far as protection of information goes, you're only obligated to protect information to the lesser of the degree at which you protect your own information or the provider of the information protects their own information. Because the question of negligence is always whether a party took REASONABLE precautions. If you took reasonable precautions, you're not negligent. And one measure of what would be considered reasonable is the actions normally taken by the plaintiff.

For example, if I'm a locksmith and I leave your house unlocked in Compton, that's probably negligent. But if I'm a locksmith and I leave your house unlocked in BFE Iowa, and I can prove that you haven't locked your door in years (setting aside for a minute that that probably means you don't need a locksmith), then that's probably not negligent.

Negligence is all about REASONABLE action.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[fredklein]

So you say. I don't know, I don't drink coffee. What would YOU say is the 'correct' temperature, and why?

For what it's worth, the Coffee Association of Canada says "Restaurant and coffee shop machines are specifically designed to achieve water temperatures of 200oF (75oC)... ".

Re:Look, Rahal

[raehl]

So where's the 'right' part of the law?

It would seem to me to be pretty easy, should I be mistaken, to quote the part of the law where Best Buy is actually responsible for notification.

Uh....

[raehl]

If you were having engine problems with your car, would you remove the transmission before you brought it to the shop to have it worked on?

That depends - is my tax return in the transmission?

How about....

If you were having engine problems with your car, would you take your bank statements, credit cards, and key to your safe deposit box out of your glove compartment before you had it worked on?

Might you not leave your laptop sitting on the back seat of your car when you turned it into the shop?

And if not, would you at least lock the glove box and only give the repair shop the valet key?

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[adonoman]

One of those is off - 200oF is around 93oC.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Provocateur]

I thought this was the right crowd to do that sort of thing.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[fredklein]

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
::sigh::
Fact: McDonalds did not have the coffee 'too hot':
The National Coffee Association recommends coffee be brewed at "between 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction" and drunk "immediately". If not drunk immediately, it should be "maintained at 180-185 degrees Fahrenheit." Coffee makers for your HOME brew at a water temp of 200+ degrees.

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation -

Fact: 700 cases, in the last 10 years, nationwide. But that doesn't take into account how many cups are sold without incident. A McDonald's consultant pointed out the 700 cases in 10 years represents just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! For every injury, no matter how severe, 23,999,999 people managed to drink their coffee without any injury whatever. Isn't that proof that the coffee is not "unreasonably dangerous"?

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.

Appeal to Emotion. It is irrelevent how severe her injuries were.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

Fact: McDonalds coffee cups have ALWAYS had a "Caution: Hot" warning on them.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company

The jury found for the poor little old lady with the great big, painful burns. It's called basign their decision on their Emotions instead fo the facts.

McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants

Wrong, wrong wrong.

http://www.coffeeserviceplus.com/perfect-cup.html
"Brewing temperature should be 195 to 205 degrees Fahrenheit. "

http://www.auniquecoffeeservice.com/brewingsystems.html
"205 F Brewing Temperature "

http://www.morekitchenappliances.com/asp/show_detail.asp?sku=ZOJ1066&PiID=2259383&refid=MP108-ZOJ1066_2259383#ProdDetails
"Heat Retention*: 169F at 10 hrs./136F at 24 hrs.
*Rating is based on water at a starting temperature of 203F (95C) at a room temperature of 68F (20C) "

http://www.bunn.com/retail/dos_donts.html
Do: "us[e] a brewer that keeps water at 200 Fahrenheit (the ideal temperature) "
also
Don't: "Re-heat for serving any coffee with a temperature below 175 F "

http://www.homeclick.com/1/1/13032-velox-travel-coffee-maker-yellow-7027y.html
"Just plug in and the coffee automatically dispenses at the correct 180 degree temperature"

Do I need to continue???? All these references show that the 'proper' temp for brewing coffee is around 200 degrees. Several references show that the coffee should be served hot, around 180-190 degrees (ie: Bunn says if it's below 175 degrees, it is too cold).

Punitive damages

[Mal-2]

Replacement cost, plus a refund of the "warranty", plus the identity theft protection, would have been reasonable compensation if they'd 'fessed up and paid off as soon as they knew they weren't going to find it -- and if they had, we wouldn't be hearing about it now.

In this case, I think what she's entitled to is more along the lines of treble damages, plus the warranty cost, and identity theft protection -- and whatever punitive damages the court awards on top of that should be going to OLPC or something similar. The judgment should compensate her but not make her rich, but at the same time it should significantly sting Best Buy, so they don't just write this off as the cost of doing business. The money that falls in between (which would be the bulk of it) is a bit of a sticky wicket. It shouldn't go to the court, or they'll want to fine the fuck out of everyone for everything and keep it. It shouldn't go to the plaintiff, as she wasn't harmed THAT badly. It has to go to an uninvolved third party so there is no "woohoo, let's do it again! I'M RICH, BIATCH!"

Mal-2

No Backups

[Mrbung]

Come on, this lady is obviously educated and intelligent. You're telling me she has no backups or recovery files for her "irreplaceable" information. Not too bright by my thinking. Especially when she knew she was taking the laptop in for service.

Re:I didn't miss anything. Read the law.

[twiddlingbits]

This is the SAME scenario as I said with my employment records tape. Iron Mountain LOST IBM's data. There is not any way to know if unauthorized access occured but you have to assume it was. IIRC, BB admitted it was likely the laptop was stolen which is unauthorized access right there. What if all of a sudden her bank account was zero because she was stupid enough to let Firefox store her ID and password? Is Best Buy no longer liable as they didn't perform the unathorized access yet their lack of security faciliated the act. If she gets in front of a jury she'll get her money.

But if you are Edison Chen...

[Cameron McCormack]

...then maybe that's a reasonable value to ask for. :)

Re:She's a loon.

[GaryPatterson]

How could she remove the data from the laptop when it wouldn't power on?

Not everyone is technical enough to crack a laptop open and yank the drive, and not every laptop facilitates that sort of thing with easy-to-access drives. When there's a fault, many people don't want to do this sort of thing anyway.

Re:She's a loon.

[tomhudson]

Mblockquote> She provided her laptop to Best Buy. The agreement is that Best Buy would return to her a fixed, or similar, laptop. They agreed to provide a similar laptop. Obligation of best buy satisfie Stop lying. There was no"agreement" to give her either her fixed laptop or a similar one. The agreement was that they would repair her laptop. What are you - a geek squad employee?

Re:No it's not.

[Kierthos]

Except even if they are not liable for her data being stolen, they are responsible for notifying her of the fact that it was stolen. Nothing trumps that. The damn instant they were sure that the laptop was missing, their #1 priority in regards to that customer was letting her know the truth - her laptop was stolen.

Instead, what did they do? They lied about it. Again and again and again.

That is completely unacceptable.

Re:She's a loon.

[Gideon Fubar]

besides, wouldn't breaking the seals to remove the hdd void the warranty by default? I know this isn't the case with some laptops, but most i've worked on have required the equivalent of a voiding before you can change anything at all.

Re:She's a loon.

[tomhudson]

Thanks. We have a whole slew of names for large companies, which we use when they're "behaving badly". Some of the entries:

1. WallyWorld or WalMutt (WalMart)
2. Worst Buy (Best Buy)
3. Crappy Tire (Canadian Tire)
4. Future Shit (Future Shop)
5. The Crap (The Gap)
6. Litigious Bastards (SCO)
7. K-Fart (K-Mart)
8. Microshaft, Micro$oft, Mister Softie, etc (Microsoft - though why Bill Gates named his business after his penis is a mystery)
9. Chipzilla (Intel)
10. Miserable Failure, President Shrub (George Dubya Bush)

Feel free to add to the list.

Re:She's a loon.

[Spookticus]

I think it is interesting that when she sent out her laptop she had to sign a paper. The last line on that paper if I remember correctly states that "I waive all rights too sue BestBuy" or something along those lines. That in its own is a legally binding contract she signed over to best buy.

Re:RTFL! Really. Read it. Here, let me help you.

[crashfrog]

It says PERSONAL INFORMATION maintained by the business.

Well, no, it says "person or business." Which includes the woman who lost her laptop, since she's a person.

There's simply nothing in the statue that appears to let BB off the hook, here, which is why even the local AG thinks they're not off the hook.

Obviously BB has liability here. I simply can't understand how you're reading the statute to apply only to data BB personally maintains; that's not what it says at all. BB's actions allowed "breach of the security of the system", period. It's those actions that expose them to liability, regardless of who was "maintaining" the data.

Try not just reading the part that you bolded. If you read the entire paragraph, as you seem loathe to do, it's obvious that it doesn't define liability, nor restrict it only to data BB personally maintains. It's simply a definition of the term "breach of the security of a system", and it's obvious that happened here. Because it happened by BB's actions, they're the ones who are liable.

Sorry, I quoted the right part. Try again.

[raehl]

I quoted the important part, because it contains the definition for the term used in the part you quoted. The part you quoted is ONLY applicable if it meets the definition of 'breach of the security of the system'.

You quoted:

See sect. 28-3852(b): "Any person or entity who maintains, handles, or otherwise possesses computerized or other electronic data that includes personal information that the person or entity does not own shall notify the owner or licensee of the information of any breach of the security of the system in the most expedient time possible following discovery."

You are substituting a common English definition for 'breach of the security system', but you can't - the section includes a very specific, legal definition of the term 'breach of the security system', and that's the definition you have to use, which according to 28-3851(1) is:

"(1) "Breach of the security of the system" means unauthorized acquisition of
computerized or other electronic data, or any equipment or device storing such data, that
compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of personal information maintained by the
person or business.

Because there is no information maintained by Best Buy involved, no LEGAL breach of the security of the system happened, so there's nothing for Best Buy to notify the customer of.

Re:No, it's ridiculous.

[mrchaotica]

Yeah, and that "stringing her along" bit is really where the difference is: if she'd known from the beginning that the repair was going to take a long time (or, as in this case, that the laptop would be gone completely), she could have acquired a new laptop to get her work done. But if they were constantly telling her "oh, you'll get your computer back soon," then she'd think it wasn't worth buying (or even leasing) a new computer for just a few days of use. Then she suddenly realizes it's been three months and she hasn't gotten any work done because the whole time she was expecting her laptop to be ready Real Soon Now.

Nope, that's not what it includes.

[raehl]

Well, no, it says "person or business." Which includes the woman who lost her laptop, since she's a person.

Nope. The phrase 'person or business' refers to the person or business maintaining the data. Read subsections (a) and (b) which use the term breach of security - it reads that a person or business is responsible for disclosing the release of information maintained by that person or business. So if you use person as in the customer, than she is also the one responsible for the data, not best buy. Can't have it both ways.

Re:Nope, that's not what it includes.

[crashfrog]

Fundamentally wrong. There's nothing in the law that limits the obligation of the business to inform in the way you describe. If they cause a breach of security of a system, they're obligated to inform - regardless of who is the maintainer of the data.

Who maintains the data is irrelevant. It's about who allows the breach of security. That's Best Buy, so their actions obligated them to inform.

Re:identity theft protection?

[oldhack]

Last i heard service companies ( unless they explicitly have a contract with you stating otherwise ) aren't liable for your data other the 'best effort', so i don't see how that applies. If she had sensitive data on there, she should have pulled the HD first. Sux to be her.

Dear Karma: The guy's handle on ./ is "nurb432" with id "527695". Do your thing.

Thanks for the analogy that proves my point.

[raehl]

The employment records lost were ABOUT you, but they were OWNED and MAINTAINED by IBM, and they were apparently lost by a contractor SPECIFICALLY CONTRACTED TO HANDLE CONFIDENTIAL DATA! (That's what Iron Mountain does).

The records on the customer's hard drive were OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CUSTOMER. She then gave them to Best Buy (who was not contracted to handle confidential data, by the way), and Best Buy lost them.

So, your scenario:

Data is about: you
Data is owned and maintained by: IBM
Data is given by owner (IBM) to company informed of confidential nature of the data and contracted and paid specifically to handle confidential data (Iron Mountain).
Data is lost by: Iron Mountain

Responsible party: IBM

Best Buy scenario:

Data is about: The customer
Data is owned and maintained by: The customer
Data is given by owner (The Customer) to company NOT informed of the confidential nature of the data, who specifically tells you they are not responsible for data, and is contracted to fix power switch (Best Buy)
Data is lost by: Best Buy

Responsible party: CUSTOMER!

So the customer should buy herself some identify theft monitoring.

Thanks for making my point though.

Re:Thanks for the analogy that proves my point.

[ibbey]

What you seem to be missing is that Best Buy has a legal responsibility to protect the customers computer while it is in their care. They shouldn't need to be specifically told that her computer may contain personal data-- I think it's safe to assume that most computers contain things that are at least marginally private, so Best Buy should protect ALL computers in their care as if they contain private data.

IANAL, and it seems that you aren't either. Since you seem pretty confident about the law in question, perhaps you can post the specific section of the code that exempts Best Buy of their responsibility to protect the customers data and property in this case? Maybe some case law that backs up your theory? Or are you just talking out your ass?

Re:identity theft protection?

[mrchaotica]

If the problem is that the system won't power on, then remove the hard drive.

That's all well and good if you have a Thinkpad (such as my x60, which requires removing one screw), but what if you have an iBook (such as my old 12" G4, which requires removing 41 screws of various types including Torx, prying apart the fragile plastic case, and takes 17 steps to describe)? Geek Squad itself isn't technically capable enough to accomplish that (and especially not the dumbasses at the in-store service desk), let alone a random end-user. So what do you suggest then (and "don't buy a Mac" is not a valid answer, because a reasonable, normal person would already have it before encountering the problem)?

Re:She's a loon.

[raehl]

She pays someone who is qualified to do it.

You don't just hand the hard drive to someone who promises to pay absolutely no attention to what's on the hard drive and just assume everything will be ok.

Re:I didn't miss anything. Read the law.

[PunkOfLinux]

Considering it was Best Buy's negilgence that CAUSED the loss of the information in the first place, yes, it is their fault. If they had actually taken the proper precautions to ensure that this sort of thing didn't happen, it... wouldn't have happened. And then to jerk her around like this, that's just shitty service, guys.

Re:No it's not.

[raehl]

I agree that it's not acceptable, but I don't think it's $54 million not acceptable, and it also isn't an act that's covered by DC's consumer identity protection law like she is asserting it is.

Re:She's a loon.

[syousef]

Yeah it's too easy sometimes.

The fast food ones that come to mind immediately
KFC - Kant F'ing Cook
Hungry Jacks - Humpme Jacks
Pizza Hut - Pizza Slut
McDonalds - McDogfood

There are so many for Microsoft I won't bother listing them.
Oracle - (H)Orrible
Sun - Bum (Bum Java)
IBM - iBum
SeaGate - Sea-Crate
Dell - Dildo
Apple - That fruit company

I'm not against having fun with company names. Still best to keep 'em out of the serious dialog.

Re:I didn't miss anything. Read the law.

[raehl]

That's not true for two reasons.

One, the computer was stolen. The presence of confidential data on the computer that was stolen was due to the customer.

Two, you're engaging in a logical fallacy when you argue that the proper precautions must not have been taken merely because the laptop was stolen. One does not necessarily mean the other. You can take the proper precautions and bad shit can happen anyway. We don't know if proper precautions were taken or not. But even if they were not taken, Best Buy is only responsible for the laptop, not the data on it.

Re:Not any more unrealistic than the MPAA's figure

[Aardpig]

Why say 'burglarized' when there's a perfectly good English word 'burgled'?

Re:Move along, nothing to see here...

[raehl]

Don't bother. You're dealing with anti-slashdot zealots. Just silently track their posts until there's some thread about a Linux system crashing and losing data and wait until they spew about how it's the users fault for not backing it up.

Re:Not any more unrealistic than the MPAA's figure

[MorePower]

Why say 'burglarized' when there's a perfectly good English word 'burgled'?

I love this word "burgled" ever since I read that story about the British columnist who wrote a column complaining about "burglarized" (and the American response "You're right, we appogle.")

I mean, it make perfect logical sense the a burglar would be "one who burgles", but come on, "burgle". Burgle ! It sounds like something out of a Doctor Suess book ("they tammed their tam-tamlers and burgled their burg-bugles"). It never fails to give me a chuckle.

Hehe, burgle!

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[Lemmy Caution]

Those who hold other classes in contempt are the most contemptible? So if you hold the class of paedophiles and mass murderers in contempt, you are more contemptible than they are?

I don't know if it's the most contemptible class, but people who engage in specious reasoning and crude, exaggerated statements that collapse at the slightest analysis are pretty contemptible, too. Contempt is a valid mechanism for establishing values and criticizing behavior.

Re:Sorry, I quoted the right part. Try again.

[anagama]

OK -- I just read this. Here is what I got out of it. BB definitely handled and possessed her confidential computerized data. They didn't own the data, but the law "includes personal information that the person or entity does not own". So doesn't matter if the data was somehow generated by BB and owned by it. They merely need to have it.

Then looking at the "breach of the security system" definition, plainly there was "unauthorized acquisition ... [of] equipment or [a] device storing such data" because a) if the laptop was stolen, she certainly didn't authorize that and the robber acquired it, or b) if the laptop was lost by BB, then BB acquired it by rendering the computer not findable in their storage room. Certainly she did not authorize BB to lose the computer but because it did, it arguably acquired the device ... it must be there somewhere if it is simply lost. If it went out in the garbage, then the garbage collector acquired it. Plainly, some entity not the original owner has acquired the laptop. It may be under 5 tons of rotting lettuce, but someone got it. It's important to note the law does not require the acquiring entity to misuse the data -- only to be an unauthorized recipient.

Anyway, if she had banking info on there, and everyone does, that would clearly compromise "the security, confidentiality, OR integrity" of the data. Pick any of these, not all are required.

Returning then to the earlier part, if BB did not tell her in the most expedient fashion possible that her data was at risk, then they're liable.

Don't get hung up on "maintained" as in "made backups and stored it securely on tapes in someone's car". All BB had to do was possess the device -- which they did, allow it to be acquired by an unauthorized entity (including themselves), and then not tell her about the loss quickly.

You aren't by chance a shill poster for BB are you?

Re:She's a loon.

[GaryPatterson]

I know where you're coming from, but how do non-technical people know this sort of stuff?

Who knows to encrypt their hard drive, or to get the drive removed before taking it to a service centre? This isn't obvious knowledge.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[asc99c]

Fact 0: Regardless of whatever temperature other places serve coffee, everyone who has a kettle at home makes tea and coffee at just under 100 C. It's just not possible for McDonalds to server coffee significantly hotter than it would be at home.

Despite the litigation culture, most people accept that spilling your coffee is *your* accident - unless they've served boiling hot coffee to a 3 year old, it's an unfortunate accident for which no one should be liable.

service ethics

[b0nafide]

as a technician i endorse the idea that customers like being informed about the progress of the repair, especially when those reports on progress are not contradictory. triage is essential. it's good to be in agreement about warranty status at first, it's good to call when work is started, if extra costs are going to be involved and of course when it's finished. the opposite can be very frustrating for non-technical people when they are already putting their faith in you for a service.

stolen? and subsequently covered with a bogus paper trail? now that's not good service at all.

i once borrowed a dual-core laptop for two months without permission. the customer left the unit in our service department for over six months after our repair was complete. we had called numerous times over the months, including call by our accountant, to tell them it was fixed and to pay up!! mysteriously, they did not appear to collect their laptop nor did they return our calls. anyway... 6mo l8r... i installed linux on the second, unused partition and promptly forgot about the ntfs partition. it's contents were not of interest to me and even though i had ntfs-3g, the partition was not specified in my fstab. i did not delete the original partition, because the laptop was not mine. but i completely messed with the MBR and the second partition on their HD, tailoring a gentoo install to the gills. i spent those months compiling a nice 64-bit SMP world. i was just beginning to actually USE the laptop to do things other than compile- when: the customer then promptly appeared in accordance with murphy's law, having rustled up the additional money for their LCD screen replacement bill. luckily i was able to quickly return it to them in it's original (but now repaired) state with a freshly written MBR now lacking grub and a happy empty second NTFS partition. the customer was pleased and went off to play solitare on XP Home. i'm thinking: sure, some of us can revel in the non-destructible nature of our massively parallel-processing crc'ed calculators with journaled backups spanning numerous volumes on several continents, but the average user is processing with faith. it's just supposed to work for n years, especially when you pay $300 extra.

i could have been a jerk and quoted the fine print, which states that we're not responsible, blah blah blah. but i live in a small community where word of mouth flies faster than photons along fibre and putting my data somewhere else was only a few orders of magnitude slower than that.

it was probably that damn butler who hangs out in the electronics department all the time who actually ripped this lady off.

Re:Sorry, I quoted the right part. Try again.

[raehl]

The law is not much different than code. It's written the same way. When there's an AND operator, and that and operator is false, none of the other operators matter.

All sections of that law require "Breach of the security of the system". No breach of the security system, no violation. And breach of the security system requires "personal information maintained by the
person or business." (and remember, person here means provider of the service, not the customer)

Everything else in your post doesn't matter, because we have a 0 for 'personal information maintained by Best Buy', and once you have 0 in an AND, you've got 0.

You do have the best argument in that Best Buy did actually 'maintain' the data (as opposed to all the other arguments that are rendered entirely irrelevant as long as the maintenance issue isn't addressed), but I just don't see how you can argue anyone 'maintains' something that they are not even aware is there, did not want it, did not accept it, and are not even supposed to look at it.

Re:No it's not.

[Kierthos]

If her tax info was on there, then yes it is covered by the DC consumer identity protection law. Now, is it partially her fault for leaving her stuff on there? Yes. Should she have removed the hard drive before getting the repairs done? Yes.

Did Best Buy still give her the runaround for weeks on this? YES.
Have they taken the steps that they are required to by law now that they know her personal info was on there? Why, it appears not.

I have worked in retail for the last seven and a half years. If I even pulled half the shit that these people at Best Buy did, I'd be looking for another job.

And even she admits that the $54 million is too much. But it damn sure has their attention now, doesn't it?

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[OverlordQ]

You're a horrible troll.

Bunn does not say that 175 is too cold. They say "Dont reheat it".

And the rest of your articles give brewing temperature, not serving temperature.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[Xeriar]

You mean, "free advertisement for Best Buy has already been done"

I'm not so sure. I tend to get a few new customers after each incident like this.

Re:Sorry, I quoted the right part. Try again.

[anagama]

You said:

The law is not much different than code. It's written the same way. When there's an AND operator, and that and operator is false, none of the other operators matter.

Do ctrl-f on the next part. Get back to me when you find an AND. I see a bunch of ORs.

See sect. 28-3852(b): "Any person or entity who maintains, handles, or otherwise possesses computerized or other electronic data that includes personal information that the person or entity does not own shall notify the owner or licensee of the information of any breach of the security of the system in the most expedient time possible following discovery."

"(1) "Breach of the security of the system" means unauthorized acquisition of computerized or other electronic data, or any equipment or device storing such data, that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of personal information maintained by the person or business.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[mbius]

Did your source not seem reputable enough to link?

"National Coffee Association" my achin' ass. Anyone claiming no liquid that won't burn your skin is worth putting in your mouth is, by definition, a tit.

another article suggests industry standard is 160 to 185 degrees...in the early 1990's home coffeemakers only brewed up to 130-140 degrees...Stella Liebeck suffered terrible third-degree burns

Whether or not you have teflon lips that allow you to drink liquids at the "expert-recommended" just-shy-of-boiling, only an idiot would suggest McDonald's coffee and proper brew temperature have anything to do with each other.

McDonald's took responsibility when one of its employees spilled coffee on a customer and settled cases of burns from such spills

Either this guy is the clumsiest burger-flipper in world history, or the article's authors have an axe to grind.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[somersault]

She was holding a scalding hot cup of coffee between her knees in a car, what else was going to happen? I can't remember if McDonald's didnt have lids then, or if she'd taken the lid off, but seriously it still takes the piss that people aren't supposed to use common sense even if McDonalds do distribute unreasonably hot coffee.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[darthflo]

In other news, handing the masters of anything to unqualified clerks who probably even make you sign an agreement about not being liable for any loss of data is far beyond stupid, probably somewhere in the range of criminal negligence.

Should she get the laptop's purchase price refunded? Of course.
Should she get an apology for the inconvenience caused? Pretty much. Should she get some kind of compensation (three months is quite some time, maybe $3k-$5k, maybe a badass gift cert., maybe best buy's current top-of-the-line laptop offering? Would be a nice gesture and they'd probably keep her as a customer.
Should Best Buy be investigated and probably fined for lack of protection of their customers' devices and data? Yeah!
Should she get $54m (equivalent to some 1'200 average american annual incomes!) for some inconveniences during three months? No!

Backing up data before your power button breaks

[billstewart]

How do you back up your data after the power button breaks? Ideally you don't; you back it up when it's still working.

Yeah, ok, I've been slacking off on that too. The other way you do it is you pop the disk out of the laptop and into a disk-to-USB adapter which the store keeps on its DVD-burning machine. Unlike doing my backups regularly, I *have* bought one of those :-)

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[Knuckles]

But it wasn't that the plaintiff sued for that amount right away. I have read (but can't back up with a link right now) that he reason the jury decided in that way was annoyance with McDonald's lawyer. According to the article I read, the lawyer had insinuated that the plaintiff's request to pay for her skin crafts was unreasonable, given that, in his opinion, nobody would ever see the groin of an 81 year old woman. I certainly understand the jury getting angry over that.

Re:+5 My aching ass

[tomhudson]

Get your facts straight.

Christ, man. You've got the little Slashdot lawyer hat on, and have spent way too much time quoting and reciting the law of...no district at all. I applaud the effort.

No need to quote chapter and verse of any particular district - but since you brought it up,the law in Washington (where this happened) is that when you lose someone's property, you're responsible to make them whole again. Since you want a citation, read about torts arising from negligence, which is what this case is about.

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.

It shows you never read the article. Otherwise, you'd know she isn't using a lawyer. Again, get your facts straight.

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.

"Pay you for your time?" When you haven't even read the article? You really are a presumptuous little twerp, aren't you?

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"

And yet, you not only didn't read the article, you didn't even know that her claim is for negligence, and is entirely within the law.

--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:

Yeah, whatever ... like you've ever argued a case, civil OR criminal ...

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.

Again, you obviously haven't read the article - you keep on going on about "plaintiff's counsel", when there is none. READ the F.A., buy a clue or two.

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 c

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[Brian Gordon]

You're the contemptible one because you're holding yourself in contempt every time you judge someone. The contempt piles on your own head faster than you can dole it out- thus, the most contemptible. Check your zen before you go "reasoning" things out.

Re:Again, no... YOU RTFA and RTFL.

[rtb61]

That brings about the most important part of the saga. When Best Buy sought to mislead the customer about the theft of the laptop, they were in fact aiding and abetting the theif of the lap top in failing to report the crime. Hence the knowingly broke the law and as such any conditions the Best Buy puts on the customers data are null and void.

When Best Buy participated in the crime as accessories after the fact, by failing to report the theft for months after it occurred and as suck allowing the maximum amount of time for the criminal to cover the tracks and safely abscond with the computer and the data contained there in. Make no mistake failure to report a crime is in fact a crime.

This pretty much makes Best Buy liable for any kind of damages no matter how far fetched. The customer might also aid the case by seeking the criminal prosecution of those that failed to report the crime.

Lack of backups isn't the issue.

[FoamingToad]

The issue is that *someone else* also has possession of exactly those records, and had enjoyed possession of same for a period of up to three months before the customer was informed.

Or would you care to post your (assuming you're a US Citizen) SSN here as a 'backup'?

Lurk more, pls.

F_T

Re:She's a loon.

[Gideon Fubar]

you mean.. like the guys who she gave it to?

They're the only ones qualified, unless she just wants someone else to void the warranty. Or do Best Buy have some 'approved pc technician' program i'm not aware of?

you know, it's possible she knew enough to know that fixing the power button should not affect the hdd at all, even if she didn't know how to back the hdd up herself..

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[fredklein]

Did your source [http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_and_stella_liebe.html] not seem reputable enough to link?

Sorry, that was not my source. Please play again.

in the early 1990's home coffeemakers only brewed up to 130-140 degrees

And today, they brew hotter.

http://www.bunn.com/retail/bunn_difference.html
"The patented ready-to-brew reservoir keeps water at the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200. (Conventional home brewers heat water until it boils up to coffee basket.)"

Bunn also recommends you DO use "a brewer that keeps water at 200 Fahrenheit" and that you DON'T even bother reheating coffee if it's "below 175 F".

Re:RTFL! Really. Read it. Here, let me help you.

[hesaigo999ca]

Man, some people just dont want to read the article no matter how many times you tell them.
I am glad you did read it to explain it to me, as now I don't have to read anything....

I do hope she gets a big settlement, even though I am against suing someone all together.
This is a clear case of a big corp pushing away their responsibility and not owning up to it.
I think its about time that the little guy ( or woman) gets properly represented against these
big corps, where BB or futurshop or staples and the like learn that you can't
avoid the law when it suits them.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[fredklein]

Bunn does not say that 175 is too cold. They say "Dont reheat it".


They say 'don't reheat it', because once it's fallen to 175, it no longer tastes good. Therefore, for it to taste good, you need to keep it ABOVE 175. McDonalds had it 180-185.

And the rest of your articles give brewing temperature, not serving temperature.


NOT TRUE. Learn to read. The Homeclick link says "dispenses at the correct 180 degree temperature" DISPENSES, as in "serving temp", of 180.
The Morekitchenappliences link is refering to a SERVING carafe that keeps coffee hot for SERVING to people. It mentions how well it hold the heat "based on water at a starting temperature of 203F".

You want more?

http://www.boyds.com/coffee/brewingguide.html
"If brewed coffee must be "held" on a direct heat source, it should be held at 185F,....Lower temperatures make the brew too cold and consumers will be dissatisfied. "

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070926204605AAFm6xU
"several restaurants, including the one I work for, have a minimum temperature that coffee must be served. In the case of the company I work for, it's 180 degrees+.
So, a coffee may be "too hot" to your standards, but as far as the restaurant that served it, it was "just right""

http://coffeeflavour.blogspot.com/2008/02/right-temperature-for-hot-coffee.html
"Ideally, the right temperature for serving coffee is 165 - 175 degrees."

http://solutions-cds.com/FAQ.htm
"185 degrees to 190 degrees temperature for holding beverage coffee. "

Sheesh.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[encoderer]

I really couldn't care less about this discussion, but...

"And today, they brew hotter."

I'd say it's good for ole' Stella that the lawsuit didn't happen today. It happened in the early '90s, when, apparently, the standard was different.

It's not like a Judge could've said "Stella, get real, in ten years every home coffee maker will be brewing at 200* !!"

Re:She's a loon.

[geminidomino]

If it was SOOOOO private, why didn't she wipe [or remove the HD] before returning it for repairs? This was covered already. She couldn't turn the machine on, and opening it to remove the HD would have voided that scam that best buy refuses to call an extended warranty

Re:She's a loon.

[plague3106]

First, Best Buy has no responsibility for the data lost. We all know that when you send in your computer for repair that unless you have some ueber data protection plan, data is not the repair shop's responsibility.

Why shouldn't it be? That's the only stuff on the laptop anyone cares about. If there were no data on it which you cared about, why not just take home a brand new one? Can a maid service get away with saying "we aren't responsible if we break a vase?"

Second, I don't see where best buy has any responsibility for any privacy implications either. It's not like someone broke into Best Buy's database and accessed information collected and stored by Best Buy. Someone stole a customer laptop with the customer's hard drive on it. Best Buy has no way of knowing what data is on that hard drive, and frankly, if there IS private, sensitive information on the hard drive, that is again the customer's problem, not Best Buy's. Best Buy can't be responsible for the contents of a hard drive they shouldn't even be looking at the contents of. And, there's no reason to notify you that your data is on the loose when you already know you gave someone your hard drive with data.

BB knows very well that there could be personal information on the computer, and that information could be used for identity theft. They need to take "resonable care" of the other party's item, or they are liable. If it had been in a locked room and there was clearly a break-in, fine. But for it just to vanish? No, that's not reasonable care. Now, lets also add in the fact that it was likely stolen by an employee. What else could have happened to it? A wormhole opened and swallowed just this lady's laptop? Get real.

Third, the warranty terms are pretty clear on what the warranty is good for. Replacement of the laptop with a like laptop. So no matter how broke or lost her laptop is, all she is entitled to is replacement of the laptop with a similar model.

The claim probably isn't based on the warranty; that part is fulfilled. The lawsuit likely stems from the fact that BB did not take "resonable care" to ensure the laptops safety. They also are aware that there is likely senstitive personal information on the laptop as well. Given those to facts, and the fact that it was likely stolen by a BB employee, BB is liable. In case you're not getting it, look up a legal definition of "reasonable care."

Question...

[encoderer]

Question...

An eager fake lawyer like yourself surely is familiar with the term "legislative intent."

A big part of the job description of a judge is to study a statute, and case history, to determine legislative intent. He's supposed to weigh his own judgment along side the past judgments of other courts.

Precedent is equally as important in interpreting a statute as the legislative language itself.

So, tell me.. since you've basically represented yourself as an expert on this particular part of the municipal code, have you examined the case history? Do you have a grasp on the precedents set by previous courts?

Re:Not any more unrealistic than the MPAA's figure

[geminidomino]

Why would an employee really steal it though? As a one-time Best Buy tech bench employee (pre-Geek Squad), the answer to that is an unqualified "yes."

Re:Not any more unrealistic than the MPAA's figure

[geminidomino]

Ooops, misread... missed the "Why" part...

Lots of reasons. Best Buy pays crap, treats its people like crap, and makes sure that its people know that customers are there to get money out of, whether satisfied or not. So a disgruntled employee decides to sweeten the pot for himself, doesn't see any downside to letting the company suffer for it, and doesn't have any problem hurting the cattle that left their stuff with him.

Creative RIAAing

[bagsc]

1. Record 360 tracks of you talking on your microphone on your laptop.
2. Give laptop to someone
3. Have laptop stolen
4. Sue person responsible for laptop for $1000 plus $150,000 per track of copyrighted recorded material
6. Citing precedent, settle out of court for a mere $10,000 per track

Re:+5 My aching ass

[stuntpope]

I'll just talk out of my ass here, but my personal knowledge is that if you take photo film in for processing (to a standard generic photo processing business), and the business loses your film, they are only liable for the replacement cost of the roll of film, and not for any value of the *data* (pictures) on that film. So if I'm a pro photographer who just finished a shoot for a client for which they'll pay me, and I drop off the film at Fotos 'R' Us, and they lose the roll, I'm not getting compensated for the value of the photos. Lesson learned? Use a higher quality business to develop my photos, and see if any will offer compensation for data value in the event of a loss. But for that particular event, I'm out the money.

I suspect that this is also the case for businesses working on computers, in regards to any claimed value of the data on the computer. There may be laws regarding identity theft protection in the event of data theft, but as to this woman getting money for the value of the hard drive's contents, I seriously doubt that happening.

And I think the parent you replied to made some excellent points, which you basically tried to nullify by accusing him of working for Best Buy. Like that's a good legal argument.

Re:No it's not.

[stuntpope]

Folks, "troll" does not mean "something I disagree with and I'm tired of this guy posting in this thread."

Troll has a meaning. If you think raehl is over-doing it with rehashed explanations of his position that are contrary to how you see things, there is the Redundant mod.

It's babyish to retaliate against a poster you disagree with by modding down as troll, when no trolling is taking place, but rather well-thought out, non-inflammatory arguments that are in opposition to your point of view.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[Lemmy Caution]

No, actually, contempt is intransitive. I'm pretty contemptuous of you right now. And you're being pretty contemptuous yourself, so by your own standards, you're contemptible.

Re:No, it's ridiculous.

[stuntpope]

Then she suddenly realizes it's been three months and she hasn't gotten any work done I'll try that excuse to my boss when my next project is 3 months behind schedule. I had a problem with network connectivity, and I suddenly (smacks forehead) realized it's been 3 months since I've been able to work on my project!

I think this woman had a responsibility to act more forcefully and earlier if there were such value in her laptop.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[dbcad7]

without the flavor degrading

They should let it degrade.. It's awful coffee.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[jcr]

What part of "I tried to give it back, but they wouldn't take it" constitutes "acceptance"..?

The part where she took the money.

-jcr

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[dbcad7]

There is another option.. Liquid coffee concentrate (it's refrigerated). It's is mixed with the hot water as it goes into the cup. You have probably had it many times in resturants and never knew it. Wasted coffee = 0

Re:No it's not.

[Mitsoid]

Since when was something that's "Missing" = "stolen"? I cant find my car keys right now, should I call the police and report my keys stolen? They are probably just in my jacket pocket, or on the table upstairs.. ----- In order for Best Buy to send the computer back for repairs, it has to be shipped at least twice (to, and back), sometimes 4 times (to RTM).. So it is their responsibility to ensure it wasn't left in a warehouse somewhere and not shipped before jumping and saying it was stolen... and that research does take some time (days)... I'm not defending Best Buy, They should pay for damages and breaking laws. However, people seem to be jumping on the bashing frenzy... I've had quiet a few products replaced by Best Buy without issues.. but then again, i dont walk in red-faced screaming for a manager... I've walked in to see that go on once, and while it got attention, I don't think that guy got much help by starting a fight in the front of the store. Anyway, IMO Best Buy does a fine job with most their products... just perhaps not their Geek Squad... Not that i'd ever need their services.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[geekoid]

You overlook the fact that it was hot enough to put her in the hospital with 3rd degree burns.

Also, you make coffee at 190-200 degrees, you don't serve it at that temperature.

Another thing, McDonalds treated her like crap.

but wait, there is more: They had been told that is was too hot to serve and ignored it in exchange for profits.

"...just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! "
Which goes to show something was wrong at the McDonald's she got her Coffee because it was estimated to be over 190 degrees at the TIME OF THE SPILL. So it was probably closer to 205-210 when served.

An infury of this magnitude had happened ONCE before and McDonald's had been told there coffee was dangerous and ignored it.

So in actuality:
A) McDonald's NEW it was too hot.
B) This particular cup was well above reasonable temperatures.As shown by the magnitude of the burns.
C) The lady spent 10 days in the hospital.

Yes, most burns may have been mild, but so what? Clearly hers wasn't. Most people ride a roller coaster are perfectly fine , that doesn't mean the amusement company isn't liable when improper maintenance that the were warned about cause the vehicle to go off the tracks.

Your argument is specious at best, and just down right stupid at worst.

Re:Lying is not fraud.

[Mark J Tilford]

I think that "evading the penalties for losing a customer's property" is a gain.

Re:She's a loon.

[kullnd]

I always thought K-Mart pernounced "K-Mapart"

Re:No it's not.

[pyrr]

You might want to start by reading the story. The laptop apparently never was "shipped-out" to any other service locations. It was lost almost immediately by the allegedly incompetent/thieving staff at Best Buy. They lied about shipping it around as a stall tactic and in a feeble attempt to cover it all up. BB didn't find the laptop, which was stored in a "secure area" for months, and I think under those circumstances, it's quite reasonable to assume it was, in fact, stolen rather than lost. It was not where it was supposed to be, in a secure area with what I'd assume is some level of organization, and it had to go --somewhere--. It didn't go somewhere without assistance; someone took it out of the secure area, one would assume out of the store, and there doesn't seem to be any store policy that would authorize that a customer's computer be removed from the store under those circumstances. I believe that quite convincingly meets the criteria for "theft".

Re:Sorry, I quoted the right part. Try again.

[randyest]

When you give BB a laptop for repair, they try to secure it, right? That is, they have some system of procedures to take, tag, log, and securely store it, no? Sounds like a security system to me. And if, say, a customer or employee were to steal it, that would involve a breach of that system, would it not?

And, while that laptop is in BB's possession, are they not maintaining it? I think so. And the data on the laptop are a part of that laptop, which BB is maintaining. If there's personal information on that laptop, and it's in BB's custody and care, that's personal information maintained by Best Buy.

Sounds simple. Why do you fight this so hard? Any relation to BB?

Re:She's a loon.

[Evil Adrian]

They don't call it "Worst Buy" for nothing ...

They? I'm pretty sure you're the only immature fuck calling it "Worst Buy".

Either you're a total moron or that was an epic troll.

Re:You pretty much deserve all you get.

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

early in 2007, i was working the weekend shift. i parked my motorcycle in front of the office and went to work.

about 2:00PM, one of the security guards came to my desk and asked me to come to the building door. i thought "i'm getting fired on the weekend ?". WTF ???

when i got there, there was a police car there, 2 officers and a bum in handcufs. he had tried to steal my bike...

here's the thing, the bike's alarm was off, and i had no chains or other kind of locks on the wheels. it was just a matter of hardwiring the ignition and ride away.

now, the fact that i had no protection other than having removed the key makes it OK for this guy to take away what's mine ?

even if i had left the key on the ignition he'd have no right to ride it away, absence of security measures is not a permission to use.

oh, yeah. the guy is still in jail.

Re:identity theft protection?

[jtroutman]

Again, this is a "but..but what if" non-issue. Geek Squad doesn't service Macs. If you took it to a place that does service Macs, they would be able to remove the hard drive for you.

Re:Again, no... YOU RTFA and RTFL.

[AIkill]

The problem comes in, though, is if the laptop was at the BB store or if it was sent to an off-site location for repairs. Geek Squad has to send any laptop with a hardware problem or any computer with a heavy virus infection to an off-site repair center. If the laptop was being sent off-site, then the question is: Was the laptop lost at the off-site loc, or was it lost in-route to the off-site loc? If the answer is the latter, then BB is not at fault, but the shipping company that was transporting the laptop is. However, if the laptop was at the BB store when it was lost, it also begs the question: was the laptop just simply lost, or was it stolen? If it was stolen, then BB is also a victim, and the thief needs to be found and charged. Either way, the truth of the situation needs to be discovered.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[fredklein]

You overlook the fact that it was hot enough to put her in the hospital with 3rd degree burns.


What's your point? ALL coffee is that hot!

Also, you make coffee at 190-200 degrees, you don't serve it at that temperature.


Actually, you make it at "195 -205". As for serving temp, I've posted numerous references that confirm the correct holding/serving temp to be around 180 to 185, which is exactly what McDonalds used.

"...just 1 injury per 24 million cups sold! "
Which goes to show something was wrong at the McDonald's

Huh? ONLY one cup in 24,000,000 ended up causing a burn. There are 50,000 deaths due to car accidents per year, and only 70 McDonalds coffee burns.

A) McDonald's NEW it was too hot.

I'm sorry, but you can't even spell "knew", but we're all supposed to listen to your opinion?

B) This particular cup was well above reasonable temperatures.As shown by the magnitude of the burns.

SHe spilled an entire cup in her crotch, and then sat there for up to 7 seconds. Neither of these things are McDonald's fault.

C) The lady spent 10 days in the hospital.

SO? I mean it's horrible, but it's also irrelevent.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[zakezuke]

It's just not possible for McDonalds to server coffee significantly hotter than it would be at home. Ummmm....

1) it went directly from from brewer to styrofoam mug.
2) Their commercial peculators are 5 to 10 gallons, enough weight to increase the boiling point slightly and is poured from the bottom. Home brewing is pored from the top typically.
3) Homes typically use drip pots, not peculators.

This being said, I was unaware how hot McDonald's coffee was until I ordered some and burnt my tongue. I was then told afterwards the coffee was not meant to be drunk in the restaurant but rather after 2 hours after work. However, when I was a teen with a crappy care I used their coffee to clean my engine. There was no way I could get water as hot as their coffee.

Innotec? Where's my red Swingline Thtapler??

[GargamelSpaceman]

Why am I working in the basement?
Where is my paycheck?

Re:identity theft protection?

[mrchaotica]

Geek Squad doesn't service Macs.

Are you sure about that? After all, Best Buy does sell Macs and warranty Macs (with their "Performance Service Plan"). Geek Squad will accept a Mac still under the store warranty/PSP for service.

Actually, what you say is true in the very narrow sense that Geek Squad simply replaces the Mac every time instead of servicing it. (I know this because I had an iMac G5 that was replaced with an iMac Core Duo.) However, you're still left with the issue that the discarded machine has your data on it. And you know Geek Squad isn't going to destroy it; they're going to sell it to a refurbisher that'll do who-knows-what with the data. So even if you're sending your Mac in, knowing it's going to be replaced, Geek Squad still needs to be able to remove the hard drive!

Re:Mod Parent Up

[vsync64]

Please explain how you don't accept it.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[Teflon_Jeff]

"Fact 0: Regardless of whatever temperature other places serve coffee, everyone who has a kettle at home makes tea and coffee at just under 100 C. It's just not possible for McDonalds to server coffee significantly hotter than it would be at home."

Yes, just under 100 C would be about right for brewing. Let's convert to Fahrenheit, where it would be just under 212 F. or, for simplicityies sake, 195. allow for cooling whilst serving, and you have approximately 185 F.

Conversion rates are your friend.

Re:You're arguing syntax, not logic.

[anagama]

breach_of_the_security_of_the_system() { return (unauthorized acquisition && ((computerized || other electronic data) || ((equipment || device) && (storing data)))) && compromises && (security || confidentiality || integrity) && personal information && maintained by (person || business)); }

At this point, you need to be aware of the canons of statutory construction. One is that statutes are read as a whole so that no part is rendered meaningless. Another is that if a term is otherwise undefined, the normal dictionary definition of that term is used. Always, the purpose or intent of the statute should be maintained. (heh).

Your code works fine when converted to English -- you're problem is that you are saying the very last clause "&& maintained ( person || business)" means that BB generated and "owns" the data, and that there is no breach unless that is the case. What you have left out are the unwritten rules, those cannons of construction I mention above.

If you change the word that is misleading you to "kept", your correct program won't return a wrong result. BB kept the data for X number of days till they lost it. That is indisputable.

From Merriam-Webster: Maintain "1: to keep in an existing state (as of repair, efficiency, or validity) : preserve from failure or decline [maintain machinery]2: to sustain against opposition or danger : uphold and defend [maintain a position]3: to continue or persevere in : carry on, keep up [couldn't maintain his composure]4 a: to support or provide for [has a family to maintain] b: sustain [enough food to maintain life]5: to affirm in or as if in argument : assert [maintained that the earth is flat]".

As for reading the parts of the statute together, the first part is clearly meant to be a punishment applied to any entity that in any way handles other people's data carelessly. So to limit the effect of the statute with an exceptionally narrow interpretation of the word "maintain" just doesn't square with what seems to be the purpose of the statute.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[daenris]

It's irrelevant how severe her injuries were? How does this even make sense in your head? Of course the degree of injury is relevant to a lawsuit about that injury.

Re:You're arguing syntax, not logic.

[daenris]

Since when does that mean and? Do you have any of your English teacher's phone numbers? Because I'd like to call them and tell them what a bad job they did teaching you.

Who am I?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

And who are you to doubt a pitch like that? Somebody who knows better than to believe what he sees on TV.

Re:She's a loon.

[Monchanger]

Your post has already been torn apart by other posters. I'm only going to comment on the last bit.

>> $500 to me says "We know we screwed up and we're sorry. $54 million says "I'm a self-centered bitch..."

You're either biased against her or are not aware that she's not actually looking to win $54 million. She has stated that she doesn't consider it appropriate and has willingly provided evidence of this fact to Best Buy. This isn't a hot coffee at McDonald's suit- it's about demanding accountability.

You're also naive to accept Best Buy at their words, and their actions as genuine. She explains clearly how they are not, and I'll extend her point on the gift card issue.

$500 Gift Card does not equal $500.

Legally speaking, a gift card is not legal tender, so its worth is not equivalent. Nor can their sending her one unilaterally count as part of a legal dispute resolution. In fact, they card they sent is legally considered a gift,, no-strings attached. If they agree to settle by giving her $1000 and a $500 gift card, they have to give her another card. But you're not talking about the legal matter, you're talking about intentions and customer service.

A $500 gift card to me says "We're buying your life-time silence regarding this incidence of us screwing you over due to our terrible business practices, poor customer service and imbecilic staff at an actual cost to us of $400, at most, though more likely at $100". (Have you ever seen retail markups on CDRs, USB cables and printer ink? I have and it's quite shocking from a consumer's standpoint, regardless of how necessary it may be due to how these businesses are run.)

If she buys a new laptop, the goal is to make her use the $500 to buy a replacement at their store, rather than buy a crappier one at the competition. $500 doesn't buy many items that have low profit margins such as electronics, so it's really a perfect amount to give out as a "peace offering".

And if you don't like my take on it you, yourself state: "The appropriate remedy for a bad business experience in which you receive a full refund is to take your business elsewhere." Given this, how does giving a gift card amount to giving anything at all?

If they really meant to say they're sorry, they'd give her cold hard cash, or better yet, a gift card to Circuit City (well, that and actually fix the damn problem to ensure no other customers would suffer due to the same failure- the point you missed behind the $54M). That would actually constitute repentance by self-punishment. Their offer is closer to a drug dealer giving you a free hit.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[AnonymousCactus]

How about nearly boiling hot coffee to an 81 year old?
Maybe I'm not being fair to older people, and maybe I don't fully appreciate the difference between 190F and 212F. Is it really that different?

Uninvolved third party?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

It has to go to an uninvolved third party so there is no "woohoo, let's do it again! I'M RICH, BIATCH!" Hey, I'm not involved. Why not give me the money? Unlike the government, I won't spend it bombing the shit out of brown people on the other side of the planet. (I might spend some of it on hookers 'n blow, though.)

Re:I didn't miss anything. Read the law.

[sys_mast]

She paid Best Buy $300 dollars to "maintain" the system. And was in their possession to be 'maintained'

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[fredklein]

It's irrelevant how severe her injuries were? How does this even make sense in your head?

It's irrelevent for 2 reasons:

1) The accident was HER FAULT. Therefore, no matter how severe the injuries, McDonalds owed her nothing.

2) It was a BLATANT Appeal to Emotion. 'Oh, the poor woman was in severe pain. Just look at the horrible, horrible injuries she suffered. Look at the flesh peeling off the bone. And did we mention this was her, you know, 'groin area'. Imagine how humiliating to have burns 'there'. Don't you feel sorry for her and want to give her lots of other people's money??'

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[fredklein]

...says the Anonymous Coward. /I'd say "Ow! What the fuck! That burns. Owww! Call the Ambulance! Damn!" And then continue to moan in pain. //What I wouldn't do is sue McDonalds. ///Unless it was a McDonalds employee they threw it on me.

Forsooth, good sir, your pantaloons are ablaze!

[BeeBeard]

I was about to post an apology for trying to dress you down while I was tired and had had too much to drink, but then I came here and read your rebuttal, filled with ad hominem attacks, insane arguments, and layman posturing. So now I don't know what to think.

First, I appreciate the time and energy you've put into quoting and decrying each and every thing I wrote, but I'm afraid I'm unwilling to extend you that same courtesy. Frankly, you are not worth the time it takes to do it. So just use your imagination as far as what part of your reply I'm responding to:

- This article that you've repeatedly accused me of not reading is actually the exact thing that I did read. But you know--you got me--I didn't thoroughly read this woman's crappy blog. But in fairness, I probably don't read your crappy blog either. Nobody does. So if there were juicy little tidbits of information buried deep within her blog that would have changed my mind about her case, then I guess I'll just never know. Because I'm damn sure not going to click on three links for her sake instead of the main one. Not unless I'm on the clock.

- Plaintiff's counsel being the plaintiff doesn't matter in the least. It just means that she's a pro se. The court doesn't care one way or the other, except in criminal cases, where the court cares whether defendant has waived the right to counsel or not. Otherwise, the sky's the limit as far as trying to represent yourself in court. While some judges extend pro se's a slight bit of leniency, this is usually overshadowed by their propensity to screw things up in the worst way. I'm actually glad that you pointed it out, though, because it means that plaintiff is about 1000% more likely to mess up the pleading requirements (not even 1st base) and lose her case outright. Summary judgment ring a bell? If you were actually an attorney, you would have just told me that she was a pro se. To which my reply would have been "OK." It's the term that attorneys use instead of person-who-is-representing-themselves-because-you-see-there-is-no-counsel. Nice try, though. But it's not your fault. You just didn't know to Google for the Latin words any lawyer knows that would have helped throw me off your trail.

- You have not actually litigated a case anywhere before. You don't have to fess up to it. I already know. At best, you're a 1L law student, but I doubt even that. My guess is that you're playing semantics with me, and are trying to count some epic, small claims battles as a pro se yourself that nobody cares about. Also, lawyers are not so quick to play the condescending "Don't you understand!?!" card so frequently with other people, least of all one of their own. We're a tight-knit group that believes in Karmic retribution in the same lifetime, and are completely unafraid to screw you over in whatever professional capacity is available to us. But that's any profession. Probably, dentists are the same way.

- Courts are not sympathetic to plaintiffs who waste time while attempting to retrieve a chattel, and then turn around and sue defendant for the time wasted. I won't go into any more detail than this. You can probably figure out the reasoning behind the holdings.

- I absolutely knew what you were trying to intimate by saying made "complete." It's just that nobody uses that phrasing. I thought I made that clear in my post. Hmm, guess not. I don't know if it's a regional thing, or something you heard on television, but we say "made whole." Every attorney I've ever known says it. There are even doctrines in many states that use exactly that phrasing. That's probably where we got it from. This and your clumsy application of the "proximate cause" concept were my first clues that you had no idea what you were talking about. That and of course, your reply--which is filled with gems in and of itself--helped give that impression as well. I guess I shouldn't emphasize the irony behind your calling me a "moron" right after expounding upon the Doctrine of Being 'Complete,' according

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[Skynyrd]

I was then told afterwards the coffee was not meant to be drunk in the restaurant but rather after 2 hours after work.

So McDonalds wants me to buy coffee and let it sit for two hours before I drink it? Source please.

when I was a teen with a crappy care I used their coffee to clean my engine. There was no way I could get water as hot as their coffee.

Are you suggesting that McDonalds coffee is served significantly hotter than boiling? Sorry, but nothing in your post holds water.

Re:She's a loon.

[magarity]

They? I'm pretty sure you're the only immature fuck calling it "Worst Buy".
 
No, he's not; I call it that all the time.

Re:She's a loon.

[Evil Adrian]

You're a fucking idiot too then. Calling it Worst Buy when you're trying to present an argument makes you look like an immature asshole (which you are) and totally undermines your argument.

Hope you all get HIV for Valentine's Day... if you are even capable of getting ass.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[fredklein]

So McDonalds wants me to buy coffee and let it sit for two hours before I drink it? Source please.


Well, I don't know about '2 hours', but this coffee was bought at the DRIVE THRU. As in, you buy it on the way to work. So, it would sit in a cupholder until you got to work. (Yes, some people drink it while driving, but that is unsafe and not to be encouraged.)

So, there is a reasonable expectation that there will be a delay between the customer getting the coffe and drinkign the coffee.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[toddestan]

Yes, but when I make tea, I pour the boiling water into a cup that's at room temperature, use a tea bag that's at room temperature, and use a metal spoon to stir that's also at room temperature. I'm pretty sure the resulting temperature of the beverage ends up being significantly less than the temperature of the boiling water I used to make it.

Re:You're arguing syntax, not logic.

[anagama]

Ok -- I'm through. I don't think any rational judge is going to read the statute in a manner so narrow that it loses its obvious purpose. To win your argument in front of rational people, you have to explain why a company should be punished when it releases information about a person that it transcribed into its own database (e.g. account number), and not be punished when it releases that same information (e.g. account number) by losing a computer entrusted to its care. The law is clearly designed to punish companies that imperil people through the release of confidential information. Who gives a rip who transcribed the data?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation

Re:Sorry, I quoted the right part. Try again.

[Some_Llama]

"Sounds simple. Why do you fight this so hard? Any relation to BB?"

if you look at his user account every reply is to this thread.. looks like damage control to me. (granted i don't subscribe so i can't see past his last 25 posts or so.. but still).

Re:She's a loon.

[Some_Llama]

Worst buy.

Re:Mod Parent Up

[DerekLyons]

What part of "I tried to give it back, but they wouldn't take it" constitutes "acceptance"..?

The part where she indicated de facto that she accepted it by donating it charity. You can't donate what you don't own.

Re:You're arguing syntax, not logic.

[raehl]

To win your argument in front of rational people, you have to explain why a company should be punished when it releases information about a person that it transcribed into its own database (e.g. account number), and not be punished when it releases that same information (e.g. account number) by losing a computer entrusted to its care.

Because in one case the company owned the data, recorded the data and was aware of its presence, and in another case it did not record the data, was not aware of its existence, and specifically told the owner of the computer that they were not responsible for any data owned by the customer on the computer?

The law says you're responsible for data you own maintain. It does not make you responsible for data you don't own/maintain. What's so hard to undertand about that?

Re:She's a loon.

[raehl]

They did give her cold hard cash - a full refund of the original purchase price of the laptop, which is more cash than the laptop lost was worth. They additionally gave her a gift card.

No company is going to give you cash above-and-beyond the purchase price. That's just BEGGING for fraud.

Re:You're arguing syntax, not logic.

[anagama]

I'm sure the company will be held to "reasonably prudent person" standard, tinged with the notion they know more about computers than the average idiot and are thus held to a "reasonably prudent person knowledgeable about computers" standard. Any such person would know that the computer would likely have confidential info.

The law says you're responsible for data you own maintain. It does not make you responsible for data you don't own/maintain. What's so hard to undertand about that?

You are applying a very narrow definition of the word "maintain". Why do you refuse to understand that the normal dictionary definition will be used, and that "maintain" means, among other things, to keep something in such a manner that it isn't destroyed or lost. It does not mean: "personally generate or create the thing for one's own use". The legislature would have used a word like "generate" or "create" or "develop" if that is what it meant. The legislature however, used "maintain" which in ordinary parlance, simply means to keep without allowing degradation. Seriously -- go look it up instead of relying on what you think it means.

Re:You're arguing syntax, not logic.

[anagama]

Oh yeah, aside from the statute, the common law still applies. So throw this into the analysis too in the form of an additional alternate method to recovery. BB was a commercial voluntary bailee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailment.

Re:Sorry, I quoted the right part. Try again.

[anagama]

You need to apply the dictionary definition of "maintain" because if "maintain" is not otherwise defined, that is what the court will use. Your narrow definition may have a special use that you are familiar with -- try not to get hung up on that.

Secondly, the purpose of the statute is not to prevent data loss in the "my hard drive died" sense. It is meant to prevent data _release_ and thereby prevent identity theft.

As for damages, $54m is obviously way to high, but getting that wasn't her intent. No matter what happens now, she has won because of the publicity generated. It was a brilliant move on her part. As for the actual damages, who knows how much that would be. It would likely bear some relation to the costs of curing identity theft. I would think an award in the $20-30k range would be adequate but I'm just guessing. That would protect the plaintiff against the potential for future harm, and encourage BB to be a good citizen without being silly high. Even if she gets nothing though, she has to consider this a complete victory. She's on the "front page" of Google News Sci/Tech section and who knows where else.

Re:+5 My aching ass

[tomhudson]

I provided the necessary links to torts from negligence. She is legally entitled to more than just the bare laptop. Why do you think they upped the offer to $2,500?

She is not making a claim under the warranty. She is claiming damages for Best Buy's negligence (at best) causing her loss. Lets take a similar situation - your car is under warranty, and you bring it to the shop for repairs. You've locked your laptop in the trunk, hidden in the spare tire wheel well. You also have a bike rack on it, with 2 bicycles. And a set of mags and lo-profile tires, and a NOX kit, a pimp-ass sound system, headers, etc. They see all this when they accept the car for repair work - then when you come to pick it up, they won't tell you where the car is. "We can't find it." Then after months of back-and-forth, they make a fake computer entry to show that the car is apparently still there, and its now fixed.

But of course, the car is gone. They "can't find it." So, even though it's only a year old, you've done $30,000 in mods, and you've got another $10k of stuff that was with it, they offer you 2/3 of what you paid for it - as for the rest? "Toush sh*t".

I don't think you'd accept their offer.

Not all software is free. Since she's claiming for the software, its obvious she didn't pirate it. As for music, DRM'd music is going to have to be rebought. Why should she have to eat the loss, when its Best Buy's fault?

Again, this has nothing to do with a warranty, and everything to do with negligence and/or fraud.

Re:She's a loon.

[tomhudson]

This has nothing to do with the warranty - the warranty doesn't cover theft.

Bingo.

[raehl]

The legislature however, used "maintain" which in ordinary parlance, simply means to keep without allowing degradation

It would seem to me that if maintain means to keep without allowing degradation, and Best Buy is making no effort to prevent degradation of the data, and may even allow the data to be destroyed, they're not maintaining the data then, are they?

Best Buy is ignoring the data entirely. That's what we want them to do - we don't want them snooping around our hard drives, right? So if they're ignoring the data entirely, then they're not maintaining it. By the very definition you used.

Doesn't apply.

[raehl]

In order to create a bailment, the bailee must both intend to possess, and actually physically possess, the bailable chattel.

Well, it applies for the computer, which I wholeheartedly agree Best Buy is responsible for replacing. But it doesn't apply to the data, as Best Buy never intended to possess the data.

Best Buy is simply not responsible for the data. If this same woman had brought her computer to a mom-and-pop shop for repair and it got stolen, nobody would think this lawsuit was reasonable.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[zakezuke]

Are you suggesting that McDonalds coffee is served significantly hotter than boiling? Sorry, but nothing in your post holds water. I am NOT suggesting it was "served" higher than boiling. I am suggesting at the time, it was their goal to serve the coffee as close to boiling as possible then put directly in their styrofoam. The use of styrofoam alone WOULD make it significantly hotter than coffee served at home.

Accidents with coffee at home usually don't result in 3rd degree burns. Second degree burns are rather rare.

To revisit what you said

Fact 0: Regardless of whatever temperature other places serve coffee, everyone who has a kettle at home makes tea and coffee at just under 100 C. It's just not possible for McDonalds to server coffee significantly hotter than it would be at home. Bottom pouring percolators are very rare at home let alone ones with 2 to 3 head/feet, and even then coffee served in a styrofoam mug with a sealed lid at home. Home drinkers usually use ceramic or glass mugs, which intently cool the coffee. Also you need to understand some of the fundamentals of brewing coffee.

Brewing temperature -- Pretty irrelevant to this issue.
Holding temperature -- What McDonalds hiked up to a higher than normal level
Serving temperature -- As others have pointed out 175 is a minimum holding temperature

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[evultrole]

Bottom pouring percolators are very rare at home let alone ones with 2 to 3 head/feet 2 to 3 feet of water will not make a large enough pressure difference to be significant. It would likely result in just enough pressure to increase the temperature roughly 1C, which, at normal altitudes, would still be less than 101C (roughly 100.97C). I would not call 1C "significant," would you?

Re:Not any more unrealistic than the MPAA's figure

[raehl]

Poor analogy. Better analogy:

If, the last time you were at the doctor's office, you left a box there, and in that box was your tax return, is the doctor's office obligated to notify you that your tax return may have been stolen? Or even if, for some strange reason, you asked your doctor to stash the box under his desk, but didn't tell him what was in it?

The difference is that when the medical records are stolen, those records belong the the doctor's office, they know they have them, and they are responsible for maintaining them. When the box you left at the doctor's office is stolen

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[Skynyrd]

The parent was quoted as saying two hours. I call BS.

Well, I don't know about '2 hours', but this coffee was bought at the DRIVE THRU. As in, you buy it on the way to work. So, it would sit in a cupholder until you got to work. (Yes, some people drink it while driving, but that is unsafe and not to be encouraged.)

So, there is a reasonable expectation that there will be a delay between the customer getting the coffe and drinkign the coffee.

Just as there is a reasonable expectation that the consumer will drink the coffee while seated in the restaurant, thus not having the "drive to work" delay. I call BS again.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[zakezuke]

"I would not call 1C "significant," would you?"

I certainly would. That's 1% hotter than I can do at home which is rather why I used McDonald's coffee to clean my engine. For temps above 90c, 1 degree makes the difference is a big deal making the difference between being able to treat a burn in time, to not even being able to think about it before a 3rd degree burn. In case you don't know, 3rd degree burns are most dangerous because you can't feel them. It's been over a decade since I did food service.

The pressure increase is is 1 head ft : .433psi or 1 psi : 2.31 head foot.

However the biggest factor in those restaurant percolators is the fact that the coffee is poured right next to the heating elements, certainly more significant. Most significant are the styrofoam mugs, which AFAIK are NOT in use anymore.

So there you have it. Is it possible their coffee was served "significantly" hotter than at home. Absolutely! With styrofoam mugs, bottom poured percolators, and to a lesser degree 2-3 head feet of pressure. Note I never said it was served hotter than boiling, but at the time it was poured just shy of boiling.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[Skynyrd]

You have me confused with another poster.
You said:
There was no way I could get water as hot as their coffee.

then you said

I am suggesting at the time, it was their goal to serve the coffee as close to boiling as possible then put directly in their styrofoam.

No, you said "There was no way I could get water as hot as their coffee."
1. There is no way McDs could make or serve coffee significantly hotter than boiling water.
2. Any moron can boil water.
3. You said "There was no way I could get water as hot as their coffee."
4. ????

The second quote you attributed to me was made by somebody else.

You're confused. Nobody's listening.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[mbius]

"The patented ready-to-brew reservoir keeps water at the ideal brewing temperature of approximately 200. (Conventional home brewers heat water until it boils up to coffee basket.)"

Your argument from authority is a coffee machine advertisement. Another claims the brew is better-tasting long and cold.

I worked for McDonald's in the 90's. If you don't mind my saying, the suggestion their coffee came fresh off the drip after 5:45 AM is as ludicrous as debating its quality (at any temperature).

Google third-degree burns. As I understand the case, legal action was justified, even if I weren't politically inclined to hope an old lady with crotch blisters can have her day in court with a billion-dollar international business.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[Fretje]

There's no such thing as "negative publicity"...

Re:She's a loon.

[Evil Adrian]

It's stupid. Calling it Worst Buy, once, at the end of the article would have been funny and gotten his point across. Doing a text substitution, however, is fucking childish. When people try to put an intelligent commentary together, and then do something ASININE like that to their post, it makes the intelligent people on this site look like tools.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[torstenvl]

There's an argument to be made that the amounts in the McDonald's coffee case were outrageous, but I don't think it's a very strong argument.

Damages in a civil tort action are not limited to those which are compensatory in nature, and "make-whole" damages (what you're probably thinking of as "fair") are largely seen as anachronistic. The leading modern theory in tort actions lies at the intersection of law and economics (and is called exactly that: "law and economics" or L&E); the L&E approach to an action with a corporate tortfeasor would be to impose damages in an amount to disincentivize the behavior which gave rise to the claim. The original award in this case amounted to the profits of one day of coffee sales by McDonald's Corp. Be careful not to conflate this with the total sales of one day of coffee sales - just the profits. McDonald's Corp. literally lost nothing in this lawsuit except the expense of the suit itself and opportunity cost. If you're looking for a genuine disincentive, I'd say that's a bit on the low end.

It's true that plaintiffs may seem to profit unjustly by the L&E approach. I suppose that depends on who you talk to. Usually a lawsuit involves three years, more headache than you can imagine, stress, stress-related illness, stress-related injury, attorneys' fees, credit damage, damage to personal relationships, and often a lot of harassment from the other side before the damages are finalized and paid. After going through all that for something that was deserved in the very beginning, I don't usually have a problem with the plaintiff getting the benefit of that disincentive.

I won't talk about the merits of the case itself, since you only mentioned outrageous lawsuit amounts. But I'm confident that a significant number of people would change their mind at least a little if they knew the entire story.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[fredklein]

Your argument from authority is a coffee machine advertisement.

My arguement is the National Coffee Association's recommendations. Why would they LIE about how best to brew coffee???? Their purpose in life is to sell more coffee. If they give give bad instructions on how to brew coffee, people will buy less coffee because they hate how it tastes.

Besides, I have posted NUMEROUS quotes from many different sites on how coffee is best brewed. Your cite is ONE site, the points of which I have already rebutted elsewhere in this thread.

even if I weren't politically inclined to hope an old lady with crotch blisters can have her day in court with a billion-dollar international business

See what I mean about Appeal to Emotion??
"Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. "

YES, she got injured. Severely.

SO WHAT? The accident that caused her injuries was HER OWN DAMN FAULT, NOT McDonalds fault. Repeating how horrible the injury was is "a logical fallacy".

Re:Not any more unrealistic than the MPAA's figure

[m.ducharme]

$54M might not be as unreasonable as you think. In terms of general damages, she's entitled to replacement of her laptop, reimbursement for anything of value in the laptop (purchased software, hardware additions, and probably any product she created that has any value). She's probably also entitled to her time and money spent dealing with Best Buy, and also a few years of credit protection. This would all come due if Best Buy were found negligent. Of course, if a judge or jury found that BB's behaviour was actually malicious (and I think there might be a good case here for it), then punitives would apply. The whole point of punitive damages is that they are supposed to hurt. A lot. The award would have to be big enough to make Best Buy smart. The other neat thing about punitive damages is that most insurance policies don't cover them, so the cost has to come out of the company coffers, and not from their Insurer. If punitive damages are involved, and if this woman can prove it (the burden of proof is usually higher for punitive damages), $54M could be well within reasonable range.

Re:She's a loon.

[insignificant_wrangl]

Yes, its a warranty repair. But the law clearly states that, when in possession of a computer, even for a repair, Best Buy becomes responsible for the computer. Now, they do not have to reimburse her for the data. Nope. Not at all. But if the computer is stolen, then Best Buy becomes liable for any damages. Especially since there is a very specific law requiring Best Buy to contact her. And they didn't. There's even a special addendum to the law that stipulates that no terms of service contract can nullify responsibility.

Re:She's a loon.

[Monchanger]

We know you're a shill, but go back and actually read my post this time- you've ignored my main point.

In your compassionate crusade for Best Buy, you neglected to note that this is not a case of fraud.

Don't compare the two. They really screwed up here and free market theory says they deserve a punishment. A laptop is not a punishment, and as I explained to you, their gift card is even less such.

What they owe her *is* above and beyond that which should be given in (undeserved) good faith to one actually committing fraud.

Re:She's a loon.

[raehl]

Except, there's no fraud in the first place. The warranty repair entitles her to repair or replacement. Best Buy never did anything to in any way attempt to not ultimately repair or replace her laptop. If they had changed their system to indicate that they NEVER RECEIVED a laptop from her, and therefore didn't owe her a laptop, then THAT would be fraud. But even changing the system to indicate the laptop was somewhere it wasn't, while not a good idea, not ethical, and not good customer service, is not fraud.

The woman had a poor customer experience. There's no doubt about that. But we can't expect that ANYONE is liable for $54 million, or even $1 million, or even $10,000, for losing a laptop. You're liable for the laptop. And if you putz around and delay resolving the problem, then it's a good idea to do something to make up for that. It seems to me that Best Buy made a reasonable effort at customer satisfaction and this woman is just crazy.

Re:Tenleytown Best Buy!

[asc99c]

What I was talking about here was kettles, and instant coffee. Not sure what the US is like for instant coffee, but it's pretty common in the UK, where more people drink tea anyway. With a kettle the water is poured at nearly boiling point into the cup, quick stir and served there and then. For black instant coffee the serving temp would be well over 90 C. I've managed to splash the boiling water onto my hands and I can believe if I accidentally poured the water onto somewhere more sensitive I'd end up with very bad burns.

For real coffee, admittedly it shouldn't get as hot because the coffee gets burnt above 90C, and the temperature for coffee from a home coffee maker will be substantially lower. I've had coffee from both McDonalds and Starbucks and both places burn it so badly I don't buy from them any more. But I've never found the coffee to be any hotter than instant coffee made in a kettle at home.

Re:She's a loon.

[Monchanger]

What on Earth are you talking about?

Who mentioned fraud? I didn't, nor did I talk suggest it in my post.

Stop just posting random rants in favor of Best Buy. You're the only one who looks like a loon here.