Sony sued over alleged DVD defects - faces class action

[joepic]

Sony is facing class action in a Californian courts as several of its customers had troubles with DVD players. The defects all showed up just a while after the warranty was voided and repair of the devices would cost about $175.

The players, it is alleged show problems around 12 to 14 months after they've been bought, and the problems include images freezing on TV screens, failure to recognise DVDs, and other related problems.

The plaintiffs say that the cost to fix such defective units amounts to $175

It seems that the player affected is the Sony DVP-S360, so if you have this device, be carefull!

http://www.computingreview.com/PRD_124273_1587crx.aspx

[gimp]

HA HA HA
Serves them right! Hope they lose big LMAO!!!!!!!


Boycott SONY I DO

[Jester700]

I'm not sure why you say that. Certainly they didn't intend for this to happen. We'll see how they respond.

I wouldn't boycott Sony; they make too many good products. I have a Sony DVD changer on it's way to me now. I like my Sony headphones and DVD burner, too. My dad's a Sony "fan" - most of his gear is Sony. I won't go that far, but they ARE competitive in almost all of the products they manufacture.

[baker]

If the action is big then it will be in sonys best intrests to either fix the problem or replace the dvd players with an updated model, more likely the later.

However a few yrs ago when dvd readers werent the cheapst samsung sold a cheap model which broke down like a month after the warrenty!

100 upon 100s of ppl complained but they simply shriged their shoulders and left us in the dark...

Come to think of it I may have posted something on this website about it.

I will do a search and if I find it I will bump it.

Baker

[KTH]

I think the law suit is ridiculous and should be thrown out. The units in question did last for the manufacturers warranty of 1 year. I can understand if the units broke within the warranty period for example and Sony refused to service them under warranty, but this is not the case here. In fact most manufacturers Sony included may cut you some slack if the unit broke a few days to a few weeks beyond the warranty period and still service it under warranty. Also didn't those units come with a warranty card which states the warranty period? I believe it's 90 days labor and 1 year parts for Sony DVD players. If these people didn't like the warranty period then they should have immediately returned those units back to where they purchased them from!!! If you ask me what this law suit is saying is that there should be a lifetime warranty on all products and services sold, but if they did this there wouldn't be very many companies left that provide goods and services to consumers (or should I say those companies wouldn't be around for very long). You have to remember that the companies still have to make a profit to pay for materials, utilities, employees, etc. I'm sure that none of you here go to work for free do you?! Well the same goes for Sony's as well as other companies employees. I don't know about you, but I like to have a roof over my head and food on the table. Their (the plaintiffs) response might be that I know that Sony can make better products that last longer. I believe that they can also, but the DVD players would have cost a lot more than they do now to guarantee this. For example there are some very high end companies that manufacture great products that last a long time, but they cost a lot more than the products that Sony sells to consumers. In other words you don't get someting for nothing. You can't honestly tell me that you expect a Hyundai to perform like a Lamborghini??? Sure some DVD players of the same model may last for two or three years more, but this then goes back to the fact that these units did last for the stated warranty period and Sony was willing to cover them for this period of time. You also have to ask yourself how much did these people use their players and under what conditions? If they pretty much had them running all the time then sure they wouldn't last as long as a person who doesn't use his/hers very often. The environment that they were in can also effect the expected life of the units as well. If they lived by the ocean for example, the salt and moisture in the air would reduce the life of these units significantly. The bottom line seems to be that Sony has lived up to it's obligations under it's warranty and basically there's no case here.

[Gargantuan]

If they lived by the ocean for example, the salt and moisture in the air would reduce the life of these units significantly.

If they can afford to sue a company over a labor cost of $175(the player probably costs $175 also, I don't know for sure though), then they probably do live near the ocean!!

[thxkid]

if these same idiots sueing spent another $5 to $30 bucks on an extended warranty they would have had the players fixed or replaced, they can afford an attorney and a house by the ocean and their $50,000 Mecrcedes, what some cheap As_es.
Most players I know of from $50 to $150 you better watch how you treat them anyway cuase they are that price cause they have used the cheapiest parts in them, ever look at a $50 DVD player, you sneeze on it and it will fall apart.

[miamicanes]

The main thing a court would be asked to decide is whether the players had some flaw that Sony knew about that, had purchasers been made aware of at purchase time, would likely have influenced them to not buy it. If you read the complaints at ePinion.com, the majority of them didn't give a year of dependable service, then suddenly die... they sucked from the very beginning, were an endless source of grief, and the fact that they died outright shortly after the warranty's expiration was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

The computer industry is rife with lawsuits like this... like HP's first SCSI CD-R drives circa 1997 (with non-upgradeable firmware) that were all but guarranteed to turn a third of the discs put into them into coasters due to multiple firmware bugs that HP knew about before the first drives even left the factory. By the time enough anecdotal evidence had mounted to show that the drives -- and NOT the users, their computers, and everything else HP spent 2 years blaming -- was the true culprit, the original warranties (and in many cases, the drives themselves) were long gone. Nevertheless, HP ended up giving out a few million dollars worth of rebate coupons to compensate thousands of infurated owners.

[KTH]

I work for a company that does retail and service like VCR's and DVD players and generally when there is a bug present the manufacturer usually sends out memo's on the problem and how to correct them. In fact in one case from a different manufacturer, the service department at the company I work for found a bug in a certain model of product that was present in all the units we had in stock so we notified the manufacturer. The manufacturer then went to their warehouse and pulled a few random samples from different lots and checked for the problem. They found that the problem was present and pulled all the units from the warehouse and corrected the problem. As for the post on the epinions website I'm sure most or all those people have had the problems they stated, but you have to look at this objectively. Out of all the units of the same model Sony sold, what percentage of the units had the problems listed? I bet in reality it wasn't very high. Of course only Sony would probably have the actual numbers and unless they release these numbers we may never know for sure. You also got to remember one of the first rules in retail which states "That for every customer you satisfy he/she may tell 2 or 3 other persons, but for every customer you don't satisfy he/she will tell 10 or more people about it." Which in the real world I find is usually correct. That's probably one of the reasons why you see more negative responses in these message boards than positive ones. I mean if you think about it logically how many people who are satisfied with something they purchased will actually go to the trouble of finding a message board for that particular item then register with that board so that they can post a positive message. My guess is not a lot. On the other hand a person who's having problems with something will usually go to greater lenghts to find a solution to their problem or problems. I know that this is normally true for me.

[Earthbulb]

KTH

"Generally when their is a bug present the manufacturer usually sends out memo's on the problem and how to correct them"

So on the strength of that you can assume that every company is squeeky clean ? Unlikely! Also if they know how to fix it of course they wont mind telling people, its when there's no easy fix is when they shut up!

Besides you can't generalise like that. You sound like you take customer insatisfaction personally and have a problem with people complaining when they feel ripped off!

These companies are all about making money as we all know. If there's a bug in something which may largely go unnoticed by most users or is ambiguous to begin with, and it's a bug which is going to cost $$'s for them to recall and/or fix then its obvious they are going to draw it out or try and avoid dealing with it. Which person in a company wants to stand up and take responibilty when they know they will cost the company a lot of money and most likely risk their loosing their job ? Its big business and its too big!

Whether you like it or not there are some faulty products with bad support which consumers send back to be fixed and still doesnt work and then ultimately the warranty runs out and so does the support, how can you justify that as being fair ?

I agree a lot of people only pipe up when they have a problem but also with the net these days a lot of people promote a product when they feel happy with their purchase... I would say that most of the pioneer dvd burners have positive remakrs about them in the comments section, and also the sony burner once the firmware was fixed.

Also if you want to see customer dissatisfaction because of a crap product..

http://delltalk.us.dell.com/supportforums/board/message?board.id=dim_cdrom&message.id=...cending&page=3

[KTH]

Earthbulb,

I'm trying to start an arguement with you on what either of us think is right or wrong. If it sounded like I was generalizing, taking customer insatisfaction personally, and made it sound like dissatisfied people had no right to complain I am very sorry about that. It was not my intention. I should have used better examples to state my opinions. Let's get back to the information that was listed in the original post. First it says Sony is being sued because a certain model of Sony DVD player is breaking soon after the warranty runs out. It does not mention anything about a customer or customers having to take his/her unit in many times for the same or similar problems until the warranty runs out, then say "sorry the cost to repair the unit would exceed the cost of purchasing a new one. So you have to purchase a new unit." In the end it's not what you or I believe is correct, but the letter of the law in a court case. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs in this case it looks like Sony has the law on their side. Please note that all this is just based on the information that was given on the original post and outcome could change if some vital information was omitted.

[mecg]

This is and always will be a tough one. On one hand, it seems that Sony would be better off replacing the units (their actual cost is not near what we pay for the unit) in order to avoid (and this is actually impossible to calculate) losses due to bad publicity. I own a lot of Sony products and will continue to buy Sony - but - should they begin a policy of not supporting their products, I would have to re-think my position. I expect my equipment to go bad at some point (5 - 7 years for electronics). If it lasts longer - great. What I don't expect is for anything to die off during or shortly after the warranty period. This would be a sure fire way to keep me from buying anything from that particular manufacturer again. I have done a lot of research using this site as a primamry source for info (and BTW - THANKS to all that do post bad AND good reviews) and have made waht I feel are good choices (Canopus ADVC-100, Pioneer A04, etc.), but if I went to the manufacturers sites and reviews, they ALL claim to be the best. Playing with the video is now my favorite hobbie and I'm actually starting to generate some cash with something I enjoy - but if I left it up to the manufacturers to guide me, I'd have spent thousands of dollars and would have given up by now. I guess what I'm saying is - I get tired of buying sub-standard products and then being abandoned by the companies (lousy and/or non-responsive tech support) with the attitude that they are doing me a favor by answering a few questions or making the product work as advertised. I had problems with the A04 and Pioneer fixed it without giving me any grief (firmware). That's what I expect and that's what I'll keep in mind the next time I go to purchase an electrical product.
Just my 2 cents worth.

[miamicanes]

Unfortunately for the plaintiffs in this case it looks like Sony has the law on their side.

Fortunately for the plaintiffs, American law provides an alternative that few people know about: equity.

Broadly speaking, "equity" is a little-known alternative of last resort, invoked when one party to a contract is technically within the letter of the law and contract, but its enforcement would create a grave injustice.

To give a hypothetical, but probably valid example, suppose you go on vacation to Florida and rent a car. The contract says you have to return the car to the airport rental car center by 2:45pm on September 4, or you'll be charged a $50 late return penalty. Suppose further that a bomb threat gets called in to the airport at 2pm, and police restrict access to the entire area until 3pm. The police finally re-open the area, you promptly return the car at 3:17pm, and the company proceeds to charge you $50 for a late return. Strictly speaking, the contract entitles them to do that. But any sensible judge would take one look at that and instantly rule in the customer's favor.

Put another way, equity gives you grounds to sue somebody by convincing the judge that they're ********.

Throwing out another hypothetical case, suppose Maxtor produces a run of hard drives with a firmware bug that will render the drive forever incapable of supporting an NTFS partition. Suppose further that they sell those drives to HP at a steep discount upon disclosing the bug, and HP uses them in 80% of their new Pavilion Fsck99i machines, sold with Windows ME. A few months later, reports emerge that users are experiencing wholesale file corruption after upgrading to Windows 2000 or XP. Eventually, someone figures out that most of the machines have drives with buggy firmware, and enraged users demand new hard drives or refunds. HP responds that it sold the machines with ME and never said they'd work with anything else.

A lawsuit not based upon equity would probably lose, because HP technically is within its rights. HOWEVER, a lawsuit seeking equitable relief would have a strong case -- PARTICULARLY if some of the Fsck99i machines did have Windows 2000/XP as a purchase-time option (assuming HP intentionally segregated the machines with "good" hard drives for 2k/XP). Now, if HP were to have disclosed in some meaningful way that the machines used drives that would not work with NTFS (or at least cautioned the user that the computer's hard drive had buggy firmware that might never work with anything besides ME), they'd be free and clear. But if they merely buried a clause that the machines were only "certified" for ME, HP would be rightfully hung out to dry by the court. In Florida, at least, courts have generally ruled that sellers have an affirmative duty to actively disclose known significant defects to buyers likely to care about them (shrinkwrap agreements in 6-point type affirming in section 47, paragraph 18 that the purchaser doesn't care about them don't count).

[mecg]

miamicanes - VERY interesting. Thanks for the info. Question: In the second case (NTSF) - would this be considered a "defect"y definition - or a limitation? Do you feel (hypothetically) that the law would cover this? (As in "HP should have let us know the limitation by declaring that it may not work with the next upgrade") My personal opinion is that anything that deviates that far from the "standard" should be declared so the consumer can make an informed choice.