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!
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.)
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.
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.
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 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.
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"
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
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.,
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.
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.
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!
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).
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.