Woody Leonhard's no-bull news, tips and help for Windows, Office and more… Please disable your ad blocker – our (polite!) ads help keep AskWoody going!
Home icon Home icon Home icon Email icon RSS icon
  • A legitimate-looking lawsuit claiming damages for the Win10 coerced upgrade

    Posted on March 25th, 2017 at 13:13 woody Comment on the AskWoody Lounge

    Many of you have posted here, and written to me privately, threatening to sue Microsoft for the pushy nature of the “Get Windows 10” campaign.

    It looks like one firm, the Chicago firm of Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, has taken up the challenge. As reported in The Register (yes, in the UK) yesterday, reports on a filing in Chicago US District Court on Thursday, claiming MS

    failed to exercise reasonable care in designing, formulating, and manufacturing the Windows 10 upgrade and placing it into the stream of commerce… As a result of its failure to exercise reasonable care, [the company] distributed an operating system that was liable to cause loss of data or damage to hardware.

    You can read the complaint here.

    The attorneys are seeking class action status.

    Based on reports on the Edelman Combs web site (which I haven’t independently confirmed), the firm has experience in the field. Edelman declares:

    Areas of Practice:
    25% Consumer Law
    75% Class Actions
    Deceptive Trade Practices

    You might want to take advantage of the firm’s “Contact Us” box on any of its web pages to see if you qualify for joining the class.

    If that helped, take a second to support AskWoody on Patreon

    Home Forums A legitimate-looking lawsuit claiming damages for the Win10 coerced upgrade

    This topic contains 46 replies, has 16 voices, and was last updated by  Canadian Tech 6 months, 3 weeks ago.

    • Author
      Posts
    • #104312 Reply

      woody
      Da Boss

      Many of you have posted here, and written to me privately, threatening to sue Microsoft for the pushy nature of the “Get Windows 10” campaign. It look
      [See the full post at: A legitimate-looking lawsuit claiming damages for the Win10 coerced upgrade]

      4 users thanked author for this post.
    • #104341 Reply

      Noel Carboni
      AskWoody MVP

      I wonder if one could seek reimbursement for all the time and effort spent figuring out how to protect oneself successfully from the “upgrade”…

      Could we have flying cars by now if not for all that wasted effort?

      -Noel

      8 users thanked author for this post.
      • #104389 Reply

        tmorris52
        AskWoody Lounger

        WOW.  I could not agree more!!!  All the wasted mind share and man hours!!!

        t

        2 users thanked author for this post.
    • #104350 Reply

      anonymous

      I do hope this is true. I would have sued Microsoft too if I got affected, but thankfully Woody saved me from the upgrade.

    • #104356 Reply

      jescott418
      AskWoody Lounger

      A difficult one to prove, even though Microsoft was very aggressive in it’s Get Windows 10 upgrade. It technically could argue users had a choice not to accept it. Although we know Microsoft had some sneaky tricks with this opt out. That could go in favor of the end user who was given a unfamiliar way of opting out of the upgrade. I wish everyone well in this litigation. But my complaint revolves more around computer makers refusing to sell restore disks of Windows 7 or 8.1 even if one of those was the original operating systems. Many also did not realize they lost their partition when upgrading to Win 10. Personally I think Microsoft hurt itself and its reputation of trust with how it handled the Windows 10 upgrades.

      3 users thanked author for this post.
      • #104589 Reply

        lurks about
        AskWoody Lounger

        First the suit is on contingency and seeking class action. If they get class action and win MS will be out a rather large, tidy sum. I would rate winning about 50/50 now based on the reports I have seen. The nasty part if the suit goes forward, is MS is legally obligated to turn over internal documents relating to the Get W10 campaign. Depending on what is in them, the case could become an unmitigated disaster for MS.

        2 users thanked author for this post.
        • #104773 Reply

          Bill C.
          AskWoody Lounger

          Oops! We don’t have that. It was wiped when Outlook crashed as we were e-mailing them to the lawyers… Yeah, that sounds good.

    • #104383 Reply

      Canadian Tech
      AskWoody MVP

      Woody, was my posting the first you had heard about it?

      When I read the actual filing, it brought back memories. I have been doing a lot of lurking on the Microsoft Answers forum (www.answers.microsoft.com) for quite a while now. There were a very large number of people who were and still are victims of this scam (Get Windows free) from Microsoft. The detail of the filing is absolutely what happened.

      I had one person who evidently was elderly and not very computer literate, whose computer had fallen victim and now did not work. She had no idea how to get her system (win7) back and could not afford to pay some one to fix it for her. It was her portal to her otherwise lonely world. Now, she was alone again.

      I had another elderly person who now had Windows 10 working the best he could tell, but had no idea how to use it. His Windows Live Mail would not work. He was far past the learning of new system.

      CT

      • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by  Canadian Tech.
      6 users thanked author for this post.
    • #104386 Reply

      anonymous

      It will be interesting if the federal district court decides to certify the complaint as a class action. That would invite other plaintiffs into the class with similar complaints. To date MS has been able to settle the lawsuits individually and to keep settlements confidential as they definitely do not want to deal with a class action. The W10 EULA attempts to bind all OS users to no remedy other than individual arbitration with MS; I guess that means you get to go to Redmond at your own expense to have your complaint treated badly. The EULA is also designed to shield MS from state consumer protection laws under actions filed by customers in state courts. It will be truly interesting to see if a class gets certified pursuant to this action.

      2 users thanked author for this post.
    • #104405 Reply

      anonymous

      In my opinion they have a reasonable case. Microsoft seemed to be only collecting telemetry data for assessment of system compatibility from existing Windows 7 installations; Many people including myself did not fully understand what CompatTelRunner.exe was doing with our files while also (probably) sending the various data to MS. The very unnecessary frequent scans took excessive CPU cycles and time to scan the drive.

      Where they just checking for compatibility before upgrading?

    • #104423 Reply

      Noel Carboni
      AskWoody MVP

      It occurs to me to wonder why such a lawsuit has to be couched as protecting those who don’t know any better. It seeks damages for those who a) had their systems upgraded without being sufficiently warned about what could go wrong, and b) had some kind of data loss or damage.

      Is not giving enough warning to the uninformed, technically challenged crowd really the only unjust or improper thing Microsoft did in pushing GWX out through the Windows Update process?

      I posted above my point about Microsoft costing the smart and well-informed amongst us extra time and effort trying to prevent what were clearly unwanted things from happening to our computers.

      So where is the class action lawsuit for smart and well-informed people claiming wasted time, loss of profits, and mental stress?

      Up to now I’ve been willing to consider it all a learning experience (I certainly know more about Windows Update now than I ever did and I’ve added more layers of technical protection to my systems to ensure I remain in control), and also a bellwether of societal changes (I have learned to mistrust big corporations now more than ever), but hey, if those who couldn’t or didn’t bother to stop the installation of Windows 10 are going to be paid for not paying attention to what’s around them, where’s my check?

      In all seriousness, I’m not holding my breath. 😉

      Even in seeking justice there is injustice.

      -Noel

      3 users thanked author for this post.
      • #104424 Reply

        Canadian Tech
        AskWoody MVP

        Good points Noel. I did learn a lot from this experience.
        I was a trusting fool who admired Microsoft for years and years.
        I was a promoter of their software.
        I dedicated years of time learning all about their products and helping people learn them and use them.
        I learned that they are an untrustworthy lot.
        I learned that in actuality, Windows 7 is the last Windows that anyone I know would ever consider using.
        When Windows 7 no longer runs well, I will then buy some non-Microsoft product.
        I decided to never again recommend a Microsoft product
        I learned that this is the beginning of a very long slide to the end of a huge behemoth that grew too big and forgot that it is customers who pay the bills.

        CT

        5 users thanked author for this post.
      • #104427 Reply

        fp
        AskWoody Lounger

        > I have learned to mistrust big corporations now more than ever.

        Corporations are the worst thing that happened to America and they are bringing it down. It’s the farthest from real capitalism that you can get. But illusions lefties had (and still have) about communism, people who consider themselves capitalists have about the corporate welfare state. And tech corporations are the worst.

         

         

         

         

      • #104775 Reply

        Bill C.
        AskWoody Lounger

        Personally, as I have said before, to grow legs, there needs to be both individuals and a number of small to medium businesses that were hammered, and for that to be publicized. However, that could backfire as MS may try to say that good IT folks would have prevented it from upgrading the network before it was tested. How do you recognize “Official OS-sponsored Malware”?

        I feel that this has still not gotten real-world publicity outside of the technically literate. There needs to be a “me too” moment for individual users and small businesses for this to grow legs and get media attention and thereby get more folks to sign on. That may happened if the lawsuit gets to the discovery process, but I have yet to see it in main stream press except for a tiny blurbs from the wire services on the financial pages. Nothing of the human interest aspect as Noel Carboni and Canadian Tech and others here have mentioned.

        A tiny snowball sits on the hill. Get it rolling and folks pay attention.

        1 user thanked author for this post.
    • #104428 Reply

      Cybertooth
      AskWoody Lounger

      It occurs to me to wonder why such a lawsuit has to be couched as protecting those who don’t know any better. It seeks damages for those who a) had their systems upgraded without being sufficiently warned about what could go wrong, and b) had some kind of data loss or damage. Is not giving enough warning to the uninformed, technically challenged crowd really the only unjust or improper thing Microsoft did in pushing GWX out through the Windows Update process? I posted above my point about Microsoft costing the smart and well-informed amongst us extra time and effort trying to prevent what were clearly unwanted things from happening to our computers. So where is the class action lawsuit for smart and well-informed people claiming wasted time, loss of profits, and mental stress? Up to now I’ve been willing to consider it all a learning experience (I certainly know more about Windows Update now than I ever did and I’ve added more layers of technical protection to my systems to ensure I remain in control), and also a bellwether of societal changes (I have learned to mistrust big corporations now more than ever), but hey, if those who couldn’t or didn’t bother to stop the installation of Windows 10 are going to be paid for not paying attention to what’s around them, where’s my check? In all seriousness, I’m not holding my breath. ? Even in seeking justice there is injustice. -Noel

      I look at it somewhat like getting burglarized in our home: if we didn’t bother to take any measures to protect our property (burglar alarm, reinforced doors, whatever) and got robbed, then we’d have a case against the burglar. But if we did take protective measures and the burglar runs off to find a softer target, then we have no case. It’s not like I can sue the burglar for the cost of the alarm system.

      I’d rather not have to make a case. 🙂

       

      3 users thanked author for this post.
      • #104429 Reply

        Kirsty
        AskWoody MVP

        It may not be quite so simple as ‘protecting’ yourself. Remember last May, when MS changed the normal action of the Close Button?

        … in Microsoft’s latest round of three-card monte. As it stand, if you have Windows Automatic Update turned on and you don’t do anything — anything at all — Microsoft automatically initiates the upgrade to Windows 10. Even if you try to X out of a dialog box like the “Windows 10 is a Recommended Update for this PC” (screenshot courtesy of Groovypost), Win10 will start installing.

        http://www.infoworld.com/article/3074096/microsoft-windows/hit-by-an-unexpected-windows-10-upgrade-heres-how-to-recover.html

        http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36367221

        5 users thanked author for this post.
        • #104432 Reply

          Noel Carboni
          AskWoody MVP

          I never said it was “simple”, but a fair number of folks DID manage to avoid the Windows 10 update. That took effort and time and research to learn how to do. Connecting with information sources online like this site or any number of other Windows enthusiasts’ forums to find out how to stop the upgrade well before it did any damage was doable, by virtually anyone. You’d almost have to have purposefully ignored it. Microsoft’s lawyers should be able to pull out evidence showing that many millions of non-technical people DID manage to go online and educate themselves well enough to have avoided Windows 10. The lack of Windows 10 adoption could work in their favor.

          You have to admit, it’s hard to have a lot of sympathy for plaintiff Goldberg, who pressed the X button over and over and over again for 6 months without ever having gotten the idea to go online to find out how to get rid of the nag entirely (e.g., through GWX Control Panel or by removing the update). Who doesn’t bother to fix a problem like that on a system with critical business data?

          Whether they can prove that plaintiff Watson had the upgrade installed without her EVER having been notified will be interesting. I suspect Microsoft will be able to present specific telemetric evidence that the pop-up was answered in the affirmative on a particular date and time. There were rumors but I don’t recall whether anyone proved conclusively that the upgrade was going in without any confirmation at all. Did it pop up while she was typing and she didn’t see it, then hit return at the wrong time? Did a child in the household do it? Did she just forget? Tough to prove. I’d love to be a fly on the wall when Microsoft pulls out information showing just how much they know about her particular system.

          Plaintiff Saiger, though, who believed Microsoft when they said everything would be hunky dory and welcomed the upgrade into his system, only to find out that it caused existing applications to stop working, causing him to become aggravated, waste time, and lose data… His to me seems like a good case since the actual upgrade certainly wasn’t trouble-free. Some complex issues w/regard to compatibility DO take a real geek to get right.

          Regarding data loss from the plaintiff’s systems… Remember that pop-up message we all saw WAYYY back when, that showed not long after you started using your new system and warned you to set up Windows Backup? Will Microsoft have telemetry records of when THAT was presented to the plaintiffs? I can’t quite recall… Did that message only show for Windows 7, or was it presented by Windows 8 as well? Did the plaintiffs just click through it, ignoring its specific warning?

          Is the lawsuit focusing hard enough on the core problem, which is that Microsoft did overtly deceptive things that deliberately used up their reputation as a trustworthy partner built up over a lifetime?

          -Noel

          3 users thanked author for this post.
          • #104468 Reply

            anonymous

            “I never said it was “simple”, but a fair number of folks DID manage to avoid the Windows 10 update. That took effort and time and research to learn how to do. Connecting with information sources online like this site or any number of other Windows enthusiasts’ forums to find out how to stop the upgrade well before it did any damage was doable, by virtually anyone. You’d almost have to have purposefully ignored it. Microsoft’s lawyers should be able to pull out evidence showing that many millions of non-technical people DID manage to go online and educate themselves well enough to have avoided Windows 10.”

            I have many smart, well-educated, completely non-techie friends with home PCs.  When I tried to talk to them about GWX and the perils of letting their PCs be upgraded, they stared at me blankly.  They had no idea that not upgrading was even an option.  They were now running Windows 10 and the concept of rolling their systems back to Windows 7 didn’t even parse for them.

            People really, really don’t understand the lack of the most basic computer knowledge in the general populace.  We talk about it broadly, but there really are tiers of ignorance/knowledge when it comes to computers.  And the people who come here and describe themselves as fairly computer illiterate, but trying to learn, are nevertheless a couple of tiers above the truly ignorant in their computer knowledge.  There are broad swaths of people who don’t know that these sorts of sites exist and don’t know to ask these sorts of questions.

            6 users thanked author for this post.
            • #104471 Reply

              Canadian Tech
              AskWoody MVP

              You are so right, Anonymous (which ever one of you that is?). There is a large tier of people who don’t really think of their PC as more complicated than their electric tooth brush. They never did read the instruction book that came with their new toothbrush, and the PC did not even come with one.

              CT

              2 users thanked author for this post.
            • #104500 Reply

              fp
              AskWoody Lounger

              Which is precisely what MS’s arrogance and behavior is relying on.

              The reality is there is little that can be done for an uninformed public that accepts tyranny due to ignorance and inability to think independently and critically, which due to lack of proper education has learned nothing from history. Unfortunately, the US has to experience tyranny in order to realize its consequences, at which point it is too late.

              We’re already there.

               

              • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by  fp.
              • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by  fp.
            • #104662 Reply

              lizzytish
              AskWoody Lounger

              Not only do some not understand the basics of computers……….. they are plain not interested.
              It’s not important……. it just doesn’t come into their thinking…..
              I see some of them with their questions in other groups……. and really wonder how they manage.
              They have no idea at all. LT

              Only those who will risk going too far
              can possibly find out how far one can go.
              – T.S. Eliot

              1 user thanked author for this post.
            • #104670 Reply

              Canadian Tech
              AskWoody MVP

              Many years ago, Microsoft declared they wanted to see a computer in every home. That’s when they crossed over from being a supplier of computers for people who liked and used computers to one that provided a household appliance.

              A household appliances like dishwashers, refrigerators, ranges and light switches.

              Not many people would read the manual that came with any one of these appliances and that is why most have long ago stopped even providing one. That includes PCs that do not come with manuals, and even a restore, re-install disk.

              People who buy computers and think of them as appliances have every right to think they will not victimize them.

              CT

          • #104487 Reply

            PKCano
            AskWoody MVP

            @Noel
            In my experience, I would guess over two thirds of the PC Users/owners are your average “Joe User.”

            The average “Joe User”, out of ignorance:
            1. Never made Recovery Disks for a new PC – what are Recovery Disks?
            2. Never back up their PC, have no clue what to backup.
            3. Clicks “Yes” when the UAC box pops up, without reading it, just to get it out of the way.
            4. Probably never opened the Control Panel.
            5. Has Windows Update on Automatic (the default).
            6. May not even have been aware Win10 existed or that it would be forced/tricked on him.
            7. Does not have any idea what to do if their PC crashes.
            8. Has no clue how the computer works or what the file structure is
            9. Uses the computer for e-mail, surfing the Internet (news, Google, etc), and maybe Facebook.
            10. Does not read tech websites and would not understand even if he did
            The list goes on……

            IMHO Microsoft, in general, and its Win-savvy employees specifically. had to be aware of this. However, a suit against MS cannot be based on the public’s ignorance or MS’s greed. It can only hope to address some incidences where MS’s negligence produced real damage to which a value can be assigned. Then try to expand the damage to cover a Class.

            • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by  PKCano.
            • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by  PKCano.
            6 users thanked author for this post.
            • #104493 Reply

              Kirsty
              AskWoody MVP

              @pkcano, I’d add a ‘scarier’ item to your Joe User list item #9:
              due to technology changes, they are now having to do the majority of their banking transactions online…
              (implications of which I worry about for some users)

              1 user thanked author for this post.
            • #104495 Reply

              Canadian Tech
              AskWoody MVP

              PKCano, I agree completely. However, keep in mind that MS has sold its product as a consumer product that has no instructions. It pitches it as an electric tooth brush kind of appliance. Just plug it in and it works. The people you describe are people who believed that, and as it turns out have been victims because they believed the hype which is simply not true as is demonstrated by this whole GWX fiasco.

              CT

              1 user thanked author for this post.
            • #104526 Reply

              Noel Carboni
              AskWoody MVP

              I dunno… If my electric tooth brush shocked me every time I went to use it until I re-secured the battery cover, I still think I’d fire up my web browser and see if anyone else was having problems with their battery covers…

              I’m of course being a bit of a devil’s advocate here. I suspect the courts will be TOO.

              Of course I think that people who have had Microsoft screw up their systems / lose their data / waste their time / cause aggravation should be compensated. I just don’t think it should only be the least savvy “Joe Public” users. The legal eagles should be aiming higher. Maybe they will after round 1.

              -Noel

              3 users thanked author for this post.
            • #104725 Reply

              anonymous

              (This is the anon from post #104468 above)   In reply to both CT and Noel:

              CT, I agree with your characterization and I would suggest that, because M$ is preying on the computer ignorant/uneducated, at a  minimum they are ethically and morally responsible for the negative outcomes to those people who were auto-upgraded and suffered losses.  But hopefully the courts will also find them legally responsible.

              Noel, I would suggest that an important distinction here is that these people aren’t aware of having been “shocked” by their toothbrush PC.  It has always just worked for them, allowing them to read and send email messages, surf the web, open and edit Word and Excel documents, etc.  Their needs are simple and few and, as long as they never see a BSOD, everything is Fine™.   And Windows 7 has been an especially stable OS, so they likely have become especially trusting of M$ and Windows in recent years, making them particularly vulnerable to an “upgrade” that wasn’t in their best interest and may have even caused damage.

              2 users thanked author for this post.
            • #104672 Reply

              Canadian Tech
              AskWoody MVP

              PK, your 2/3 estimate is way too low. That number well exceeds 90%. I have 150 client computers used by about 100 people. I doubt more than 5 of them would not fall under the list you provided.

              CT

          • #104535 Reply

            MikeFromMarkham
            AskWoody Lounger

            Noel, isn’t this a catch 22 situation for Microsoft? If they produce telemetry data to show that a particular user was notified of an impending Win 10 “upgrade” and chose to accept it (even accidently), doesn’t that destroy their public stance that all the data they collect is anonymized? And might that not be grounds for more legal action on the basis of misrepresentation if not outright fraud? I’d love to see how that would work out!

            3 users thanked author for this post.
          • #104666 Reply

            walker
            AskWoody Lounger

            Reply to post #104432
            WOW!!!   Great post, Neil!!

            EDIT: to indicate post being replied to

            • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by  walker. Reason: Did not show up on the message it was supposed to
            • This reply was modified 6 months, 3 weeks ago by  PKCano.
            • #104819 Reply

              Kirsty
              AskWoody MVP

              @walker

              I’ve just checked that your reply has been correctly linked to #104432, but the replies showing above are replies to an earlier reply, and I believe the nesting goes only as afar as 4 replies, or the replies get far too narrow to read.

              It’s a little confusing, for sure!

            • #104829 Reply

              walker
              AskWoody Lounger

              @kirsty:   Thank you so much for your help.    I’ve been hit by a “bug”, and wasn’t able to reply to much after yesterday morning.   May not be able to get on the computer today either.  I appreciate your expert help with this issue.   I’ve had continuing problems in the past trying to see the “options” clearly because there is such little contrast.   Don’t know the reason for that, however it makes it difficult to see “clearly” because of the lack of contrast.

              Thank you once again, Kirsty for all of the help you provide on a continuous basis.  You are certainly a very knowledgeable contributor.  Thank you once again!!  🙂

            • #104852 Reply

              Canadian Tech
              AskWoody MVP

              Walker and Kristy and Woody, I absolutely agree. The contrast in some places is so poor that it is difficult to find.

              CT

            • #104851 Reply

              Canadian Tech
              AskWoody MVP

              Kristy, I have a suggestion. I think all replies should begin with the moniker of the person you are responding to. Such as you did.

              I frequently find it very confusing to try to understand who is replying to whom. It is made even less clear when one of the who knows how many Anonymous are commenting.

              CT

        • #104776 Reply

          Bill C.
          AskWoody Lounger

          This is a key issue. MS went against their own published interface protocol that were adopted worldwide to scam the end user. To me it shows an attempt to deceive.

          1 user thanked author for this post.
    • #104445 Reply

      anonymous

      Can anyone see Woody as well as a few people on this blog, spending a few years in court as professional witnesses?

      You fellas will be hired on behalf of  the plaintiff, whereas one supposes Ed Bott will be acting for Microsoft?

      • #104497 Reply

        anonymous

        Based on experience I promised myself many years ago to not ever touch the circus so-called US justice system, no matter what.

      • #104529 Reply

        Noel Carboni
        AskWoody MVP

        I’d certainly be happy to help the legal team.

        -Noel

    • #104476 Reply

      anonymous

      @Noel, etal,

      You put forth many valid points and observations regarding the lawsuit topically under discussion. The time wasted and grief incurred by users who successfully blocked the GWX code from executing on their systems is not subject to equitable or monetary remedies as a result of this lawsuit. The lawsuit is trying to frame a complaint under the Uniform Commercial Code which showed Microsoft breached a duty under the concept of “implied merchantability” to W10 users by not taking all reasonable and necessary steps to ensure the product was fit and usable for its intended purposes. The complaint also attempts to enumerate the harm the plaintiffs sustained as a result of this breach of duty. The counsel for plaintiffs are primarily trying to lay the foundation for the specification of an affected class of plaintiffs who clearly suffered similar harm and insult as a consequence of MS’s actions. If counsel cannot convince the federal court to recognize and certify a class action, then for a variety of reasons, each plaintiff will be seeking their remedies through arbitration with MS. If a class is ultimately certified, than other complainants can be invited into the action and subjugate their remedy to that ultimately awarded to the class. As such, legal counsel is trying to construct a legal theory and chain of causality that a potentially non-technical judge can understand which lead said judge to break the EULAs arbitration requirement and allow the suit to proceed as a class action. Nuance and too wide a variety of complaints works against getting a class certified. Whether justice is adequately served by such tactics is always a worthy topic but it is also a discussion that may quickly become too unfocused to advance a legal action against a major corporation with more than abundant legal resources. MS has been behaving badly for some time and my best hope is not to reconstitute the values and ethics informing MS’s current management but to attenuate the most egregious practices that have been put on display.

      11 users thanked author for this post.
      • #104496 Reply

        anonymous

        Although it’s a good idea to have as many suits as possible filed against MS, I am highly suspicious of the legal system, which is biased for corps with the resources to game it; and of lawyers who are in it for their own interests, which often conflict with that of their clients.

        I am highly doubtful of success for reasons already suggested here. Turns out that telemetry is even useful to MS for defending itself in court. Check and mate.

      • #104588 Reply

        fp
        AskWoody Lounger

        When such an asymmetric oppression occurs and the system is constituted in such a way that there is nothing you can do short of suing–which in itself is a mockery of justice, since only the rich can afford it–then those who can do it and shouldn’t think too much of the ethics, which is not a suicidal pact.

      • #104593 Reply

        lurks about
        AskWoody Lounger

        The potential problems for MS are one of these cases gets class action status or the courts rule the binding arbitration is unenforceable with the case moving to discovery. MS will have to cough internal documents relating to the W10 campaign. Depending on what these documents show, it could an unmitigated disaster for MS; I am assuming the paper trail shows MS is more or less guilty of the UCC. The is probably the real danger. The W10 campaign has been considered by many to be unethical at a minimum and there is likely to be some emails, etc. showing that some within MS thought the campaign crossed an ethical/legal boundary.

        2 users thanked author for this post.
    • #104687 Reply

      EP
      AskWoody Lounger

      woody

      I saw these articles on the main Yahoo web site today March 27 morning:

      TechRepublic.com “Windows 10 upgrade destroyed data and damaged PCs, claims lawsuit”
      http://www.techrepublic.com/article/windows-10-upgrade-destroyed-data-and-damaged-pcs-claims-lawsuit/

      International Business Times “Microsoft sued over free Windows 10 update that ‘damaged user data and systems'”
      http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/microsoft-sued-allegedly-faulty-windows-10-update-damaging-user-data-system-1613825

      ZDnet.com “Windows 10 upgrades: Microsoft sued for millions over lost data and damaged PCs”
      http://www.zdnet.com/article/windows-10-upgrades-microsoft-sued-for-millions-over-lost-data-and-damaged-pcs/

      2 users thanked author for this post.
      • #104777 Reply

        Bill C.
        AskWoody Lounger

        Now, if the tech writers in the min stream media are open and not MS fanbois, AND the editors are not MS fans or the corporate owners of the major media outlets do not have stock in MS, this could get more distribution.

        • #104791 Reply

          Canadian Tech
          AskWoody MVP

          That is a serious problem. Most all publications depend on advertising and most all of them have a major part of the advertising revenues from Microsoft.

          One of the reasons I am so attracted to Woody is that he is the only tech writer I know that is willing and seems to be allowed to criticize Microsoft openly.

          CT

          2 users thanked author for this post.

    Please follow the -Lounge Rules- no personal attacks, no swearing, and politics/religion are relegated to the Rants forum.

    Reply To: A legitimate-looking lawsuit claiming damages for the Win10 coerced upgrade

    You can use BBCodes to format your content.
    Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

    Your information: