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

[lordsmurf]

Since intellectual property damages are inherently speculative....... this is basic property and contract law and as I said, courts do not award purely speculative damages.

Okay. Now what happens when property contains intellectual property? Is it simply ignored as if it were valueless? That doesn't sound fair. And can't contracts be held to some sort of "standard of reason", where carelessness and maliciousness are exempt from contractual coverage?

Just for the record: $54 million is retarded. The person not having backups is a moron. However, law is interesting to understand.

.... speaking of being a moron, how much of the loss of data is her burden in this case? If any?

[adam]

Okay. Now what happens when property contains intellectual property? Is it simply ignored as if it were valueless? That doesn't sound fair.

No its not valueless, but the plaintiff always has the burden of proving their damages and that proof cannot be based on mere speculation or they have not met their burden. If there were no waiver, the woman could go through all of the files present and prove that they existed, somehow, and prove what their loss has cost her. Its hard to prove they even existed though and its even harder to prove the value of a lost baby photo, for instance. And the jury is instructed to not award damages that are speculative or remote (or an appellate court can reduce or remove remote or speculative damages awarded at the trial level.) If she signed a waiver on this than that controls the issue and she contracted away the right to even raise that claim.

And can't contracts be held to some sort of "standard of reason", where carelessness and maliciousness are exempt from contractual coverage?

Certainly, its called punitive damages which allow her to collect more than just the actual value of her loss. But again, she's got to meet her burden.

.... speaking of being a moron, how much of the loss of data is her burden in this case? If any?

I think the waiver makes this moot, but if there were no waiver I think it could reasonably preclude her from obtaining damages for lost personal data like photos, documents, etc.. She claims quite a bit of damages for lost software in her case but that makes no sense to me since the software should come on a separate disc if she bought it separately, and if it came bundled with the computer than she would surely get equivalent software if she chose to buy new same/similar computer with the replacement money they gave her. It seems her main argument is that this has opened her up to potential identity theft which she couldn't prevent through any kind of archival method.

[lordsmurf]

- Identity theft? I bet that opens her up to legal liability now doesn't it?
- Would any such complaints "pass through" from her to Best Buy?
- Can any potential victims of said ID theft join her in this suit? (I doubt that, but want to ask anyway.)
- Would you speculate that she's seeking $54 million because she's now afraid she'll be held responsible by others? This assumes the victims do not sue Best BUy, or are otherwise not allowed to join her in any suit on the ID theft claims.

Some of these waivers stores give out are very non-legalese. I'd bet on workarounds. Although being a large operation like Best Buy, it's less likely.

Probably my last group of questions. My interest just peaked and is done.
Thanks.

[adam]

She can't be held liable for what anyone else does with her identity.

[Video Head]

- Identity theft? I bet that opens her up to legal liability now doesn't it?
- Would any such complaints "pass through" from her to Best Buy?
- Can any potential victims of said ID theft join her in this suit? (I doubt that, but want to ask anyway.)
- Would you speculate that she's seeking $54 million because she's now afraid she'll be held responsible by others? This assumes the victims do not sue Best BUy, or are otherwise not allowed to join her in any suit on the ID theft claims.

Some of these waivers stores give out are very non-legalese. I'd bet on workarounds. Although being a large operation like Best Buy, it's less likely.

Probably my last group of questions. My interest just peaked and is done.
Thanks.

This does not qualify for class-action.

[lordsmurf]

She can't be held liable for what anyone else does with her identity.

A previous post led me to believe her laptop housed information on OTHER PEOPLE, besides herself. If that's the case, who is held liable for the leak?

I don't speak of class-action either, but of a multi-party case. I believe there is a difference?

[thecoalman]

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

I wouldn't know, try walking into a BB and tell them they lost your laptop and see what they offer you.

[BJ_M]

US customs has lost a lot of laptops lately (a lot of storage devices are examined now at the airports and boarders - some are taken for further examination) (further info can be googled) ..... evidently there is no recourse for compensation for either the lost laptop ,itouch , pda etc or for lost data ... many corporations now require employees to not have ANY data on laptops when traveling ..... IF BB lost this suit , be interesting how that would play out for other lost laptops etc ....

[Supreme2k]

My last 2 cents.


adam, you've missed the point posted and linked several times: She wasn't made aware of the waiver. She never signed it. So there's no "if she signed a waiver." I don't really care about this case anymore (not sure I really ever did), but you keep bringing it up as if it is in question, or assume BB must have made her sign one, even though the contrary is very much in fact.

[adam]

I said that Best Buy uses such waivers and that they are generally enforceable and that IF she signed one it should control. Saying, IF covers my bases quite well I think, since it is a fact issue to be decided. I know she says she never saw a waiver and that they fabricated one after the fact, but that is also a fact issue to be decided. I also said that if a waiver doesn't control she still has the burden of proving the value of the lost data and that such proof cannot be speculative. I'm not assuming anything, I'm addressing each possibility, something which the jury would have to do. I think her claims for lost files are worth little to nothing, and yes I think she probably did sign a waiver whether she remembers it or not.

Just because this lady puts something in her complaint doesn't mean its a fact. Until it is proven it is an allegation, and we should all be suspect of the claims of a woman who files a ~$54 million lawsuit for the loss of a ~$1000 computer.

[thecoalman]

She wasn't made aware of the waiver. She never signed it. So there's no "if she signed a waiver." I don't really care about this case anymore (not sure I really ever did).

By the article it sounds to me like the "legally required notice" is something they would have been required to file after the fact. For example if a bank lost a bunch of credit card data they'd be required to report it instead of simply sweeping it under the rug so the consumer is aware of it. I'd imagine a waiver if any would be part of a receipt given to a consumer.

[adam]

By the article it sounds to me like the "legally required notice" is something they would have been required to file after the fact. For example if a bank lost a bunch of credit card data they'd be required to report it instead of simply sweeping it under the rug so the consumer is aware of it. I'd imagine a waiver if any would be part of a receipt given to a consumer.

I think that's a separate issue. Supreme2k and I are talking about a waiver of the right to sue for the monetary loss caused by losing the data. (Ex: That file I had stored was worth $100 to me.) The notice referred to in the article pertains to the requirement that BB notify her of a potential security breach of her computer, that could result in identity theft. The thing is though, I think they did notify her when they eventually told her that her computer was missing. I mean do you really need someone to spell out that when your computer is lost there is a potential that someone might have used it? The statute says that notification may come in any form. The question though is how long BB knew of the loss before they told her.

But in any case this statute only imposes a penalty of $100 per violation, payable to the State. Other than that she is only entitled to her actual losses. She purchased an identity theft protection monitor service for a monthly fee. Ok fine, pay her back for that for a few years. Other than that, she'd have to show that someone used her identity and caused her damages. After these several years since its been lost, I think she's safe.

Imagine the poor sap who tried to steal this woman's identity though. I wonder what kind of Dr. Evil face she'd make when she sued him for ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.

[Video Head]

My last 2 cents.


adam, you've missed the point posted and linked several times: She wasn't made aware of the waiver. She never signed it. So there's no "if she signed a waiver." I don't really care about this case anymore (not sure I really ever did), but you keep bringing it up as if it is in question, or assume BB must have made her sign one, even though the contrary is very much in fact.

You are stating that without question she was not made aware of the waiver and that she never signed it? How are you certain of this? What presentable evidence (from either party) are your aware of? Are you basing your statements upon what you have read in media reports or upon hard fact that you could influence a court with?

[Video Head]

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

I wouldn't know, try walking into a BB and tell them they lost your laptop and see what they offer you.

You just seemed so informed on the subject that I figured you would have the answer...

[thecoalman]

You just seemed so informed on the subject that I figured you would have the answer...

Well I do know the answer, I'll give you a hint. BB isn't going to give you shit. Admissible or not to quote Supreme2k:

Bottom line is that BB is guilty of the act.

[Video Head]

You just seemed so informed on the subject that I figured you would have the answer...

Well I do know the answer, I'll give you a hint. BB isn't going to give you shit. Admissible or not to quote Supreme2k:

Bottom line is that BB is guilty of the act.

Sounds like you were there...

[thecoalman]

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9062...1&pageNumber=2

Best Buy's French told Computerworld in the statement that as part of the company's attempt to resolve the problem, "this customer was offered and collected $1,110.35," along with a $500 gift card "for her inconvenience."

...... convinced now.

[thecoalman]

The thing is though, I think they did notify her when they eventually told her that her computer was missing. I mean do you really need someone to spell out that when your computer is lost there is a potential that someone might have used it? The statute says that notification may come in any form. The question though is how long BB knew of the loss before they told her..

That I beleive is the crux of the issue, after reading a few more articles she apparently wasn't made aware of the loss until long after it was gone.