Best Buy Loses Laptop: Owner Sues... for $54 Million

[Noahtuck]

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/72016

Ultimately, Best Buy offered to pay her $900 for losing the machine... as a gift card. She countered that it had originally cost over $1,100, not to mention all her data that was now gone for good. She demanded $2,100, and Best Buy simply ignored her.

At this point, Campbell was made aware that all her personal data on the machine could lead to a major identity theft issue, though Best Buy never filed their legally required notice that she was at risk. That was the last straw, and she filed suit for $54 million, representing herself. Best Buy has since upped its offer to a total of $4,100 if she withdraws the case. She says she doesn't expect to win, but wants to go to court anyway to force Best Buy to explain how her laptop was lost.

Imagine that... Best Buy not doing what they are legally required to do

I like how they upped their compensation amount after the suit was filed, guess they should have not been so damn stingy to start with

[Epicurus8a]

Imagine that... Best Buy not doing what they are legally required to do

Most companies don't do what is legally required of them or admit fault. Yet they expect their employees to comply with their twisted rules 100%. My cousin (an attorney) made a fortune by suing unscrupulous companies who are basically out to screw everyone they can.

[bendixG15]

Imagine that... Best Buy not doing what they are legally required to do

[BJ_M]

sending a laptop in for repair with ANY personal data on it was not a great idea anyhow (small counterpoint) ....

BB , IMO , is clearly at fault here anyway .....

[yoda313]

thats why you should do all your own repairs if possible...

OR BUY NEW!!!

This reminds me I should back up again soon.....

[lordsmurf]

Upping the offer probably can be considered as admittance of fault in court.
Then again, I'm no lawyer -- but neither is the jury!

[bendixG15]

Upping the offer is an admittance that the upped offer is still cheaper than defending yourself in court.

[Video Head]

Upping the offer probably can be considered as admittance of fault in court.
Then again, I'm no lawyer -- but neither is the jury!

Increasing a compensation offer to avoid litigation is not an admission of guilt. If the offer is fair and equitable under the circumstances and in line with current custom regarding awards for similar losses it may inhibit the plantiff from presenting that they have exhausted all avenues of relief prior to burdening a judicial.

The jurisdition would determine if the defendants can chose trial by Judge, jury or Judge and jury.

[Supreme2k]

Bottom line is that BB is guilty of the act. There is no question of guilt, since it a plain and simple fact. The only thing to settle in court is her compensation. If it was personal data and towards her work/career, I'd say an even $1 million would be be a reasonable offer. If it's client data and a high-risk security issue, that may be considerably more (though I don't agree with her taking it to BB for repairs. She should have her own repair, or have someone make a house call.)

I keep client data on remote drives for backup and security purposes. I would never take mine in, since I'm phenomenal at PC repair, but I've seen people worth much more than me take their's in with critical data on it. They usually get wiped (standard procedure is to simply re-image the drive to factory specs), after which they call me to recover their data (Ka-Ching!)

[Video Head]

Bottom line is that BB is guilty of the act. There is no question of guilt, since it a plain and simple fact. The only thing to settle in court is her compensation. If it was personal data and towards her work/career, I'd say an even $1 million would be be a reasonable offer. If it's client data and a high-risk security issue, that may be considerably more (though I don't agree with her taking it to BB for repairs. She should have her own repair, or have someone make a house call.)

I keep client data on remote drives for backup and security purposes. I would never take mine in, since I'm phenomenal at PC repair, but I've seen people worth much more than me take their's in with critical data on it. They usually get wiped (standard procedure is to simply re-image the drive to factory specs), after which they call me to recover their data (Ka-Ching!)

So you are stating publicly that Best Buy is guilty of the act and that there is no question of their guilt and it is a plain and simple fact?

[thecoalman]

So you are stating publicly that Best Buy is guilty of the act and that there is no question of their guilt and it is a plain and simple fact?

I think the fact they have already offered her compensation even before she filed suit is pretty much an admission they lost it don't you think? Assuming thats true and can be proven, we can only surmise that it is true as making claims like that and then suing someone wouldn't be the smartest thing to do.

[Video Head]

So you are stating publicly that Best Buy is guilty of the act and that there is no question of their guilt and it is a plain and simple fact?

I think the fact they have already offered her compensation even before she filed suit is pretty much an admission they lost it don't you think? Assuming thats true and can be proven, we can only surmise that it is true as making claims like that and then suing someone wouldn't be the smartest thing to do.

Lost it? Lost what?

[thecoalman]

Ummmmm...nevermind.

[Supreme2k]

Ultimately, Best Buy offered to pay her $900 for losing the machine...

Uh...the whole point of this thread. BB lost her "machine" (notebook computer). They've already admitted guilt. There's no question about it and no need for a "...considered an admission..."

It's down to the penalties, or compensation

If they weren't guilty, it would be a simple matter of returning the computer safe and sound. Something like this is a reverse habeas corpus (or here).

[Noahtuck]

So you are stating publicly that Best Buy is guilty of the act and that there is no question of their guilt and it is a plain and simple fact?

I think the fact they have already offered her compensation even before she filed suit is pretty much an admission they lost it don't you think? Assuming thats true and can be proven, we can only surmise that it is true as making claims like that and then suing someone wouldn't be the smartest thing to do.

Lost it? Lost what?

Ummm.... yeah....
Maybe you should actually read the article so you know what you are commenting on

[adam]

Offers of settlement either before or after the filing of the suit are absolutely not admissions of guilt, but just about anybody hearing about them thinks of them that way. That is why settlement offers are INADMISSIBLE in trial.

Its also a matter of public policy. If your offer of settlement could be used against you in trial, than there'd be much less incentive to make a settlement offer, and nobody wants that. Settlement is always preferable to lawsuit and certainly preferable to a trial.

[Video Head]

So you are stating publicly that Best Buy is guilty of the act and that there is no question of their guilt and it is a plain and simple fact?

I think the fact they have already offered her compensation even before she filed suit is pretty much an admission they lost it don't you think? Assuming thats true and can be proven, we can only surmise that it is true as making claims like that and then suing someone wouldn't be the smartest thing to do.

Lost it? Lost what?

Ummm.... yeah....
Maybe you should actually read the article so you know what you are commenting on

Ummm.... yes, I have read the article.... and several other stories of the same account.

What real loss has the plantiff suffered to petition a court with a request for a $54,000,000 order of settlement?

I do note that the article you referred me to indicates that the plantiff is reported to have not retained counsel and is representing themselves to the court in this matter.

Possibly you are unaware of how a court of law determines a plantiff's loss and sets value and compensation for that loss.

One thing I do know about court is that when you get there, there are two sides and each side has a story...and both will be heard.

[Video Head]

Offers of settlement either before or after the filing of the suit are absolutely not admissions of guilt, but just about anybody hearing about them thinks of them that way. That is why settlement offers are INADMISSIBLE in trial.

Its also a matter of public policy. If your offer of settlement could be used against you in trial, than there'd be much less incentive to make a settlement offer, and nobody wants that. Settlement is always preferable to lawsuit and certainly preferable to a trial.

Thank you adam.

[thecoalman]

Offers of settlement either before or after the filing of the suit are absolutely not admissions of guilt, but just about anybody hearing about them thinks of them that way. That is why settlement offers are INADMISSIBLE in trial.

Its also a matter of public policy. If your offer of settlement could be used against you in trial, than there'd be much less incentive to make a settlement offer, and nobody wants that. Settlement is always preferable to lawsuit and certainly preferable to a trial.

Whether admissable or not I think its safe to say BB is not in the habit of offering $900 to just anyone who makes a claim, I wasn't trying to say it was legally binding.

[Video Head]

Ultimately, Best Buy offered to pay her $900 for losing the machine...

Uh...the whole point of this thread. BB lost her "machine" (notebook computer). They've already admitted guilt. There's no question about it and no need for a "...considered an admission..."

It's down to the penalties, or compensation

If they weren't guilty, it would be a simple matter of returning the computer safe and sound. Something like this is a reverse habeas corpus (or here).

OK. The computer is gone. Compensation is offered. Disagreement. Court case. Somebody wins. Somebody loses. Thank you.

Habeas corpus plays into this?

Please elaborate on this theory...

[Video Head]

Offers of settlement either before or after the filing of the suit are absolutely not admissions of guilt, but just about anybody hearing about them thinks of them that way. That is why settlement offers are INADMISSIBLE in trial.

Its also a matter of public policy. If your offer of settlement could be used against you in trial, than there'd be much less incentive to make a settlement offer, and nobody wants that. Settlement is always preferable to lawsuit and certainly preferable to a trial.

Whether admissable or not I think its safe to say BB is not in the habit of offering $900 to just anyone who makes a claim, I wasn't trying to say it was legally binding.

So what compensation is Best Buy in the habit of offering just anyone who makes a claim?

[adam]

Valuing the data on her computer probably won't be that difficult. I'm guessing it will legally be worth next to nothing, or nothing at all. I would not be at all surprised if Best Buy requires their customers to sign a waiver regarding this matter. Maybe someone who has used them knows for sure? Even if they don't, courts do not award speculative damages, even when they rule that damages in some amount would be appropriate. When the nature of the service is that the equipment costs under $2,500 and the company is making maybe $50-$100 off the repair job, or in this case honoring a $50-$100 warranty, the customer is not going to be able to hold them responsible for a huge amount of damages for files and personal data that can't really be valued and can't be verified. Its kinda like the dry cleaners losing your suit and you then saying, oh by the way I had a $50,000 diamond in the pocket. The customer bears most of the burden in this situation to either back up the data or enter into a special deal with the company where they are informed of the nature of the data and its value, like where you hire a company to fix a hard drive that contains valuable data. They know up front the monetary risk of taking the job so they can make an informed decision about whether to take the job or not.

She filed this suit in Superior court but I see the jurisdictional cutoff between small claims and large claims is $5,000. She admits herself that her ~50 million dollar amount is intentionally excessive and arbitrary. Upon motion of Best Buy, the court has to examine whether it has jurisdiction based on valuation of damages. If the computer is worth around $1,000 than I don't think she's even going meet that $5000 jurisdictional limit. The case will get kicked down to small claims where it belongs and her damage claims will be limited to $5,000.

This woman also needs to use some common sense. Alot of states have fair settlement laws. If Best Buy gives a fair settlement offer, she takes the case to trial anyway, and wins an amount that is substantially similar or less than the settlement offer, than she has to pay Best Buy's attorney and court costs, which in this case will almost surely be more than whatever she is awarded. If Best Buy makes a fair offer she should take it. Its irresponsible to just be greedy or even worse, just intentionally burdensome. She pretty much admits she is pursuing this just to be a bitch. She figures she's going to get the value of her loss either way, the suit is just to jerk them around. Courts can penalize her for that even when her basic claim clearly has merit.

[Supreme2k]

I would not be at all surprised if Best Buy requires their customers to sign a waiver regarding this matter. Maybe someone who has used them knows for sure?

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/72016

Ultimately, Best Buy offered to pay her $900 for losing the machine... as a gift card. She countered that it had originally cost over $1,100, not to mention all her data that was now gone for good. She demanded $2,100, and Best Buy simply ignored her.

At this point, Campbell was made aware that all her personal data on the machine could lead to a major identity theft issue, though Best Buy never filed their legally required notice that she was at risk. That was the last straw, and she filed suit for $54 million, representing herself. Best Buy has since upped its offer to a total of $4,100 if she withdraws the case. She says she doesn't expect to win, but wants to go to court anyway to force Best Buy to explain how her laptop was lost.

She's not really "pursuing this just to be a bitch", but rather to get answers that she cannot get through going to BB directly.

The original "offer" can be used in court to counter any claim that she was offered proper compensation, since it was limited to BB as a gift certificate.Even if she doesn't get the $54M, I'd be surprised if you gets anywhere near the low (final) offer that they made to her. She will not have to pay their court costs, since her case does have merit. The amount is just an eye-catcher.

The "diamond in the pocket" analogy doesn't hold, as it is reasonable to expect that the customer checked their pockets before sending their pants to the cleaners, but it is also reasonable to expect that they understand that the data is important and will treat it as such. Since the waiver was never brought up to warn her, it is reasonable for her to have expected the utmost care and that her data was safe. By the same token, if she brought her computer in to backup important data and they lost it before they could do it, it would be the same argument. Even with the waiver, it doesn't resolve them of responsibility not to lose her flippin' computer. After she would have signed the waiver, they can't simply chuck her computer out a window or into a trash compactor and say "Whoops! We're covered though, since you signed a waiver. Here's your gift card. Buh-bye."

[budz]

Geez, this sounds like that stupid judge that wanted 9 million dollars for his lost trousers.

BB was wrong but to ask for 54million is outrageous! And you wonder why the judicial system is so f'd up.

[lordsmurf]

Vcourts do not award speculative damages,

I beg to differ.
RIAA/MPAA cases are very speculative.
$100,000 per song is sure as hell not an "actual damage".
I don't recall $1 million CDs on the store shelf.

[adam]

Vcourts do not award speculative damages,

I beg to differ.
RIAA/MPAA cases are very speculative.
$100,000 per song is sure as hell not an "actual damage".
I don't recall $1 million CDs on the store shelf.

Since intellectual property damages are inherently speculative, copyright law allows statutory damages per infringement. It is a specific statute that allows this that could not be clearer. When awarding copyright damages the courts are not having to speculate about anything. The statute literally says they can pick between $X and $Y for each infringement based on factors laid out in the statute, and those factors deal with the nature of the infringement rather than the value of the thing infringed. It is a statutory roadmap for how to calculate these very specific types of damages. So that is the most backasswords example you could have possibly come up with.

She is not suing under copyright law, this is basic property and contract law and as I said, courts do not award purely speculative damages. This is one of the most fundamental rules of law.

[adam]

The original "offer" can be used in court to counter any claim that she was offered proper compensation, since it was limited to BB as a gift certificate.

No it cannot. Offers of settlement are not admissible in trial. If it comes in the proper thing for the court to do is declare a mistrial. If you are referring to the award of attorneys fees for not accepting a fair settlement, that is a statutory remedy following suit. It is not something that can or would need to be presented in trial.

She will not have to pay their court costs, since her case does have merit. The amount is just an eye-catcher.

I don't think you even read what I posted about this. Again, many states have laws that penalize plaintiffs for not accepting a "fair" settlement offer when they WIN in trial. You don't win unless your claim has merit. Anybody can take a slam dunk case to trial, but if you've already been offered what your case is worth and in trial the jury awards you the same amount that you were offered, than in some jurisdictions there is a lawful penalty for that and it is mandatory. The Defendant is entitled to their attorney fees by law so long as they complied with the provisions of that statute (ex: have to send in writing and state it is a fair offer pursuant to that statute, etc...) In a case like this the amount she is awarded could easily be less than Best Buy's attorney's fees. The result is that the jury could completely find in her favor yet she still ends up paying more to Best Buy than they have to pay to her.

Also, there is a big difference between having a meritorious basis for a claim and filing a meritorious claim. She clearly has a valid basis for suit, but rules of procedure in all jurisdictions require that any document you file with the court be done in good faith. I do not think her damage claim is calculated in good faith. She comes right out and says in her claim that she picked the number of $54 mil because it was used in another high profile suit and freely admits in her own complaint that this number is ridiculous under her facts, but that she chose it to raise awareness in the media. In that dry cleaner's suit the damages were certainly excessive but they were at least based on a legal theory, though an incredibly broad one. That attorney at least calculated the damages and added them all up to his claim amount. This woman picked the number out of one headline so that it could be used in another. There is literally no legal basis for it, and that makes it frivolous. As such she can be sanctioned in any number of different ways, including having to pay the other party's attorney and court costs, and this can be done even if she wins her lawsuit.

The "diamond in the pocket" analogy doesn't hold, as it is reasonable to expect that the customer checked their pockets before sending their pants to the cleaners, but it is also reasonable to expect that they understand that the data is important and will treat it as such. Since the waiver was never brought up to warn her, it is reasonable for her to have expected the utmost care and that her data was safe. By the same token, if she brought her computer in to backup important data and they lost it before they could do it, it would be the same argument. Even with the waiver, it doesn't resolve them of responsibility not to lose her flippin' computer. After she would have signed the waiver, they can't simply chuck her computer out a window or into a trash compactor and say "Whoops! We're covered though, since you signed a waiver. Here's your gift card. Buh-bye."

I'm not talking about a waiver to shield them from their own negligence. No such thing exists. The waiver would be for extraordinary damages for the value of lost data. They will always be on the hook for the value of the hardware they lose or damage, but with a waiver they can prevent someone from claiming that the computer had $1,000,000 worth of data. Such waivers are as enforceable as they are common and quick google search confirms that Best Buy does in fact use such a waiver. Everybody does, if they didn't then computer repair wouldn't be profitable.

She can't sue for the value of the lost data, period. She is entitled to the value of the computer and that's not even enough to meet jurisdictional limits. If she is limited to actual damages than I think the case is going to get kicked down to small claims court. If she wants to seek more than just actual damages she is going to have sue under that state's deceptive practices statute and seek punitive damages.

There's all kinds of other ways this lady can get kicked out of court. Best Buy probably uses arbitration clauses in their contacts and I know they use forum selection clauses. She may have to refile the suit in Best Buy's home state or arbitrate first, which is going to cost more than she has lost. She's trying to get attention with this lawsuit and she's succeeded so far, but she's in over her head.

[Video Head]

Vcourts do not award speculative damages,

I beg to differ.
RIAA/MPAA cases are very speculative.
$100,000 per song is sure as hell not an "actual damage".
I don't recall $1 million CDs on the store shelf.

RIAA/MPAA cases are not speculative. They are based upon real losses suffered by artists, writers and other rights holders.

The loss is based upon the collective value of royalties payable on all sales during the enforcible term of the copyright.

I am certain that Paul McCartney or Mick Jagger could attest to the value of a single song. Are you aware of what the rights to "I Want to Hold Your Hand" or "Satisfaction" have netted?

The fact that you do not personally pay $1,000,000 at the store cash register for your single copy does not dimish the overall value to the rights holders...nor their right to seek compensation from those who infringe upon them.

[adam]

Geez, this sounds like that stupid judge that wanted 9 million dollars for his lost trousers.

BB was wrong but to ask for 54million is outrageous! And you wonder why the judicial system is so f'd up.

That's no coincidence. That judge sued for exactly 54 million too. Ms. Campbell told the press that she intentionally picked this number to echo that lawsuit in order to attract media attention. She wrote this in her letter to Best Buy which is now part of her complaint.

Punitive damages: in the amount of $54,000,000.00. You will note that this is approximately the same amount requested in the now-infamous “Pants Suit Judge vs. Mom-and-Pop Drycleaners” case that played out this year in Washington, DC. I will be the first to admit that it is an absurd amount of money. I have chosen this amount with the hope that it will generate interest among the media to share this story with the public

[Video Head]

Geez, this sounds like that stupid judge that wanted 9 million dollars for his lost trousers.

BB was wrong but to ask for 54million is outrageous! And you wonder why the judicial system is so f'd up.

That's no coincidence. That judge sued for exactly 54 million too. Ms. Campbell told the press that she intentionally picked this number to echo that lawsuit in order to attract media attention. She wrote this in her letter to Best Buy which is now part of her complaint.

Punitive damages: in the amount of $54,000,000.00. You will note that this is approximately the same amount requested in the now-infamous “Pants Suit Judge vs. Mom-and-Pop Drycleaners” case that played out this year in Washington, DC. I will be the first to admit that it is an absurd amount of money. I have chosen this amount with the hope that it will generate interest among the media to share this story with the public

She may have inadvertantly chosen the most expensive route to get her story heard...a 30 second spot during the Superbowl may have cost less if she is ultimately burdened with the defendant's legal costs. All for a notebook.

I note that the Judge hearing the case did strongly suggest that this matter be worked out between the parties...that was on January 25th. The next court date was this past Friday...