3 ms·
Has anyone read the decision? I'm curious what the actual legal justification was for not refunding customers for removing functionality. It seems so baffling I
by crazygringo 2y ago
Has anyone read the decision? I'm curious what the actual legal justification was for not refunding customers for removing functionality. It seems so baffling I'm wondering if there was some technicality.
Also, why is the article misusing the term "bricked"? Bricked means a device doesn't work at all, and that it can't be fixed with a reset or further update -- not that it loses part of its functionality. These printers work as soon as you put HP ink in them, right? Their functionality has been limited, not bricked. (I'm not defending HP at all, just saying let's use the right words for the right things?)
- IshKebab 2y agoIt was a settlement agreement, so there doesn't need to be any legal justification.
- fn-mote 2y agoThe most interesting part of the short agreement is that there was exactly _one_ objection to the settlement. I guess most people don't care or there wasn't enough of an argument for them being compensated in this particular case. Also, the complaints about lawyers enriching themselves seem exaggerated since their reported fees are $750k, which seems like not much to be honest.
- johnnyanmac 2y agoClass actions aren't really known for their activism per se. A lot of setting it up is just calling or emailing people and getting their signature. I'm not too surprised the engagement is on the level of a Change.org petition. >their reported fees are $750k, which seems like not much to be honest. paying themselves high 6 figures to just shake hands with oligarchs is way too much, imo. There was no justice here, they just wanted a cut of the heist.