Gamer's Lawsuit Seeks $50K Over Xbox 360 Disc Scratching
Gamer's Lawsuit Seeks $50K Over Xbox 360 Disc Scratching
September 4, 2009
Xbox 360 maker Microsoft is playing defense against a lawsuit filed in a Wisconsin court by a disgruntled gamer who claims that his console scratched game discs.
The Madison Record reports that plaintiff Jason Johnson's suit is proceeding after Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack denied Microsoft's motion to dismiss the case. Although Judge Stack threw out two counts, he ruled that two others may proceed. Johnson is seeking $50,000 plus costs. From the newspaper:
Johnson is suing the company for alleged defects in its X-Box 360 video game console. Johnson alleges the company sold the product knowing it scratched video games and made them unplayable...
Johnson is seeking damages from the Washington-based company's alleged violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, negligence, breach of implied warranty and strict product liability.
According to the newspaper account, Microsoft's attorney argued that the suit should be dismissed because Johnson didn't personally buy his 360; the system was a gift from his wife. That's a pretty silly argument and Judge Stack apparently thought so too.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:51pm
DarkSaber: I think he just goes round the internet copy+pasting the same bollocks to get attention.
DarkSaber: I think he just goes round the internet copy+pasting the same bollocks to get attention.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:41pm
Valdearg: @DS: I have to admit, I chuckled when I saw the 4 Feb 2010 on that post.. >.<
Valdearg: @DS: I have to admit, I chuckled when I saw the 4 Feb 2010 on that post.. >.<
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:31pm
DarkSaber: Hm, Bioshock. Not that Zippy likes to beat the dead horse by ranting about it for TWO $&%£ING YEARS!
DarkSaber: Hm, Bioshock. Not that Zippy likes to beat the dead horse by ranting about it for TWO $&%£ING YEARS!
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:30pm
DarkSaber: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.173063-Bioshock-yet-another-zippy-rant
DarkSaber: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.173063-Bioshock-yet-another-zippy-rant
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:20pm
DarkSaber: Although, unsurprisingly, he's just being called an idiot alot and criticised for being as illegible as always.
DarkSaber: Although, unsurprisingly, he's just being called an idiot alot and criticised for being as illegible as always.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:18pm
DarkSaber: Oh good lord, I just found Zippy on The Escapist.
DarkSaber: Oh good lord, I just found Zippy on The Escapist.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:14pm
Valdearg: IE: Male body/Female Mind or Female Body/Male Mind.
Valdearg: IE: Male body/Female Mind or Female Body/Male Mind.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:13pm
Valdearg: @Zip: TG == Transgendered/Transsexual.
Valdearg: @Zip: TG == Transgendered/Transsexual.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:09pm
DarkSaber: Forget it Zippy, it's an abbreviation of a big word and so would be wasted on you
DarkSaber: Forget it Zippy, it's an abbreviation of a big word and so would be wasted on you
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:07pm
ZippyDSMlee: Vlag:....TG?
ZippyDSMlee: Vlag:....TG?
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:02pm
Valdearg: @DS: Im sure that's what they'd do if it wasn't legal to just tell Gays/TG's to "Screw off," just because they're who they are.
Valdearg: @DS: Im sure that's what they'd do if it wasn't legal to just tell Gays/TG's to "Screw off," just because they're who they are.
Posted 02/09/10 at 02:50pm
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
Discs only scratch if you don't know how to take care of them, or move your 360 while it's playing a disc.
When Jack Thompson runs his mouth, does anyone really care what he has to say anymore?
That's been proven false, the BBC series Watchdog did a thorough test with both an older and newer 360 and the older one got scratched discs from a shock vibration test which simulates the movements caused by things such as placing a heavy book on the same table the Xbox is on, vigourous movement in the same room such as jumping up and down, or having a large vehicle pass by the house.
These are standard household vibrations that it should be able to withstand without causing damage.
According to the Watchdog report the prosection in an American trial against Microsoft (which is presumably this or the other case going ahead) got the same results in a similar test they had performed.
I considered it was possible my subwoofer rattled something loose in my first 360.
I had disc scratching issues but they were from the disc drive losing power/connectivity while in the middle of playing a game, causing the lens to make contact with the disc during reset. The resetting issue still persists even though it's in another room and I stopped using discs.
I live in a 2nd floor apartment that shakes all the time. Kids upstairs running around, people dropping things on their floor or slamming doors, planes passing by overhead (I live near a large airport). Never had a disc scratched.
Same (exception being 1st floor), and that with an old retail-date Xenon.
And some people have IV'd speedballs multiple times and lived. Just cause yours has survived heavy vibrations and shock a few times doesn't mean anything.
Apart from the two times I set it up, my 360 was never moved in all the years I owned it. It started scratching my discs two months ago and I had to get it repaired. However, I'm not sure how this guy reckons on the $50K. Mine cost me $150 including the price of the disc repairer. I guess if you kept putting discs in it after it started scratching them you could run up a hefty tab, but $50K? Is that some sort of punitive damage thing? I thought that could only happen in a class action suit - then again I'm no lawyer.
You do realise that the disks were being scratched because of a safety feature that pc's have had for years wasn't put in the xbox right.
Call me kooky but shouldn't he sue over the price of an Xbox 360? Unless they have gone up greatly in price 50k seems like overkill.
I think he reached that figure using the RIAAs mehtod of working out how much damages they are 'owed'.
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
Actual damage + RAGE = $$$
Though I agree that dismissing it because his wife bought it for him was an incredibly weak argument.
"That's not ironic. That's justice."
So he's suing because the 360 scratches disks when you move the entire system around while the disk is moving. The disk is getting scratched by the conservation of circular momentum. The same thing would happen if you were dumb enough to rotate your pc around while the cd was in the driver, but we don't see anyone suing Dell for that.
Microsoft is not liable for physics happening.
They could be if they neglegently discarded bumpers that most DVD players have in order for them to save costs on the 360. The disks are scratched when the console is moved because of the absense of any kind of bumper in the drive.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
In all honesty though eh shouldn't have move his 360 when not only the disk was still but also when the system is still powered on.
http://www.magicinkgaming.com/
You may want to read Nocturne's post a few posts up, it mentions an actual study confirming this is not just a matter of "own fault".
Except it doesn't just happen when you move the xbox around. Some british news program ran a series of tests and found that just normal household vibrations like someone walking by or laying a book on the shelf with the system were enough to cause the disks to get scratched. Now unless he bought a lot of games or intends this to be a class action the amount he is asking for is excessive but the fact that he is suing is understandable.
Agreed. I think this case would be a lot easier to sort out if he simply sued for less. I mean, how much money could this actually have costed him? 360 + 100 games (let's just pretend...) would egual somewhere around 7000 dollars, tops. And that's giving him more than the benefit of the doubt.
Whether Microsoft was negligent in this matter or not, there is no way this doofus is owed $50k for it. I am so sick and tired of people looking for any excuse to try to strike it rich with a lawsuit. It's not like Microsoft maimed his children with this incident. Give him $60 for each game that was ruined and a swift kick in the a** out of the courtroom.
Maybe his $50k claim is not just for his actual damages but also includes punitive damages, which I believe are generally recoverable under strict product liability and are intended not to compensate the plaintiff for their actual losses but to punish the defendant and serve as a deterrent against future misconduct. If so, there's an argument to be made that for a company with pockets as deep as Microsoft's, $49K in punitives isn't nearly enough to serve as a deterrent.
I'm guessing the strategy is more likely "ask for something decent but small, that way they'll be more likely to settle out of court." Of course, if Microsoft does settle out of court, it could open up a flood of similar claims.
I'm surprised some plaintiff law firm hasn't class actioned this one . . . yet. And, yes, it is a surprisingly low-ball amount to claim in damages against a defendant like Microsoft. I'd imagine that they're already out that much in attorney fees just from answering and moving to dismiss.
Yeah but if he wins or settles out of court well I believe someone said something about floodgates and while this one case wouldn't hurt them a few hundred...
I agree with you there. Let's keep in mind that he is suing based on the consumer Fraud and deceptive practices act. I don't think this falls under consumer fraud but it does fall under deceptive practices. This is what happens when companies try to save a couple of cents and get caught with their pants down. Microsoft is not the first ones doing this and I'm sure they won't be the last ones.
My first 360 started scratching discs while they were in-play. The disc drive stops responding (no eject, no disc search, nothing) after a few hours of gameplay while the system resets; and the laser lens comes into contact with the disc carving rings or spirals into it.
MS made me pay for repairs since it wasn't RROD, but when I shipped it to them UPS dropped and fucked up the box, chipping some white plastic off the back. MS refused to repair it because they said it looked tampered with then refunded my money.
I ended up having to buy another 360. The old one works as a Netflix box, but still resets after a few hours if playing a game (both disc and HDD). Good thing the discs themselves were easily fixed with my trusty, decade old Game Doctor disc buffer -- just had to order more fluid.
So those of you who are oblivious enough to say it's the fault of the consumer for misusing/mishandling equipment can enjoy your ignorance.
I dont think its the ignorance they enjoy. More like the air of superiority. Tell the truth it smells more like the air that comes out the southed of a north bound cow.
"According to the newspaper account, Microsoft's attorney argued that the suit should be dismissed because Johnson didn't personally buy his 360; the system was a gift from his wife."
Uh, isn't he right though? I mean, shouldn't it be his wife suing? There was no 'breach of contract' since he never had a contract of ANY form in the first place. Same with the 'implied warranty'. Implied to who? He didn't buy it. I'm aware that that doesn't change what did or didn't happen or if there was or wasn't negligence, but still. He can't just sue for things like that 'just because'.