Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Class Action lawsuit against Seagate Hard Drives?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Class Action lawsuit against Seagate Hard Drives?

    Just got this in E-mail today:


    Notice of Seagate Hard Drive Class Action and Proposed Settlement

    If you purchased a Seagate brand hard disc drive between March 22, 2001 and September 26, 2007, a proposed class action settlement may affect you. A hearing has been scheduled in San Francisco Superior Court to approve the settlement. Under the settlement, you may have the right to make a claim for cash or software. You also may choose to exclude yourself from the settlement. Alternatively, you may file written objections to the settlement and appear (or have your own attorney appear) at the court hearing. If the settlement is approved and you do not exclude yourself, you give up the right to sue for the claims the settlement resolves, and you will be bound by the terms of the settlement. To learn more about or exercise any of your rights, please read below and visit www.harddrive-settlement.com.

    The lawsuit is Cho v. Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc., San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. 453195. In the suit, the plaintiff alleges that in the sale and marketing of hard disc drives, Seagate stated that purchasers of the drives would receive approximately 7% more usable storage capacity than they actually received. Seagate has denied and continues to deny each and all of plaintiff's claims, and denies that anyone has been harmed or deserves compensation. The Court has not made a decision on the merits.

    You are a member of the settlement class if, between March 22, 2001 and September 26, 2007, you purchased in the United States a new Seagate brand hard disc drive from an authorized Seagate retailer or distributor, separately as a Seagate product that was not pre-installed into and bundled with a personal computer or other electronic device.

    As part of the settlement, Seagate will make certain disclosures regarding the storage capacity of its retail hard drives.

    In addition, if you submit a valid claim, you will receive free backup and recovery software, or a cash payment equivalent to five percent of the net amount you paid for the hard drive (excluding taxes or rebates). To receive the software or the cash payment, you must submit a claim form available at www.harddrive-settlement.com by March 10, 2008. You may submit a claim form for each qualifying drive you purchased. To obtain the cash payment, you must have purchased your drive before January 1, 2006 and you must submit appropriate documentation or the serial number for each drive.

    If the settlement is approved, plaintiff's counsel will apply for an award of attorneys' fees, expenses and incentive awards not to exceed $1,792,000, to be paid separately from and in addition to the benefits available to settlement class members.

    All claims of settlement class members which were or could have been asserted in the litigation, based upon the facts alleged in the litigation (as well as in a related case entitled Lazar v. Seagate Technology LLC, et al., San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. 439700; and California Court of Appeal, Case No. A116350) will be released. This means that if you do not exclude yourself from the settlement class, you will give up the right to sue for the claims the settlement resolves, and you will be bound by the terms of the settlement.

    If you do not want to participate in this class action or be bound by this settlement you must exclude yourself from the settlement class by submitting a written request for exclusion which includes your full name and address and your request to be excluded from the class. Mail your request for exclusion to Hard Drive Settlement, c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 1240, Minneapolis, MN 55400-1240. Your written request for exclusion must be received by December 21, 2007. If you exclude yourself, you will not receive the benefits of the settlement, and you cannot object to the settlement.

    If you wish to object to the settlement, appear at the settlement hearing, have your own attorney appear at the settlement hearing, or intervene in the case, you must file your objection, request to appear, or request to intervene with the San Francisco Superior Court located at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, California 94102 and you must send copies to the attorneys for both parties. The plaintiff's attorney is Brian R. Strange, Strange & Carpenter, 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900, Los Angeles, CA 90025. Seagate's attorney is Peter S. Hecker, Heller Ehrman LLP, 333 Bush Street, San Francisco, CA 94104. For additional detailed instructions go to www.harddrive-settlement.com. All objections and requests to appear or intervene must be received by the court and attorneys by December 21, 2007.

    DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR SEAGATE CONCERNING THIS NOTICE OR THIS LAWSUIT. If you would like more information about this notice or this case, please visit www.harddrive-settlement.com. If you do not have internet access, you may request additional information by mail from counsel for plaintiff, as set forth above.

    Diplomacy, it's a way of saying “nice doggie”, until you find a rock!

  • #2
    So who benefits substantially apart from the lawyers?
    FT.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Fat Tone View Post
      So who benefits substantially apart from the lawyers?
      Hey, free backup software.

      (Actually I could use some free backup software if it was any good.)
      Chuck
      秋音的爸爸

      Comment


      • #4
        I hadn't heard about this until I got the mail today. But that 7% is the difference between a base-10 GB and base-2 GB. I can't believe someone's suing over that.

        I think it's shady that the HD makers do it, but I think it always says on the box "a GB is 1,000,000,000 bytes" doesn't it?
        Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.

        Comment


        • #5
          Geesh, I must of bought over 50 hard drives since then, wish I kept the receipts and the drives

          Comment


          • #6
            I didn't have my receipts, or do anything, and I got money back for some Crucial RAM I had bought. The trick is you just had to have the product registered and you are automatically registered to get money for the suit.
            “Inside every sane person there’s a madman struggling to get out”
            –The Light Fantastic, Terry Pratchett

            Comment


            • #7
              The only Seagate HD I've ever had was a 200 meg 2.5" laptop drive that was in our old Amiga 1200, a tad too old for this lawsuit. Also, why single out Seagate?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jon P. Inghram View Post
                ...why single out Seagate?
                And also why wait until now, it's not like it's a new discovery

                I'd much prefer manufacturers to invest in R&D rather than pay lawyers to fight pointless law suits
                When you own your own business you only have to work half a day. You can do anything you want with the other twelve hours.

                Comment


                • #9
                  even though I have several seagate drives, I will refuse to participate.. it is a stupid lawsuit, and I will not support it.
                  We have enough youth - What we need is a fountain of smart!


                  i7-920, 6GB DDR3-1600, HD4870X2, Dell 27" LCD

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tjalfe View Post
                    even though I have several seagate drives, I will refuse to participate.. it is a stupid lawsuit, and I will not support it.

                    Indeed
                    The Welsh support two teams when it comes to rugby. Wales of course, and anyone else playing England

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Same here, but then I've not bought a Seagate since the stiction debacle.
                      Dr. Mordrid
                      ----------------------------
                      An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

                      I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        time for a poll...
                        Q9450 + TRUE, G.Skill 2x2GB DDR2, GTX 560, ASUS X48, 1TB WD Black, Windows 7 64-bit, LG M2762D-PM 27" + 17" LG 1752TX, Corsair HX620, Antec P182, Logitech G5 (Blue)
                        Laptop: MSI Wind - Black

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Dr Mordrid View Post
                          ... stiction debacle.
                          Whazzat?
                          Chuck
                          秋音的爸爸

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Heads stick to the platter ?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Hmmm...200 GB minus 7% equals 186 GB, which is the normal usable capacity of an NTFS-formatted 200 GB hard drive.

                              I've been wondering how long it would take for someone to sue over this. It's basically the discrepency between the advertised capacity of a drive and the actual formatted capacity. Anyone who's been involved in IT for any length of time knows this is one of the harddrive industry's dirty little secrets.

                              This doesn't appear so different from the lawsuit against monitor manufacturers back in the '90's. Someone sued because their monitor, which was advertised as 17", had an actual viewable area of only 16". Ever since then, monitor product descriptions have had to carry the "viewable area" disclaimer. Chances are, now hard drives are going to have to carry a "formatted capacity" disclaimer as well.

                              Kevin
                              Last edited by KRSESQ; 24 October 2007, 12:19. Reason: edited for clarity

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X