AOL Needs To Pay For Damaging Computers
from the trying-to-pass-the-buck dept
Back when AOL 5.0 came out, there was a big fuss over the fact that it was frying some users' computers. AOL eventually reached a settlement with a bunch of users who were suing and then sent the bill to their insurance company, figuring that's what they paid the insurance company for. The insurance company said no way, so that case had to go to court. The three judge panel has now decided that the insurance policy doesn't cover writing bad software that fouls up users' machines, and it's AOL's responsibility to pay.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A great precedent to set!
Isn't there a legal note, maybe part of the EULA, that says that the company is not responsible for any errors in the program?
Expect software prices to skyrocket thanks to this ruling!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A great precedent to set!
Yeah, right. Give me an effing break!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A great precedent to set!
2. Non-physical, purely economic harm, e.g., a crash that corrupts your data, is something that you're supposed to be able to negotiate on your own as a contract matter without needing the state to protect you.
3. Physical harm to a person is something that you're not allowed to negotiate away, and companies can't get out of that sort of liability no matter what they put in a contract. This is one reason why if you do read an EULA every now and then, you will see a reference to the software not being suitable for truly critical systems, e.g., nuclear facilities, heart monitors, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]