Print 82 comment(s) - last by Christopher1.. on Jul 17 at 5:24 AM

Scratched discs from the Xbox 360 (Source: The Consumerist)
Microsoft sued for its Xbox 360 making rings, but not of the red variety

On the heels of reports showing up to one-third of Xbox 360 consoles suffer a hardware failure, and the Microsoft action of extending the warranty to up to three years in cases of the Red Ring of Death, it is not at all surprising to learn that a class action lawsuit has been filed against the Redmond-based console maker.

The lawsuit is not for the dreaded Red Ring of Death, but rather for the console’s rare but nasty habit of scratching discs. As Joystiq reports, the lawsuit contends that the plaintiffs in the case "have been damaged in that their game discs were destroyed by the Xbox 360 during reasonable, foreseeable, normal, and intended use... The Xbox 360 was negligently designed and manufactured in that the Console's laser disc reading assembly contacts and scratches the video game discs during normal and intended operation and use."

The issue of the Xbox 360 scratching discs even when the console is unmoved first caught the attention or European consumer watchdogs after a special feature ran on Dutch TV show Kassa. At the time of the complaint, Microsoft said to 1UP, "We are working in an open dialogue with Commissioner Kuneva to clarify our position and all the efforts we are taking across the EU, and in fact globally, to address any consumer concerns. As we have said previously, there is no widespread issue regarding scratched discs as is alleged by Kassa. That said, we encourage any Xbox customer who believes that their discs have been scratched in the same manner as identified by Kassa, to contact us."

Microsoft’s statement continued, "We will examine the console and make appropriate repairs if necessary in order to restore the console to full working order, as well as provide customers with information on how to obtain replacement discs should they need them."

Filed in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. by Jorge Brouwer, a Broward County resident who bought an Xbox 360 in 2006, the lawsuit seeks five million dollars in damages for the scratched game discs. Microsoft has yet to respond.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What a fool
By mdogs444 on 7/12/2007 9:16:11 AM , Rating: -1
I hope this guys case gets thrown out of court. People sue for everything these days, and for absurd amounts. Im not defending MS in the fact that they should replace discs & consoles if in fact the console did the damage. No doubt about that.

But this just reminds of the that stupid lady who sued McDonald's for $1 million becuase she burned herself when she spilled her McDonald's coffee all over herself. For one, if you are too stupid to drink a beverage in the car w/o spilling it, then the last thing you should be doing is drinking HOT COFFEE in the car while driving! Its not rocket science.

RE: What a fool
By TomZ on 7/12/2007 9:23:31 AM , Rating: 2
You might want to read up on the facts regarding the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit. There is a lot of misinformation out there about that.

RE: What a fool
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/12/2007 9:37:34 AM , Rating: 2
TomZ, I would like to point out that while the Coffee was "excessively hot" according to the temperature. I seriously doubt you will find people crying about their Coffee being "too hot". If it's hot you let it sit in the cup holder for a few minutes while it cools off. It's really not a big deal.

The fact of the matter here, is that this lady was reckless in her posession of the coffee. She did not use a cup holder (which would have spared her from any burns), she put the damn thing between her legs WHILE DRIVING. Which causes distractions and possibly get her into an accident. Yea, so McDonald's serves coffee hot enough to scald you, so what? You don't have to drink it the second they hand it to you, you sure as hell don't need to stick it between your legs and spill it all over yourself.

To be honest, the whole trial was a circus. Consumer negligence and stupidity does not fly. What they basically ruled was that the Coffee would cause 3rd degree burns if spilled on ones self within the first 3 minutes of having it (It will cool rapidly once you get it), therefore McDonalds is at fault because they served something that when used in an incorrect manner can cause serious injury . No Shit?

RE: What a fool
By TomZ on 7/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: What a fool
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: What a fool
By dispo on 7/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: What a fool
By FITCamaro on 7/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: What a fool
By TomZ on 7/12/2007 12:27:32 PM , Rating: 1
She sued McDonald's only after they refused to pay her medical bills. If they had paid the medical bills, she wouldn't have sued them. I don't see any information anywhere that she is a "greedy bitch." Where did you get that from?

RE: What a fool
By sviola on 7/12/2007 12:51:01 PM , Rating: 2
I don't agree that McDonald's should be considered liable for her spilling coffee over her. After all, she wasn't holding the cup correctly and was driving at the same time. (and if the coffee was sold cold she would have complained about it).

But hey, there are worst cases, like the lady who sued the microwave oven manufacturers because there was no warning on the manual that she couldn't dry her cat in it as she used to do on the regular oven.

RE: What a fool
By TomZ on 7/12/2007 1:13:30 PM , Rating: 2
The jury didn't hold McDonald's liable for her spilling coffee on herself. They found McDonald's liable for serving their coffee at a dangerously hot temperature, some 20 degrees above the temperature other restaurants do, which creased a danger for the customers. McDonald's also knew about the problem, based on a large number of customer complaints, and completely ignored the problem. That's called negligence.

RE: What a fool
By Parhel on 7/12/2007 5:51:51 PM , Rating: 2
Any regular coffee drinker can vouch for that. McDonalds coffee was served at a ridiculously hot temperature until after that lawsuit came out. Coffee is supposed to be served hot, not boiling. McDonalds was at fault in that situation and refused to even respond to her until she took it to court.

RE: What a fool
By dosun on 7/12/2007 1:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
The lady was wearing sweatpants at the time, but that is irrelevant to the case. The coffee was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns if it made contact with the skin. It didn't matter what part of the body it was. If she spilled it on her hand would you say she should have been wearing fireproof gloves?

RE: What a fool
By sviola on 7/12/2007 12:08:04 PM , Rating: 3
Reasonable people also don't drive with hot coffee between their legs.

RE: What a fool
By omnicronx on 7/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: What a fool
By sviola on 7/12/2007 12:44:27 PM , Rating: 2
That really brings the expression "fond of coffee" to a new level... :D

RE: What a fool
By rcc on 7/12/2007 12:53:03 PM , Rating: 3
and this makes you reasonable?

RE: What a fool
By timmiser on 7/12/2007 1:11:33 PM , Rating: 3
That is exactly the point.

Reasonable people shouldn't be driving and drinking hot coffee at the same time. Bumps happen. Those paper cups fail. Etc.

Or is it:

A reasonable resturant shouldn't serve extemely hot coffee to their drive thru customers because they know that events while driving can cause coffee to spill on the driver. The point is that the restuarant has to realize that with 90 billion served, someone, somewhere is going to spill it on themselves. They should know that and therefore they should make sure their coffee is at a temperature that will not cause serious burn injuries when this does happen.

The high dollar amount of the lawsuit is very necessary with these companies as a deterrent to make these restuarants take action to keep it from happening again.

RE: What a fool
By rcc on 7/13/2007 5:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but then you lose the business of those people that wait til they get to the office to drink their coffee. Because by then it's cold. Or cool. Or just not warm enough.

RE: What a fool
By DN on 7/12/2007 1:39:26 PM , Rating: 1
At first, I was one of those people that thought this was the most ridiculous suit. However, over time and with a bit more thought, I came to realize what this suit was REALLY about:

"How hot is too hot?"

People do dumb things all the time, there is no question about it. Is this lady a dumbass for having placed a coffee between her legs as she drives? Yes. Is she guilty of this coffee having spilled on her? Yes, no doubt. However, should coffee be so hot that it seriously damages someone's body if and when an accident (stupid or not) happens? I think this is where you need to draw the line. Imagine that you didn't do anything as silly as this lady did, but a McDonald coffee ended up landing on your child for whatever reason, would you prefer that it was "hot" or "SCALDING" coffee to be in that cup? I think if any of us HAD to make that choice, it would be obvious what choice we would make. Put your finger in hot coffee, put your finger in SCALDING coffee, there's a BIG difference, you'd be surprised. So, as much as McDonald's IS NOT the reason for her stupidity, McDonald's IS responsible for the "amount" of the damage that occured due to how hot they kept their coffee and really, coffee doesn't need to be SCALDING to be enjoyable, even if you like your coffee "hot".

RE: What a fool
By archermoo on 7/12/2007 6:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
As a note, a few things to clear up here. Mrs. Liebeck wasn't driving the car. Her grandson was. And at the time she spilled the coffee he had stopped the car so she could add sugar and cream to it.

McDonalds refused an early settlement offer of $20,000 to cover her medical bills.

She was awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, reduced to $160,000 because the injuries were deemed by the jury to be 20% her fault.

She was initially awarded $2.7 million in punative damages, which the judge later reduced to $480,000, for a total award of $640,000. But that isn't the final amount either. She and McDonalds came to an undisclosed out of court settlement rather than go through the appeals process. So no one really knows what she got out of it.

Check out

RE: What a fool
By bkm32 on 7/12/2007 2:29:50 PM , Rating: 5
Can you idiots get past the McDonald's Hot Coffee Mod long enough to discuss the real issue here. The X360 is damaging discs, soemthing that is not covered in the new extended warranty. If I pay $60+ for a game, my $300+ next-gen console better not wreck it. If it does, the console manufacturer better pay up PDQ. Period.

The issue is who's responsible for faulty hardware, the consumer or the manufacturer?

"Discuss amongst yourselves."

RE: What a fool
By TomZ on 7/12/2007 2:56:09 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe the McDonald's lawsuit is more interesting to discuss than the XBOX 360 lawsuit.

RE: What a fool
By Tbonus on 7/12/2007 3:50:03 PM , Rating: 2
The issue is who's responsible for faulty hardware, the consumer or the manufacturer?
Thank you so much bkm32!!! The coffee issue has nothing to do with this, other than that there are people out there who want to blame everyone else for there stupidity.
There is one,and only one thing that needs to be discussed here "Am I to expect the product that I buy to work as advertised?" Answer, YES!

RE: What a fool
By xphile on 7/12/2007 8:14:23 PM , Rating: 3
Ok I have a solution to both your concerns. Remove drive mechanism from 360. Hardwire under car stereo unit. Hit eject button. Ejected 360 drive tray has cunning center hole designed especially to hold hot coffee cups and avoid nasty spill burns while at the same time completely removing any chance whatsoever of scratching your valuable game discs.

There both subjects now resolved. Next... :-)

RE: What a fool
By FITCamaro on 7/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: What a fool
By webdawg77 on 7/12/2007 9:27:23 AM , Rating: 2
According to the link above, she sued for $2.7 million but only received $480,000 in the end. The facts via the link are very interesting.

RE: What a fool
By sitong666 on 7/12/2007 9:34:55 AM , Rating: 3
Insanely hot? Surely it wasn't above 100 degrees?

RE: What a fool
By TomZ on 7/12/2007 9:38:25 AM , Rating: 1
Did you read the link I provided?

Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

Oh, BTW, this was three years after the lawsuit. Seems like McDonald's didn't learn their lesson.

RE: What a fool
By sviola on 7/12/2007 12:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
He might be talking about Celsius degrees...and 185F is around 100C.

RE: What a fool
By FITCamaro on 7/12/2007 12:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
100C is boiling hot.

RE: What a fool
By sviola on 7/12/2007 12:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
it's 85C actually. It's really hot, but at not boiling temperature.

RE: What a fool
By webdawg77 on 7/12/2007 12:22:42 PM , Rating: 1
Not quite. 100C is boiling thus 212F.

212 - 185 = 27

27 / 185 = 14.6% difference

RE: What a fool
By Hexxx on 7/13/2007 6:37:30 AM , Rating: 2
To give a percentage difference you would need to work it out on the Kelvin scale.

RE: What a fool
By webdawg77 on 7/13/2007 8:23:39 AM , Rating: 2
Why? I am comparing Fahrenheit to Fahrenheit. But to humor you.

K = 5/9 (F - 32) + 273

212F = 373K
185F = 358K

373 - 358 = 15
15/358 = 4.2%

C = 5/9(F - 32)

212F = 100C
185F = 85C

100 - 85 = 15
15/100 = 15%

With the Fahrenheit calculations above coming out to 14.6%, two of the 3 are very close to each other with the K calculation being way off. Why do I need to convert it to K to calculate the actual difference?

Although, C and K are more closely related in that 1 degree of change in C is roughly equal to 1 degree change in K, 1 degree change in F is smaller thus more precise. Therefore, I think the % change in F is a better comparison, and the results on the C scale even agree with it.

RE: What a fool
By webdawg77 on 7/13/2007 8:25:17 AM , Rating: 2
meant to be 15\85 = 17.6% for C

That's even more than the 14.6% for F.

But, since the temps were given in F, I compared in F.

DT, get an edit feature!

RE: What a fool
By TomZ on 7/13/2007 8:46:02 AM , Rating: 2
I think the point is that degrees F and degrees C are not absolute temperatures, therefore, calculating percentage differences is meaningless. That's because both systems are referenced to some arbitrary "zero."

Kelvin is absolute temperature. Therefore, if you are going to multiply, divide, or take percentages, that is what is typically used.

RE: What a fool
By webdawg77 on 7/13/2007 8:56:50 AM , Rating: 2
I see the point, but there aren't many absolutes in life. Everything is relative. And relative is good enough when you are comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges.

RE: What a fool
By webdawg77 on 7/12/2007 9:39:23 AM , Rating: 1
185 degrees.

RE: What a fool
By Topweasel on 7/12/2007 2:24:09 PM , Rating: 2
185 Fahrenheit. Not Celsius.

RE: What a fool
By XesBOX on 7/12/2007 3:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
After collapsing all the replies to you, I just have to say good job on derailing the topic! :D

"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki