# Best Buy Sued Over Lost Laptop- For $54 Million



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

http://www.dealerscopetoday.com/story.bsp?sid=90988&var=story#90988


> Best Buy's latest brush with a customer has led not only to bad feelings, but to a costly lawsuit.
> 
> According to the Web site MSNBC.com's Redtape blog, the retail giant has been sued for $54 million by a woman in Washington, D.C. who claims that they lost her laptop and spent several months lying to her about its whereabouts. The computer, according to Raelyn Campbell, was full of invaluable personal information.


More.... 
There must be something magical about that number. :lol:


----------



## sean10780 (Oct 16, 2007)

Richard King said:


> http://www.dealerscopetoday.com/story.bsp?sid=90988&var=story#90988
> More....
> There must be something magical about that number. :lol:


Are you kidding me? $54 Million for a lost laptop. I think I would of took the giftcards or money and ran with it. Seems like legal fees will be alot.


----------



## Richard King (Mar 25, 2002)

More stuff...
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...on-best-buy-lawsuit-stupid-but-necessary.html

http://www.nbr.org/about_nbr/staff/campbell.html
http://www.geocities.co.jp/Playtown-Denei/3053/990328jat.html
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Campbell_Raelyn_132957621.aspx


----------



## Mike500 (May 10, 2002)

Best Buy lost my $1,000 laptop, when it was sent in for repairs in 1995.

After a long delay amd many letters to the Attorney general in Minnesota, they settled on $1,600 compensation.

They don't like to admit they are wrong.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

while i do feel bad for her... she can't use the fact that she lost 'thousands dollars worth of music and thousands of irreplaceable photos'... because it is simply ignorant to not have a backup copy of such things...

but their offer of $900 is ridiculous... considering the laptop they lost was worth more than that alone...


----------



## Neil Derryberry (Mar 23, 2002)

I doubt she will get $54 million but I'd be willing to bet the payout could be much higher than the value of the laptop. BB will get screwed if this goes to trial.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

:nono: how about the JUDGE who sued the dry cleaner for $65 million (and lost) for the lost pair of pants? His claims:

"mental suffering, inconvenience and discomfort," for his litigation costs and for renting a car every weekend for 10 years to get to the cleaners.

A judge. A role model. An alleged upstanding citizen with the good moral and ethical fibre to pass fair and sound judgement on others while upholding our laws. 

Hrmmmpphhh! Well, if this guy can do, why can't I?? :flaiming


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

Did anyone actually READ the articles?

How about this one from MSNBC, originally posted Monday?

It's very clear why the plaintiff sued for $54 million ...


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> Did anyone actually READ the articles?
> 
> How about this one from MSNBC, originally posted Monday?
> 
> It's very clear why the plaintiff sued for $54 million ...


I read them. Why is it very clear that she deserves $54 million, or half of their entire corporate monthly earnings? So they f-ed up and then were jerks about it. So she deserves $54 million? She even acknowledged that she shouldn't get that amount.

Granted, she deserves more than a grand, but $54 million??

Get a grip. :nono2:


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> I read them. Why is it very clear that she deserves $54 million, or half of their entire corporate monthly earnings? So they f-ed up and then were jerks about it. So she deserves $54 million? She even acknowledged that she shouldn't get that amount.
> 
> Granted, she deserves more than a grand, but $54 million??
> 
> Get a grip. :nono2:


Seriously, where did I say she *deserved* $54 million? Please have your eyes checked. I said it's clear why she *sued* for $54 million.

In case you're sill missing it, she did it to get their attention - that's all. She chose a copy-cat amount from a similar lawsuit, simply to get Best Buy to take her seriously.

"Get a grip." ...


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> Seriously, where did I say she *deserved* $54 million? Please have your eyes checked. I said it's clear why she *sued* for $54 million.
> 
> In case you're sill missing it, she did it to get their attention - that's all. She chose a copy-cat amount from a similar lawsuit, simply to get Best Buy to take her seriously.
> 
> "Get a grip." ...


Ok, you got me started :soapbox:

So it's not frivolous then if she did it to make a point? Come on, this propagates the pervasive attitude that exists in our society that if you don't get your way, sue for a sickening amount of money. Regardless of _why_ she did it, it's still wrong. There are better ways to "get their attention" than to sue for $54 million. You honestly think this was the best way to do this? Really? Let's recap what this lady actually did:

After the minimum wage grunts working in the local store didn't help her she:

"urged family and friends to write to the store saying they wouldn't shop there until the matter was resolved."

Well that's always a good way to get something done. Have other people complain for you and threaten them with something they could give two licks about: More of your friends and family members won't shop here anymore and give us trouble? Oh, wait, that's good!

"Campbell contacted the Washington, D.C., attorney general's office, which in turn contacted the store. In November, the store increased its compensation offer, this time offering a $1,100 refund to her credit card and a $500 gift card."

Again, not the way to do it. If you go to any AG office's website it clears says that their services are NOT a replacement for private legal representation. So what did they inevitably tell her to do, I bet:

"she visited a legal aid office and was asked by a lawyer there whether she had any personal information on the computer? ... Campbell was informed that she had a bigger problem than a lost computer - the *potential* for identity theft. "

Oh good, lucky for her, she finally ended up at an ambulance chaser's office. Thank god there's still a lawyer willing to tell a girl how to file a frivolous lawsuit "on her own" without any help at all from a lawyer. Suuuurre.

It tied up our superior court system for a lousy few thousand dollar lawsuit. She could have taken this to small claims just as easily and gotten her $3000 or whatever it was she wanted for the laptop and other damages with lower legal fees (for all concerned) and less rigamarole.

Oh, and by the way, you've only gotten her side of the story. Sure, it makes for a good chuckle on message boards and over a beer about "the chick who sued BBY for 50 mil over a thousand dollar laptop" har har har - that's great! Let's all have a laugh at the expense of skyrocketing court and legal fees killing businesses.

It's our legal system in dire need of fixing. It's really not funny. And she doesn't deserve any "atta girls" for using a figure of $54 millions to get their attention because that's what landed it in superior court versus her local small claims court where it belonged. And I'm not defending Best Buy because they're clearly wrong and owe her some money.

Horrible.

Overkill.

Sorry, but this really gets me going because people don't understand the real cost of these "entertaining" episodes they read about in the news.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> Ok, you got me started :soapbox:


Glad to help, but please, don't let your anger at the flaws in the American judicial system blind you and see things in my post that I haven't said...



> So it's not frivolous then if she did it to make a point?


I didn't say that nor did I imply that.



> You honestly think this was the best way to do this? Really?


I didn't say that nor did I imply that.



> Oh, and by the way, you've only gotten her side of the story.


So? That has nothing to do with why I posted. Many in this thread posted with shock that the plaintiff could expect to receive $54 million from Best Buy in a lawsuit. I simply countered that she did NOT expect to get that money - the article made it clear what was behind the amount. I have not discussed whether it was appropriate, inappropriate, frivolous or other. I have not discussed whether I approve or disapprove of her actions. I don't care about them. I was just pointing out that it was clear why she sued for $54 million. (Perhaps if I used the word "amount" it would have been enough to have saved us from this follow-up.)


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Drew2k said:


> Glad to help, but please, don't let your anger at the flaws in the American judicial system blind you and see things in my post that I haven't said...
> 
> I didn't say that nor did I imply that.
> 
> ...


Sorry, it just looked to me like you were giving her kudos for matching a prior lawsuit to get their attention. My mistake. These things, as you can see, blind me sometimes and I do get worked up because, as I'm sure you probably agree, it's wasting a lot of our money.


----------



## Drew2k (Aug 16, 2006)

tcusta00 said:


> Sorry, it just looked to me like you were giving her kudos for matching a prior lawsuit to get their attention. My mistake. These things, as you can see, blind me sometimes and I do get worked up because, as I'm sure you probably agree, it's wasting a lot of our money.


Cool. Thanks for the follow-up. I do agree something needs to be done, but I'm not versed enough in the ways of our legal system to cite specific shortcomings or recommendations. However, I think we also need a total corporate climate change. It used to be that the customer was always right and the customer came first. Now the shareholders and the bottom line come first, and that in no small way (in my opinion) directly relates to these overblown lawsuits.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Corporations aren't guilt free, but, consider this: The _other_ source of the problem is staring right at us... in the mirror.

We've told corporations that we want lower prices at the expense of customer service. [This lady's experience is extreme and isn't how customer service ought to be handled - ever (obviously!).] But when customers are demanding the lowest prices and the shareholders are demanding growing earnings you have a dilemma. Do we sell a lower quality product or cut wages and turn our CSRs into cashiers. In most cases it's the latter. Knowledgeable, helpful, informative CSRs are a thing of the past, unless you're willing to go to the upscale store down the road and pay a premium for the exact same product.

I hate to admit it, but we did this to ourselves!! And the big box stores are sprouting up every day in shopping centers across America.

I'm as guilty as the next guy. I buy most of my stuff off the internet these days mostly because I don't want to deal with incompetence locally. So now I deal with incompetence over the phone and email!


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Best Buy should be liable for the material value of the hardware, plus the loss of the plaintiff's productivity during the time they misled her, and that is all. They should not be held responsible for the lost data as it is the plaintiff's responsibility to back up her work.


----------



## tcusta00 (Dec 31, 2007)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Best Buy should be liable for the material value of the hardware, plus the loss of the plaintiff's productivity during the time they misled her, and that is all. They should not be held responsible for the lost data as it is the plaintiff's responsibility to back up her work.


And I'd be willing to bet money that whenever you drop off a computer at Best Buy they have you sign some sort of contract that says exactly that - we're not responsible for the lost data."


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Every time I've brought my laptop or my daughter's laptop in for service, it's been to a local mom-and-pop store. When the computer is acting squirrely, I usually put it in for a HD swap to something bigger with a disk-copy to the new drive and I still get the old one in a static-free baggie that I can then put in an enclosure and use as a portable external HD.

The problem with her PC was a broken power switch. Ok, that means the HD was still solid.

This episode might have one silver lining. Perhaps, from now on, all laptops brough in might have one extra service step done - pull the HD and back it up SINCE OBVIOUSLY USERS ARE TOO STUPID TO BACK THEIR OWN DATA UP.

That way, even if the hardware is lost or destroyed, the data is safe. The FIRST THING I bought my daughter when her uncle gave her a laptop for college was an external USB HD for her to use for backups.

Now, I can see her suing Best Buy for not offering a complete refund AND, given the circumstances, forcing them to pay for the $10/mo identity-theft-watch service that she signed up for. Double the damages for negligence, if you like, and you come up with less than $10,000 to cover 5 years of that service.

The lost pictures, music and tax returns? SORRY - Best Buy is not liable FOR YOUR IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY.

...and the court system is not your personal toy to use to "make a point".


----------



## hookemfins (Jul 3, 2007)

djlong said:


> The lost pictures, music and tax returns? SORRY - Best Buy is not liable FOR YOUR IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY.


She's not suing for loss of data and tax returns. She is suing for her personal information being lost. The potential for identity theft. She is suing for Best Buy violating their privacy policy.

Yes you sign a waiver that says that they are not responsible for lost data. But that is for it being damaged, not stolen. She should have had the personal data password protected but hackers can break through many of them. Best Buy has a privacy policy that was not followed in this case. When you take your computer into a big giant store like Best Buy, you don't think that they will loose it. Best Buy is guilty of negligence. How much needs to be determined?

If we apply comparative damages, I would say that Best Buy is 75% negligent. That means that she should be awarded 75% of the final judgment amount. I personally award her $100,000 which is reduced to $75,000 if I were on the jury. However, there is a lot more that goes into a lawsuit then what is published in a article. We need to see the merits of the case before passing judgment.

$54 million is a ridiculous amount to sue over considering the women in the McDonald's coffee burn case only received $480,000 reduced by the judge after the jury awarded her $2.7 million

I am not a lawyer nor have I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express lately.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Why? She herself established that the *threat* of identity theft was worth $10/mo to sign up with a service protecting her against it.

If Best Buy is liable, then they should pick up the bill. $120/year for a few years. Case closed. NEXT!


----------



## hookemfins (Jul 3, 2007)

djlong said:


> Why? She herself established that the *threat* of identity theft was worth $10/mo to sign up with a service protecting her against it.
> 
> If Best Buy is liable, then they should pick up the bill. $120/year for a few years. Case closed. NEXT!


The problem is Best Buy never mad the offer. Corporations try to fight problems with a minimalist attitude instead of coming out and doing what is right.

Had Best Buy made the offer you proposed from the beginning plus refund the original cost of the lap top they wouldn't be this mess. Just like all McDonald's had to do was pay for that ladies medical bills and they wouldn't have had to go through a trial and be out $480,000 instead of $20,000 she was asking for. There offer was a mere $800 plus another cup of coffee :lol:

If a corporation is guilty of neglect then they will pay. Now if they do the right thing from the start then most of these problems will be settled privately and away from public knowledge.

Once neglect is proven a jury will make an example of the corporation.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

You can treble damages if it's willful misconduct. So that's $30/mo... The court system is not one's personal toy to whine and cry about mistreatment to make an example of someone. Had she sued for a reasonable amount, he wouldn't be in the news. That's what's this is all about. She wants her 15 minutes.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I'd be willing to bet that the $2,500 is almost enough .. A simple apology for her troubles and an admission of guilt is likely the additional steps BB would need to take. If they don't want to take the final two steps (for future legal issues) then the ante will probably need to be > $10,000 .. certainly less than the $54-million, though.

Clearly she is not happy, nor should she be.


----------



## HIPAR (May 15, 2005)

If I were the judge, I would dismiss the case and throw both her and her lawyer in jail for wasting the court's time with this kind of nonsense.

--- CHAS


----------

