Class Action Lawsuit Launched Over Forced Windows 10 Upgrades (courthousenews.com)

Slashdot reader AmiMoJo quotes The Register: Three people in Illinois have filed a lawsuit against Microsoft, claiming that its Windows 10 update destroyed their data and damaged their computers. The complaint, filed in Chicago's U.S. District Court on Thursday, charges that Microsoft Windows 10 [installer] is a defective product, and that its maker failed to provide adequate warning about the potential risks posed by Windows 10 installation -- specifically system stability and data loss... The attorneys representing the trio are seeking to have the case certified as a class action that includes every person in the U.S. who upgraded to Windows 10 from Windows 7 and suffered data loss or damage to software or hardware within 30 days of installation. They claim there are hundreds or thousands of affected individuals.
Microsoft responded that they'd offered free customer service and other support options for "the upgrade experience," adding "We believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit." But the complaint argues Windows 10's installer "does not check the condition of the PC and whether or not the hard drive can withstand the stress of the Windows 10 installation," according to Courthouse News, which adds that the lead plaintiff "says her hard drive failed after Windows 10 installed without her express approval, and she had to buy a new computer."

Comments

benefit for attorney?

[Anonymous Coward]

This case sounds like a case something where the consumer would get a $10 coupon to the Microsoft marketplace and the attorneys would earn $3 million.

Re:benefit for attorney?

[TwoUtes]

Because judges were attorneys before they were judges?

Re:benefit for attorney?

[SeattleLawGuy]

Judges are better about coupon settlements today because of how absurd it used to get. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 made some useful changes. It certainly still isn't perfect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Class actions are useful because they are fundamentally the only way companies get forced to behave in the interest of large groups of consumers who would never bother to sue individually. There are definitely drawbacks in that they rarely substantially help those past consumers, but sometimes they do drive change within a company and drive better practices within a company--either directly as part of a settlement agreement, or just because of the risk of a class action lawsuit. It's not a perfect system, notably because of the high costs of the lawsuits, but it's probably better than not having it. (To determine that for sure you would obviously need to analyze a great deal of data about distributed harms and lawsuit and settlement costs).

Re:Awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

Or switch away from MS products

A bad hard drive isn't MS's fault

[hawguy]

"does not check the condition of the PC and whether or not the hard drive can withstand the stress of the Windows 10 installation," according to Courthouse News, which adds that the lead plaintiff "says her hard drive failed after Windows 10 installed without her express approval,

If your hard drive dies during an OS install, it was on its way out and would have soon died anyway.

You don't want this to succed

[Sycraft-fu]

Even if you are a rampant MS hater, this would set a really bad precedent: That software companies could be liable for data loss caused by things only incidentally related to their software. Talk about a ripe field for bullshit lawsuits.

Don't think OSS would be immune either. The argument of "but I didn't charge for it" doesn't eliminate liability. In fact, it would be something companies could use to try and bully OSS out of existence through bullshit lawsuits.

Re:Wow

[El Cubano]

she had to buy a new computer.

Yes, in the same way that I would have to buy a new car if my starter gave out.

If the repair of the starter represented 50-200% of the value of the car then, yes, you would probably feel like you needed to get a new car.

Re:Wow

[UnknowingFool]

I haven't seen a Windows upgrade (note: UPGRADE) destroy data in a meaningful way in.....I don't even know how long.

Because YOU haven't seen one does not mean it did not happen ever.

That's a neat trick, unless they mean their IDEA of their computer rather than the physical hardware. Windows is shitty, not malicious.

Well the summary already told you that the HD was destroyed. It's possible an update does that. Some Windows 10 update horror stories have had the machine on a continuous reboot loop. That would trash a weak HD pretty quick. So yes physical hardware can be damaged.

Wait. So, are they claiming it was the forced upgrade that caused it, or.....?

Er what?

Sorry, unrelated. Though, if she could show otherwise, I would actually be shocked beyond belief.

Hello, continuous reboot?

Yes, in the same way that I would have to buy a new car if my starter gave out.

This relies on the premise that replacing your starter is not more than the cost of the car. Your analogy is not great as there are cars on the road today that replacing the starter is more than the car. Now in computers it is more likely because how valueless older computers are compared to new ones. It may not be worth it to the user to repair an old computer as opposed to replacing it.

I'm torn between hoping she succeeds (as I consider Microsoft a bad actor in the whole upgrade situation) and hoping she gets laughed out of court so hard she ends up with skid-marks that spell out "LOL".

I would say you learn about the exact details of the situation otherwise people will be laughing at you for not knowing them.