Did Microsoft pay a travel agent $10,000 for upgrading her PC to Win10?

Topic

New Reply

The story’s gone viral, and I can’t confirm it independently. Matt Day at The Seattle Times published a report on Saturday morning saying that Teri Go
[See the full post at: Did Microsoft pay a travel agent $10,000 for upgrading her PC to Win10?]

Reply | Quote

Replies

The story seems to be responsibly written, and the outcome is not implausible. Perhaps the plaintiff will comment?

Reply | Quote

Reading the article’s title I first thought that Microsoft had paid an agent for accepting to upgrade to Windows 10 (I had in mind then the agent was very influential)!

Even if the story is only a rumor/hoax what seems important to me is that it appears as plausible, and that is certainly relevant of the “Windwws 10 : An OS Odyssey” many, so many, far too many users are experiencing.

Only USD 10,000 ?

Reply | Quote

I’ve posted before that I’d be surprised if a forced w10 upgrade that resulted in damages wouldn’t win in court despite what the fine fine print says.

Reply | Quote

I have hope of exactly that. Tried to contact her, but not luck.

And, yes, the report is quite responsibly written – which is why I mention it….

Reply | Quote

Well, I don’t know if this is real or not, but I’d have to wonder. Wouldn’t this set a precedent that could cost Microsoft a fortune with potential additional lawsuits or class actions? And in that case, why wouldn’t Microsoft appeal? Doesn’t sound like the Microsoft I know (or is it not your daddy’s Microsoft anymore?). Or was the bar set really high in this case because she had to present some airtight and damning evidence? Details would be quite interesting to see.

Reply | Quote

It must be true, for I doubt that Day and his editors would publish anything libelous about Microsoft. They (Microsoft) are nearby and they have armies of lawyers.

I found however, that the rest of the article didn’t tell me anything I didn’t know already.

I say good for her.

Reply | Quote

I don’t find it plausible at all. MS has billions of dollars in cash and an army of lawyers at its beck and call. It is inconceivable to me that MS was fearful of incurring litigation costs and would settle such an issue when such a settlement would only encourage additional claims.

Reply | Quote

From The Guardian:

“Whether the lawsuit and $10,000 judgment will spawn further suits over failed or forced Windows 10 installs remains to be seen. Goldstein has shown it’s possible, which could open the floodgates.”

Reply | Quote

Here is a link where she was said to have been interviewed.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/27/woman_microsoft_windows_10_upgrades/

Reply | Quote

The case is Goldstein v. City of Sausalito et al (3:13-cv-01925).

Using https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2013cv01925/265684 suggests PacerMonitor as a source for case details. Go to https://www.pacermonitor.com/search and search on “Goldstein v. City of Sausalito et al (3:13-cv-01925)”.

Reply | Quote

I forgot to mention that the case was held in federal court — California Northern District Court — not a local one, which makes sense given the defendant.

Reply | Quote

It is also reported by TheRegister which claims that they talked with Teri, and the case was put to the Small Claims Court where no big-gun lawyers are allowed.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/06/27/woman_microsoft_windows_10_upgrades/

Reply | Quote

This has been reported now by the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-36640464

Reply | Quote

Hi, Woody, Teri Goldstein said it was a small claims court case. I’m not sure about getting court records information since it seems you need the case number: http://apps.marincounty.org/BeaconRoa/BeaconROASearch.aspx. I corresponded with her, though.

Reply | Quote

Oops, I posted that on my way out the door. I should have checked the dates first, as that was not the Microsoft case. It does appear to be the same plaintiff in both cases, though.

Reply | Quote

Interestingly, $10,000 is the most she could ask for in small claims court. And her business must not be a corporation because then she would be limited to $5000.
http://www.marincourt.org/small_claims.htm

Ask her if she was the plaintiff in “Goldstein v. City of Sausalito et al (3:13-cv-01925)” a few years ago.

Reply | Quote

Wow – do you think many people will file similar suits?
Were many people enrolled in the beta program without their knowledge, like Goldstein was?

…Though, maybe it wouldn’t be possible in some other places, depending on local laws. From the TheRegister.co.uk article linked to above: “California is one of the strictest states in the US regarding consumer rights,” Goldstein told us. “There is a California Uniform Commercial Code which protects consumers. In section 1792 it clearly states that all products and services sold or distributed in California have an implied warranty to be fit for purpose. This code overrides any corporation’s user agreement form. Microsoft knew that its Windows 10 was not fit for purpose and allowed its release anyway. They used thousands of people like myself to learn how to troubleshoot the problems with no concern of consequences to the users. This is totally wrong.”

Do you think that this will inspire Microsoft to reduce their GWX pushiness across the board?

Reply | Quote

@PC Cobbler: Yes on the amounts, but I’m not sure what the other case has to do with the matter. The plaintiff there was Teresa Goldstein: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/1537024/Goldstein_v_City_of_Sausalito_et_al

Reply | Quote

This article ought to settle the question of whether this is for real.

It also confirms a point I have made here several times over the past few months: Statutory requirements and legal precedent supersede the EULA in some matters, particularly where the EULA pushes the envelope or gets to the point where it is widely regarded as a joke.

The question now will be whether this small claims court case can provide a useful precedent for tort lawyers looking to gin up a class action case.

Reply | Quote

Only another month before they back off. Then they’ll have to go back to begging us to buy the thing.

Reply | Quote

I understand that a ruling in small claims court does not set a precedent unless it is taken up to the court of appeal and the ruling is upheld. Maybe that is the real reason MS dropped their appeal. Losing there would have cost a lot more.

They also ignore the EULA, which I have read is a standard practice in Federal (business) small claims court cases.

I wonder why MS did not argue in court that user consent to install W10 is given when the user chooses to install windows update KB3035583 as a checked update.

Reply | Quote

Very good questions…

Reply | Quote

… or so they say…

Reply | Quote

Quote:
“I wonder why MS did not argue in court that user consent to install W10 is given when the user chooses to install windows update KB3035583 as a checked update.”

Because most Joe and Jane Public run under Automatic Update, and probably have absolutely no clue that the OS will install KB3035583. So it is uninformed consent with potentially unwanted consequences. I don’t know that Microsoft could have used that argument despite the EULA.

Reply | Quote

I think because KB3035583 is an official update coming on Windows Update, it is not a matter of consent given by the user. Windows Users are supposed to install ALL updates, regardless of classification and only those who make an informed decision are supposed not to install certain updates. So the upgrade to Windows 10 can be seen as opt-out not as opt-in, regardless of the state of the check box which may be unticked.

Reply | Quote

http://apps.marincounty.org/BeaconRoa/BeaconROAView.aspx?cvl_case_intrnl_no=190540

Reply | Quote

And http://apps.marincounty.org/BeaconRoa/BeaconROAView.aspx?cvl_case_intrnl_no=191919

Reply | Quote

Good point. This whole thing stinks, eh?

Reply | Quote

If you read the summary [see Annemarie link]the court dismissed the case was dismissed as the appeal was abandoned. So there was no court judgement. But it could be that a settlemen out of court occurred.

Reply | Quote

The court summary implies a OC settlement, whereas the article in the Register says..

“In a judgment handed down in March, Microsoft was ordered to pay $10,000 (£7,500) to Goldstein, and $90 towards her costs.

Microsoft appealed the decision but dropped this action last month. A spokeswoman for the Windows maker told us what it also told the Seattle Times last week: Microsoft “dropped its appeal to avoid the expense of further litigation.”

Reply | Quote

There’s more here than meets the eye. I can’t speak for California jurisdictions, but small claims actions are for trivial amounts, generally less than 10K. The boiler plate explanation of avoiding litigation costs remains nonsensical to me.

Since it appears MS did settle, IMHO there’s some legal aspect that they are hoping to avoid through settlement. Other than disclosure required by statute, I’d also bet that the plaintiff was required to agree to non-disclosure as a term of settlement.

Reply | Quote

Woody said, “Certainly tens of millions of Americans were pushed to Windows 10 without their knowledge”

Certainly? Where is that number from?

Reply | Quote

Do you have a better estimate?

Reply | Quote

You need to read both links supplied by Annemarie [Thanks to her for providing it!]. The first one relates to the original case and the resulting judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The second case relates to Microsoft’s appeal.

To summarize (based on my reading of the two docs), Microsoft lost the case, filed an appeal, then decided to abandon the appeal. There was no “settlement,” i.e., compromise between the parties. Rather, Microsoft chose to pay the judgment rather than risk having this issue go to a higher court. The ***appeal*** was dismissed because Microsoft abandoned it.

I don’t know whether $10,000 small claims court judgments are common in California, but it is noteworthy that this figure is the maximum amount the judge could have assessed.

In my view, this plaintiff played her cards right by staying out of the higher courts, where she could have been overwhelmed by deposition demands etc. by Microsoft’s bigshot lawyers. Apparently, because this was small claims court, M$ was forced to do without them. Bravo! It will now take someone who knows the law to assess whether the judgment she won can serve as a precedent elsewhere.

Reply | Quote

… and you have to feel sorry for the guy Microsoft sent to defend its side…

Reply | Quote

Maybe like a lot of them he needs to have an attack of conscience and find some other more ethical place to work.

Reply | Quote

Nope

Reply | Quote

17 454 411

Reply | Quote

Tinfoil hat: could there be a connection (is that the right word) between this law suit and the new update screen that makes it possible to refuse Windows 10?

Reply | Quote

Hard to say…

Reply | Quote

HA! OK, I’ll accept your figure…

Reply | Quote

I’m thinking this lawsuit probably succeeded only because the plaintiff was able to prove that her business lost customers and/or data while the upgrade was occurring or while it was being rolled back.

Most of us aren’t in this situation, so we would have no legitimate claim against Microsoft for monetary damages, no matter how much our systems were damaged or data was lost.

But not being a lawyer, I can’t really say for sure.

Still, I am not smelling a class action lawsuit at this point.

Interesting that Microsoft has changed their “offer” screen to more prominently show a refusal option. Maybe that’s jkust in anticipation of the end of the free offer soon, but then again…

Reply | Quote