Slashdot Mirror
The $54 Million Laptop
Stanislav_J writes "It happens to the best of us: you drop off your laptop at the local branch of some Super Mega Electronics McStore, go to pick it up, and they can't find it. Lost, gone, kaput — probably sucked into a black hole and now breeding with lost airline luggage. It would make any of us mad, but Raelyn Campbell of Washington, D.C. isn't just mad — she's $54 million mad. That's how much she is asking from Best Buy in a lawsuit that seeks 'fair compensation for replacement of the $1,100 computer and extended warranty, plus expenses related to identity theft protection.' Best Buy claims that Ms. Campbell was offered and collected $1,110.35 as well as a $500 gift card for her inconvenience. (I guess that extra 35 cents wasn't enough to sway her.) Her blog claims that Geek Squad employees spent three months telling her different stories about where her laptop might be before finally acknowledging that it had been lost. For those who follow economic trends, this means that a laptop's worth is roughly equivalent to that of a pair of pants."
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.
...then I have no problem with her claim.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
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
Scorta futuere amo!
Blogging is a creative art.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
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.
GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
"Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
Even if she eventually settles for legal fees + 5-10K the damage to Best Buy's rep has already been done.
"Life's short and hard, like a body building elf." -- The Bloodhound Gang
... 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.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
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.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
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
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
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!"
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
[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?
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.
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).
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
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.)
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.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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.
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.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
That's one laptop, one pair of pants, or in RIAA-land, that's 36 CD, cheap half empty CDs at that.
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.
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.
This makes a lot more sense than the pair of pants case. In this case, the laptop could have _a lot_ of personal data.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
This is not the same as "crazy pants guy". Let's count a few ways quickly:
...And so on. Like I said, this is a completely different situation.
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 $5k, which she probably would have gotten, given the time she's wasted getting them to even admit it was stolen in the first place, and the lies (and the fraudulently generated computer entries in their own system) to try and cover their rectums.
She agrees the amount she's asking is outrageous - and that she's doing so because maybe THAT is what it takes to get Worst Buy's attention, exp. vis. the whole "identity theft" issue.
I particularly like how she "bitch-slapped" the corporate lawyer's motion to quash.
Do you know, what her Job is and how many files have been on that hard drive? Do you know, how many unreplacable pictures could've been on that hard drive? IF IT'S TRUE, what she says, she's dammn right to sue them. What she really wants is 1) an explanation how this could happen 2) an explanation why this won't happen any more 3) 100k$ 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.
You're wrong.
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.
Worst Buys' sloppy procedures and/or dishonest employee(s) are the proximate cause. They're liable.
Considering that they lied to her for MONTHS about the laptop being missing, they were worse than wilfully negligent.
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?
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.
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.
Please RTFA -she never got it back. It was STOLEN!
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.
When I read the title I just thought: "Oh, God, don't tell me this is some kind of One Laptop Per Country initiative"
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.
She only had about 50 songs on there, but she was using the prices put forward by the RIAA's lawsuits.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
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.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
> 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"..?
She SPECIFICALLY copied that amount, recognizing how much media attention it got the judge.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Why do people still bring up the McDonald's coffee case? Go look up the actual facts of the case and then STFU!
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.
... said consumers need to get smart about protecting their data to avoid such situations." This is completely off topic.
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.,
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.
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.
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.
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.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
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?
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.
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.
Scorta futuere amo!
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.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
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.
"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.
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.
Hello little man. I will destroy you!
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
paintball
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).
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.
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.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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.
http://www.xkcd.com/354/
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.
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!
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.
... [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.
Then looking at the "breach of the security system" definition, plainly there was "unauthorized acquisition
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?
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
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.
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.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
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.
you can have my violent video games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
Prime UID Club
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".
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.