Flash Memory Settlement - Get 5% Of Cost Back!

rocketman

rocketman

Silver Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
195
Reaction score
1
Points
0
If you purchased a Flash Memory Device in the United States between February 1, 2000 and February 7, 2006, you may be elegible to get 5% of the cost back.

- Your Flash Memory Device was manufactured, branded or sold by SanDisk, Lexar Media, PNY Technologies, Inc., Fujifilm or Kodak.

- You were the original purchaser and your purchase was for your own personal use and not for business use

- Deadline: July 26, 2006

-Link to Settlement
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's one of these "Only In America" type of lawsuits. Hard drive manufacturers have been doing the same thing ever since hard drives existed, yet no one has seen fit to sue them.
 
O'Chutsman said:
It's one of these "Only In America" type of lawsuits. Hard drive manufacturers have been doing the same thing ever since hard drives existed, yet no one has seen fit to sue them.
Click to expand...

…ain't that the truth.
 
Well, I'm going to make sure that I get money back for my PNY flash disks. Their "lifetime" warranty is a fraud and everybody knows (lifetime for them is as long as the product is on the shelves). And if everybody does not know, then I'm spreading the word.

I'v been taken with their graphics card as well. But no more!
 
The claim of an overstated 4% is somewhat laughable. I guess none of those people ever checked how much of an 160-gig hard drive they actually get to use - something like 8% to 10% less.

I must have gone through about a dozen or more of those flash drives from 64 mb to 1 gb over the years ... doubt I can find the receipts for any of them. LOL.
 
That is ridiculous. People will sue for anything nowadays. :mad:
 
As long as the lawyers get their $1-2 million bucks from BS like this, people will keep suing.
 
ksocia said:
As long as the lawyers get their $1-2 million bucks from BS like this, people will keep suing.
Click to expand...

Legal fees for this case... $2.4 Million dollars ... and the defendant has agreed not to contest the reasonableness. Is it any wonder our legal system is so screwed up?
 
Jeez.

Thanks for letting me know. I might have a reciept for the one I purchased in december but the one I purchased in 2002. :tongue: I for one am glad someone called them on it even if it seems silly to some. For most people,those things are pretty damn expensive and I'm sick of getting taken by tech companies.Sorry to rant. Thanks Again.:)
 
10% off? Even Circuit City beats that during sales regularly.

Not worth the effort to claim your share, let alone the effort to sue.
 
Great people will sue for anything...

Camera manufacturers next? Effective pixels?

EPA gas estimates afterwards (one i wouldnt mind)

How bout battery life on our cell phones....?
 
Can we sue all the lawyers in this country for frivolous lawsuits? :hmm: Too sad, but this country is going down the spiral at an alarming speed. :look: Save the USA:42:
 
HoudiniMan said:
10% off? Even Circuit City beats that during sales regularly.

Not worth the effort to claim your share, let alone the effort to sue.
Click to expand...

Or wait for specials ... picked up a PNY 1Gb from Staples 5 weeks ago for $13 after rebate - including tax. Already got the rebate too. :bigok:
 
O'Chutsman said:
The claim of an overstated 4% is somewhat laughable. I guess none of those people ever checked how much of an 160-gig hard drive they actually get to use - something like 8% to 10% less.

I must have gone through about a dozen or more of those flash drives from 64 mb to 1 gb over the years ... doubt I can find the receipts for any of them. LOL.
Click to expand...

I believe the 8-10% you refer to for the hard drive is due to the operating system limitation. The actual drive would have 160GB of storage CAPABILITY, all of which could theoretically be used. The only legitimate gripe could be the definition of a 1kB = 1000 Bytes or 1024 Bytes. I have seen manufacturers specify KB =1000Bytes, which is not the standard base 2 definition.

The lawsuit here refers to the fact that some storage capacity is lost due to internal formatting (If I read it correctly) and used space that was not disclosed. It is minor, and was not worth anyone's while to sue except for the lawyer getting his %. Since the settlement is already reached, I might as well try to get something out of it, the money is going to be paid anyway.

I find most of my old receipts are faded and unreadable, but I'd rather shoot for finding some and getting 5% back, especially ones with rebates, which will make up for some of the unreadable receipts.
 
O'Chutsman said:
It's one of these "Only In America" type of lawsuits. Hard drive manufacturers have been doing the same thing ever since hard drives existed, yet no one has seen fit to sue them.
Click to expand...
acutally western digital was just sued and lost regarding the same type of lawsuit:

http://www.wdc.com/settlement/
 
Sig said:
acutally western digital was just sued and lost regarding the same type of lawsuit:

http://www.wdc.com/settlement/
Click to expand...

Thank goodness (for them) WD only has to provide software. "Retail Value of $30" to WD means next to nothing incremental cost, assuming they own the s/w to begin with. Just a headache to deal with, all they had to do is to indicate 1K =1000, like most did, and indicate formatted capacity is less. I don't think you could really call it deceptive if the industry standard was 1k=1000. But then, I'm not a lawyer who could get a windfall from a settlement.

If someone reported that a kilo-ton (or is it tonne?) nuke was dropped on all lawyers who take these cases, would other lawyers sue because whether it is metric tonne or English ton is unspecified, and that the improper TNT equivalentwas caclulated because the explosive power cannot be fully concentrated on the lawyers?

I admit, being familiar with the base 2 usage of KB, I did think initially it should have been 1024B, but I read the disclaimers right on the boxes of all the ones I have ever bought (or so I think). If I had not seen it on WD, I would have thought they decided to use the decimal kilo - rather that WD was the only company who thought that being correct in base 2 lingo was more important than not being at a disadvantage to the competition's way of specifying storage.

The plaintiffs' argument:
Additionally, virtually all computer manufacturers that sell OEM Hard Drives include a disclaimer regarding storage capacity. For example, Dell Computer Corporation, states, “[f]or hard drives, GB means 1 billion bytes; actual capacity varies with preloaded material and operating environment and will be less.” Hewlett Packard states, “1GB = one billion bytes when referring to hard drive capacity. Actual formatted capacity is less.” And, IBM states, “[f]or hard drive, GB=billion bytes. Accessible capacity is less; up to 4GB is service partition


They wanted $1K, or $5K for seniors, for "deceptive" practices. It's not like going to the farmstand and getting a peck when you thought you were getting a bushel. Disclaimer: all 'K' in this paragraph is the base 10 usage.
 
Ya know, I just can't bring myself to opt in for this one, even though I'm sure I've retained all the receipts. I've had three SanDisk storage devices in the past 3 years. None of them have ever failed me even after I accidentally put the 256 USB stick through the laundry.

Thanks for the info though.
 
Sparr said:
Settlement != Lost.
Click to expand...


He/She never said what they lost. They didn't lose the case, but there will be less money in the corporate coffers because they have to spend some money as part to fullfill the settlement. So, they "lost" some money by settling.
 
what happen when i have many purchases? do i have to fill one for each? also, do they accept copies of receipt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top