[HN Gopher] WD to Settle SMR HDD False Advertising Class Action ...
___________________________________________________________________
WD to Settle SMR HDD False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit at $160
per Drive
Author : RachelF
Score : 17 points
Date : 2021-06-17 20:37 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.tomshardware.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.tomshardware.com)
| rasz wrote:
| >With the settlement, WD would agree that the WD Red NAS HDDs
| with SMR tech aren't suitable for NAS and RAID usage.
|
| wow, a settlement where party admits guilt? seems rare
|
| > The negotiated terms come to $2.7 million
|
| ah, because it was cheap
|
| >with complainants receiving $4 to $7 in cash for each drive
| purchased
|
| wait, $4 to $7?
|
| > with a maximum pro-rata adjustment of 85% of the retail price
| possible. That means the maximum damages per drive in the ~$160
| range
|
| so which is it? $4 to $7 or $160. I dont understand this at all.
|
| > You won't need proof of purchase to make a claim.
|
| how does that work? I claim to have purchased million of those
| drives pay me?
|
| >The settlement value comes as the culmination of 10 weeks of
| negotiations and also includes lawyers' fees and other costs.
|
| oh, so its $2.7 million minus lawyer fees ... This is the source
| of the news, https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/consumers-
| present-2-7m-settl... Here is actual court document
| https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Northern_Distri...
|
| >Class Members can receive between $4.00 and $7.00 cash award for
| each Subject Product the Claimant purchased during the Class
| Period, subject to a maximum pro rata adjustment of 85% of the
| Subject Products' retail purchase price (i.e., 85% of $69.99 for
| the 2TB Subject Product, $84.99 for the 3TB Subject Product,
| $94.99 for the 4TB Subject Product, and $145.99 for the 6TB
| Subject Product)
|
| >The affected WD Red NAS hard drives have the following SKUs:
| WD20EFAX (2TB capacity), WD30EFAX (3TB capacity), WD40EFAX (4TB
| capacity) and WD60EFAX (6TB capacity)
|
| > No proof of purchase is required to submit a claim, and
| Claimants may submit claims for each Subject Product purchased.
|
| still dont understand how that is supposed to work? submitting
| serial numbers?
|
| Whats fascinating:
|
| >3 The maximum pro rata upward adjustment amount was the subject
| of dispute between Plaintiffs and Defendant. Plaintiffs advocated
| for a full refund, whereas Defendant insisted on a cap of $36 per
| 2TB and 3TB Hard Drives, and a cap of $63 for 4TB and 6TB Hard
| Drives. Pursuant to the parties' executed Class Action Settlement
| Term Sheet, this issue was decided by a third-party neutral, Hon.
| Elizabeth Laporte (Ret.). Judge Laporte received written
| submissions from both parties and issued a decision of 85% of the
| Subject Products' retail purchase price as the maximum pro rata
| upward adjustment. Judge Laporte's decision is attached to the
| Kopel Declaration as Exhibit 3.
|
| So plaintiffs wanted full refund, WD proposed $36-$63, and Judge
| decided right in the middle will be $4-$7? Unsurprisingly there
| is no mention of $160 per drive, like there is no mention of
| admitting any guild, just WD agreeing to "correctly label its
| product for 4 years". Document calls this "significant injunctive
| relief" HAHA.
|
| in other news WD seems to be in a settlement mood, here is
| another one for sex discrimination from January, with each class
| participant receiving ~2.5K while lawyers pocketed 2.5mil
|
| https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2021/01/08/215...
| malwarebytess wrote:
| Hardly feels like the court system works when it's impossible
| to actually recoup damages. Don't see how our justice and court
| systems can justify being the sole arbiters when the results so
| often suck ass.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-17 23:02 UTC)