Guy Sues Apple For $25k Because His Time Capsule Device Died
from the that's-not-how-this-works dept
People will file lawsuits over almost anything these days. Perminder Tung has apparently sued Apple because his Time Capsule device broke and no one at the Genius Bar could fix it. I can certainly understand the frustration here, but it's difficult to see how there's any sort of legit claim. Technology fails all the time. There's nothing that promised this device would work forever. Claiming, as Tung does, that the failure of Time Capsule represents "a fundamental and total breach of contract," seems like a huge stretch. Man. If I could have legitimately sued every time a technology -- especially a backup storage system -- failed without being repairable, I'd have a hell of a lot more money. But we don't do that, because we know that there is no implicit promise when you buy technology that it works forever.
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
Filed Under: genius bar, perminder tung, time capsule
Companies: apple
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I know how that feels. I've had five SATA devices fail over the years: four hard drives and one DVD burner. The DVD burner bricked in unison with a hard drive. I'm placing the blame on the PSU in my computer, which failed after three years of usage (almost to the day I first turned on the computer).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
One of the few times I disagree with you, Mike
The selling point of these devices is that:
1. They will last for a long time (hence the name, Time Capsule); and
2. That they are a secure backup for when you encounter problems on your Mac.
You cannot then deny any responsibility with an argument that "all technology fails". That may be true, but when you sell an item based on a promise, you cannot resort to that defence.
This is in contrast to, say, an iPhone, which may fail at some point, but is not sold on the premise that it will have longevity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I want to sue Apple too!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Right!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One of the few times I disagree with you, Mike
That is not the genesis of the name at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wait wait wait
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One of the few times I disagree with you, Mike
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: One of the few times I disagree with you, Mike
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To be fair they do come with a warning on the side.
"No elephants allowed."
Same goes for the time capsules.
"Device might fail if inserted rectally."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Today, most if not all electronics companies make items of poor quality and short durability so that they break quickly and people are forced to buy new ones.
Light-bulbs don't last 100 years. Some printers are purposefully made so that some parts will fail after a certain number of uses.
Most of the time, manufacturers don't try to make their products last. Sometimes, they even lower the life of their products on purpose.
A lot of stores today will sell you televisions with only a 3-6 month warranty. If you want to extend the warranty, you have to pay extra. Why? Don't these stores trust that the stuff they sell you will last more than 6 months? They're basically telling you "We can't promise it will still work after a few months"! Why do we accept this as normal when we should be telling these stores "Well if you don't think your TV can last longer I won't buy it"?
Maybe we do need some lawsuits over failing electronics. Those devices aren't cheap (they're affordable perhaps, but not cheap). They can also be very important - back up storage, cellphones, laptops with our work on them... we can't afford to have them fail or spend more than a few days in the repair shop.
Yes, technology fails sometimes, I can accept that. The question is, why does it fail? And if the answer is "because the manufacturer doesn't care about making a durably product" then that's wrong.
Not only does this make us shell out more money to replace broken devices, but it also hurts the economy by wasting resources. The natural resources and the time spent making a replacement iPad could be used elsewhere. If only that first iPad didn't break and didn't need to be replaced, right?
Devices have to last for a reasonable amount of time; "reasonable" should be defined with regards to the importance of the device (storage and work devices should definitely be built with durability in mind), the cost of the device (few people can and should spend $1000 on a new TV every 6 months), and the use the device is designed for (some devices are designed for heavy tasks that will damage them faster, such devices should therefore be allowed to have shorter warranties).
We NEED manufacturers to focus on durability. And if the only way to do this is to sue, then why not? I know devices will fail, but did Apple try very hard to make a device that lasted a long time? Durability should definitely have been one of their concerns when they developed the product, so perhaps a lawsuit is warranted here.
We have minimum standards for safety, so why not minimum standards for durability?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: One of the few times I disagree with you, Mike
The purpose of course is that future generations will one day find these preserved relics of ancient times. And that requires the time capsule to be solid and able to protect it's contents for a long time.
Apple's device is indeed aptly name considering it's purpose (but one can question whether the device lives up to it's name).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Apple Store Employees
"It's crucial that this if this backup fails, I can always recover my data."
"Yes sir, it does that."
"Always?"
"Always"
"OK, I'm just asking because I don't know a thing about technology and am totally relying on you to tell me how this works."
"Of course. I'm a genius. I guarantee your data will be recoverable."
Unlikely the conversation actually went like that, but if it did, man, that Apple employee's probably out of a job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
One that fails without taking everything with it.
A bit like those cheap "silent" psu's that are noisier than an aeroplane taking off, Apple's "Time capsule" is marketed as bullshit it aint.
This guy should have to learn the hard way.
Everyone knows Apple marketing is utter lies and propaganda.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What I wonder...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One of the few times I disagree with you, Mike
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The now 110 year light bulb (http://www.centennialbulb.org/) has not lasted so long because it is of higher quality, if anything it has lasted so long because it is a bit crap. The filaments are extremely thick so have not burned out and it still works, the downside of this is it is extremely dull and probably uses a great deal electricity to supply it's meagre dull glow. I also suspect that the cost of the thing at the time it was made compares pretty poorly with the cost of 100 years worth of modern lightbulbs at today's prices.
Also technology moves on at an ever increasing pace, whilst perhaps todays televisions do not last as long as those made 40 years ago, but then today they do not need to. These days with TVs and most technological devices they are replaced with an new, better, more advanced equivalent after en increasingly shorter timer that products simply do not need to last as long. Very few people these days would pay what it cost to build a TV that lasted for 15-20 years because they they expect to have replaced it with a bigger/better/higher definition model long before that 15-20 years is up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Right!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sale of Goods Act
As for suing over the additional losses, I'd assume the product comes with a 50 page disclaimer covering them for that kind of thing. And of course, most people should be aware to keep additional, secondary backups.
I don't see any mention of him trying to recover the data - he's just taken the Apple' guy's word that the data is lost. If he's so upset about the loss of data, why hasn't he sent the drive in to a data recovery company?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One of the few times I disagree with you, Mike
Right. That's why I sued HTC when my phone failed to produce any sort of "Magic". I also sued Ford, because when I went in to buy a horse, I came out the door with a car. What the hell? What is wrong with these people!?
/idiot
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sale of Goods Act
Do you have a citation for that? As far as I understand it, 6 years is the length of time you're allowed to put in a court claim, not necessarily the length of time you can expect a product to last for. Lots of things fail well before that time, under perfectly normal usage conditons.
Even so, it's a shaky bunch of claims. For starters, the described loss of functionality could be due to physical damage, a power surge, or something else outside of Apple's control. He seems to be highlighting the fact that similar models had known defects, but nothing suggests this model was one of them (unless that's part of the mysterious proof he's withheld from the initial claim). He claims loss of data, but given that the devices connected to the device are not claimed, that means he was using it as the sole source for that data - something I'm sure they advise against in the manual. The losses of the data from the iPhone sounds fishy (it would usually be backed up on one of his computers, which would then back up on the capsule - what happened to the data in his iTunes install?). On top of that, Apple did offer him a discounted replacement, which he refused even though his product was 2 years outside of warranty, yet he's gone out and purchased extra equipment for which he's now trying to get refund - should Apple really be liable for the cost of replacing equipment after he refused their own offer to replace it?
Unless he can prove that Apple had advertised the product as a permanent, failproof device or that the model was one with a known defect, I don't see where he stands. Either he had totally unrealistic expectations of a hard drive-based device or he's just trying to get free money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: One of the few times I disagree with you, Mike
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: One of the few times I disagree with you, Mike
Just a list of devices I can no longer connect to my current PC:
ISA/EISA cards
PCI cards
25 pin parallel port devices
9 pin serial port devices
parallel ATA drives
PS/2 mouse or keyboard
15 pin Dsub video cables
coax network cables
I bet some of these can still be made to work, but my point is that the chances are that USB and Firewire in it's current form just don't exist anymore in 20 years from now, let alone 100 years. By then you have a brick which in theory *could* work, but you have no means to access the contents. And that's just the connectors. Operating Systems of that time probably won't be backwards compatible with current file system format.
I think this guy only has a chance at this if the contract with Apple says they guarantee they can retrieve the data, and that this is no longer possible. Which I doubt, data retrieval companies can retrieve data from drives that have been overwritten 3 times and have been in a fire, submerged in water, and what not. Even if all of that applies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My friend (stupidly) bought all Apple products, including a Time Capsule. The sales guy told him "Unlike other brands of backup devices the Time Capsule won't fail after several years. You could keep it for 50 years if you want."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One of the few times I disagree with you, Mike
Let me get this straight. Because the name of the backup device is "Time Capsule" it should last a long time? You know the device it backs up is an Apple, does that mean I should be able to eat it (and it should contain, roughly, the nutritional values of an "Apple"? Using your logic that should be true.
How about my Dodge RAM Truck. By it's name I should be able to "RAM" 2500 times, and come away with both the vehicle and me unscathed. No?
What's in a name? Nothing! It is, and has for a very long time been, nothing more than a marketing tool. I could list hundreds probably thousands of products that do not live up to their name.
In point 12 the complaint claims: "The defect with the Time Capsule, which invariably destroyed the stored data..." I would simply contend that the data was not destroyed, it is simply not retrievable using normal methods. In fact the data may be forever locked within the Time Capsule. Thus the Time Capsule did do it's job as per it's name.
The "promise" made by Apple is contained in the warranty, a copy of which was provided to the end user at purchase and in the EULA which I am willing to bet the end user agreed to while setting up said device.
Caveat emptor!
The truth is that if he really wants the data back there are several data recovery businesses that can retrieve most data from nearly any drive that is not physically destroyed or wiped via DOD methods. The truth is that if his data was valued at $25k he shouldn't be depending on any single device, especially a consumer grade device, to store the data forever.
Some people simply should not be allowed to use technology. If they can't be bothered with understanding, even at a basic level what it does and how it works then perhaps they should not purchase or use it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Depends what he was told when he bought it
Caveat emptor! This is especially true when talking to a salesman who is paid on commission.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Sale of Goods Act
http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/treating-customers-fairly/sogahome/sogaexplained
A s a consumer, you have 'up to' 6 years to make a claim against the retailer. It has nothing to do with when you are allowed to file a court claim - it's about your legal right to an 'expectation' of product life. This will of course vary depending on the product in question, which is why these cases often go to court - retailer and consumer cannot agree on a reasonable product lifespan. But in theory the Sale of Goods Act exists so consumers shouldn't have to go to court in the first place.
Should a product like a Time Capsule last longer than 1 year? IMO, yes, most definitely. But that point is moot, because Apple did actually offer to refund the guy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Failed...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"My friend (stupidly) bought all Apple products, including a Time Capsule."
No he didn't. If the products met his needs and he's happy with the manufacturer's products, then he made a rather sensible buying decision.
The sales guy was stupid for having claimed such a thing, and your friend was stupid if he believed his claim and/or based his decision solely on the claims of a salesman. However, unless you think that buying only from one manufacturer is inherently stupid, his decision to buy only Apple is no different from another person's decision to only buy Dell, HP or whatever.
"Depends what he was told when he bought it."
Was the salesman employed by Apple? If not, why should they be held accountable for what a 3rd party falsely claimed about their product? If so, I hope someone's reported him to Apple for falsely representing their products.
Years ago, I worked at a major electrical goods store that stocked Apple products. One particular salesman had a habit of lying outright to customers about iMacs so that he could get the higher commission rate for selling them instead of Windows PCs. Even when I had to deal with the umpteenth angry customer wanting to know why their Windows software wouldn't run on OS9, I didn't hold Apple accountable for this idiot's lies. In fact, I was more likely to blame the customer for blindly accepting the word of a commission-earning salesman instead of doing some actual research before parting with £1000+.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Sale of Goods Act
In other words, it's really down to expectations and 3 years isn't necessarily an excessively short lifespan for a hard drive-based piece of equipment, depending on how it's used and treated. Sure, many devices last longer and you'd normally hope they would, but the nature of the device means that moving parts may fail and data could be compromised if they do. The data's even probably still retrievable, but not for free.
"Should a product like a Time Capsule last longer than 1 year? IMO, yes, most definitely. But that point is moot, because Apple did actually offer to refund the guy."
Indeed. The customer would have a reasonable expectation that such a device would last longer than one year, which it did. That's of course where the warranty kicks in. The device lasted 3 times longer than the warranty, and he refused a perfectly reasonable offer of a replacement because the lack of warranty meant he had to pay. Apple shouldn't be liable for that, unless it can be proven that they were aware of some inherent flaw in the design of the model in question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What I wonder...
Best to have a local copy and a copy at a remote site (cloud). Any kind of RAID is not a good backup strategy. RAID is for up-time, not backup.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Warranty should be: life of owner + 70 years.
The lawsuit doesn't seem to be about lost data at all. It seems that the device failed out of warranty and therefore Apple won't repair it. The article make no mention of any attempt to actually recover the data on the device. In fact the article says the device "would not turn back on", which could be as simple as a power supply failure. The hard drive used in the device might still be functional and data may be recoverable.
We all know, no device works forever.
It seems Mr. Tung is suing because the warranty expired.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Recovery Cost?
I think everyone here agrees that one copy does not a backup make, and preferably you want to have a copy as far off site as you can, either a physical media copy or a cloud copy.
However, Apple does a lot to market their products to people that don't know computers.
Not saying this guy has an excuse for not having a second backup. Or keeping a copy of everything on the computer at the very least.
I'd rather have a less expensive external HD for local backup combined with a backup service like Carbonite or Jungle Disk or one of the many other online backup options than an over priced external hard drive.
For $299 at least get one with multiple drives for redundancy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wha-?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
This, I worked for a company that made backup devices running Windows Home Server. EVERY loss of data call included "But that was my only copy!" to which we'd inevitably answer, "Then it wasn't a backup".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sale of Goods Act
No, in the UK when a consumer buys goods, their contract of sale is with the retailer, not the manufacturer. So if you wish to sue over a product, the Sale of Goods Act expects the consumer to sue the retailer.
The Sale of Goods Act (UK) is a contract between buyer and seller, not buyer and manufacturer. However, in the current example, the guy bought it from the Apple Store, so retailer and manufacturer are one and the same.
As for it being targeted to businesses - it's a guide for businesses selling to consumers, so it's still the same Sale of Goods Act (which in this example, is generally the same laws for B2B purchases as well).
"This does not mean that everything you sell has to last six years from the date of purchase"
As I said, the Sale of Goods Act allows the consumer to expect a product to last 'up to' six years, depending on the product. And yes, wear and tear is not included. The consumer has to prove the product contained a manufacturing fault or has an inherently bad design that is destined to failure within an unreasonable amount of time. These times are ultimately decided by a judge based on the product and the specifics of the situation.
With so many hard drive manufacturers offering 3-5 year warranties by default, I would argue it is fairly reasonable to expect an apple hard drive product to last more than 3 years. I even suspect the drive inside it, if purchased separately from WD or whoever, would most likely come with such a warranty.
EDIT - I misread the filing, it looks like Apple didn't offer to refund the customer, he was offered a replacement for payment of $252. In that case, I think the guy could have pursued for a replacement, but I still think the rest of the claim is ridiculous.
I have no idea how the system works in this guy's country, but in the UK most people who can be bothered to make claims under the sale of goods act are typically quite successful (via small claims court). The key issue though is that most people either can't be bothered, or just don't know that they have additional protection beyond the manufacturers 12 month warranty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wha-?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wha-?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: One of the few times I disagree with you, Mike
Ad copy and names mean literally nothing. They're certainly not a promise. The promise is in the warranty (which probably says that there is no promise of fitness for any particular use.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
doesn't your state gov protect consumers or is Maine the only one?
Consumer Goods and Maine Express and Implied Warranty Laws
my family and i have used this to have items replaced way beyond anything stated by the manufacturer. a 1 year warranty like the one Apple (or any other company) has is a complete joke and should not be tolerated imo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What I wonder...
Raid is as good for uptime, as you say, as it is for backup, when handled appropriately. (Uptime is ensured by the redundancy, which is the same as having a backup onsite)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
All items sold in North America have an Implied Warranty of Merchantability, which means the thing does what you'd expect it to. So yes, a backup drive should work like a backup drive.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
But in the UK all buyers of products are covered under the Sale of Goods Act, so while a manufacturer warranty makes it a lot easier to claim when there's a problem, it doesn't trump the Sale of Goods Act rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: What I wonder...
Um... No, Raid-1 is NOT a great backup strategy. Raid at any level is not a backup strategy at all. It can however be a tool used in a good backup strategy, but that is totally different.
RAID-1 Increases throughput more or less linearly by keeping multiple copies of data on multiple drives. It is not, nor was it ever, designed to be a backup solution.
A backup has at least two purposes. The primary purpose is to recover data after its loss, be it by data deletion or corruption. The secondary purpose of backups is to recover data from an earlier time.
RAID-1 fulfills neither of the goals of a Backup. If I delete a file from a RAID-1 array it is deleted from both drives i.e THERE IS NO BACKUP! If I want to recover last weeks version of a Database, I can't do that from a RAID-1 Drive unless there is a BACKUP stored on the drive.
Anyone who works in IT should know that RAIDxxx != Backup.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Really? When was the last time you had to change the burned out vacuum tubes of your home computer?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Help! My time capsule broke and I can't get up!
Just sayin....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Recovery Cost?
"I'd rather have a less expensive external HD for local backup combined with a backup service like Carbonite or Jungle Disk or one of the many other online backup options than an over priced external hard drive. "
Having used one of these devices before, I'll defend them to some extent in that it's more than simply an external hard drive, and it doesn't introduce the external issues a cloud provider can introduce. Overpriced? Perhaps, but anyone even considering Apple products should realise that. But, simply comparing it to an external hard drive or cloud service is missing the point somewhat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sale of Goods Act
I apologise. I did realise that, but my response was a little badly worded. The lawsuit above doesn't mention where the product was purchased, and from the description it may have been bought through a reseller rather than an Apple store, in which case he seems to be suing the manufacturer rather than the retailer - a rather different tactic.
"With so many hard drive manufacturers offering 3-5 year warranties by default, I would argue it is fairly reasonable to expect an apple hard drive product to last more than 3 years."
Perhaps, but I suppose it depends on which part fails. The device in question is essentially an overblown enclosure for the hard drive, and the drive itself would not be manufactured by Apple so could theoretically have a different warranty that might be covered. The description is of a failure in the enclosure, so the drive might be in perfect working order outside of that. Apple may simply have not wished to cover the recovery at their own expense.
I'd agree that a longer warranty might be nice, but anyone who's worked in I.T. for any length of time has encountered devices still operating 30 years later and devices that happen to fail the day after the warranty expired, sometimes from the same source. Hoping that the one device you choose to hold your data on is the one that lasts longer is foolishness.
"The key issue though is that most people either can't be bothered, or just don't know that they have additional protection beyond the manufacturers 12 month warranty."
To be perfectly honest, in my 3 decades in the UK before I moved away, I didn't bother at all with the small claims system. I rarely encountered any real wrongdoing, and the time and effort for pursuing a claim like the above simply wouldn't be worth my time. I was generally prudent enough to research products before I bought them, and I never left my only copy of anything important on a system prone to failure (i.e. all of them). I've suffered data failure due to my own mistakes of course, but the data's always recoverable if it's worth the effort.
I understand that non-techies might have a different take, but in my opinion the only reason a device might be worth more than its original purchase price due to the data stored is the user's own mistake.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sale of Goods Act
In section 9:
The Plaintiff was told by Simply Computing representatives to take the TimeCapsule back to the original Apple Store where it was purchased.
TBH, its not entirely clear to me if he's going after Apple the manufacturer or Apple the retailer, but as he's stating the Sale of Goods Act, I guess it's whatever ties in with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sale of Goods Act
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: One of the few times I disagree with you, Mike
There is clearly a connection between the name and the product purpose, as opposed to a brand name or a model (such as your example of Magic and car names).
Not saying this is the be all and end all, but is a relevant consideration (misleading and deceptive conduct?)
My point is, prima facie, it appears that Apple sold a product on the basis that it would last...and it didn't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Apple are great at lots of things, but not data recovery experts. This is what we do here at PicBack.
We have successfully recovered data from many damaged Time Capsules. They can be a little more difficult to work on but are still just hard drives at the end of the day.
While we can't guarantee that data can be recovered every time, we have all the right tools for the job. If anyone else is in the same position then they can read more about out service here - http://picback.com/time-capsule-recovery
This story should stand as a warning that drives do fail and that it is always a good idea to have several backups of your valuable data.
[ link to this | view in thread ]