HDD Fails - Retailer has to pay for pro recovery? Yes it happened

Forums › IT Pro and developers › HDD Fails - Retailer has to pay for pro recovery? Yes it happened

Dairyxox

1456 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 382

Topic # 248279 18-Mar-2019 09:36

3 people support this post

I noticed this thread on reddit recently:

https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/az1xun/winning_against_pbtech/

TLDR: Person brought a HDD, it failed after a few months, took PBTech to the disputes tribunal (DT) and the ruling was that PBTech has to pay for professional data recovery. Seriously WTF.

I'm not a fan of PB Tech, but this seems grossly unfair.

People better stop selling HDD's or increase the price by 2x to cover the risk.

I know the DT are not experts in any technical fields except maybe law, but this seems way over the top. Normally they would ask for an independent 'expert' in the field to advise. Doesn't look like that happened.

Thoughts?

1 | 2 | 3

4278 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 838

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 2200588 18-Mar-2019 09:41

6 people support this post

Wow.

The data recovery is a legitimate consequential loss, but it is primarily the result of the consumer failing to exercise their duty of care. There is no way that damages should be awarded for this.

Linux

4372 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2496

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 2200594 18-Mar-2019 09:44

One person supports this post

That is insane this is going to open a big can of worms

CYaBro

3044 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 305

Reply # 2200602 18-Mar-2019 09:59

I wonder if the referee just sided with the consumer as it was PB Tech?

If it had been any other store would the result have been the same?

wellygary

3741 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1128

Reply # 2200608 18-Mar-2019 10:07

Linux: That is insane this is going to open a big can of worms

I would imagine that PB Tech's liability insurers will ensure there is an appeal in the District court pretty swiftly

EDIT: opps just read though the reddit page, WTF PB tech paid out ...

interesting..... FWIU rulings are not strictly legal precedents, but can then be used on subsequent preceedings,

Feb 2019 dispute decisions are not yet on line, but once they do turn up, It would probably be worth finding and printing this ruling out for future use....

Dairyxox

1456 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 382

Reply # 2200611 18-Mar-2019 10:08

CYaBro:
I wonder if the referee just sided with the consumer as it was PB Tech?

If it had been any other store would the result have been the same?

I've heard of referees imposing harsher penalties than just the cost/replacement before as a way of punishing the guilty party, but not sure if that is true. Might be the case here.

networkn

19718 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5939

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 2200613 18-Mar-2019 10:10

2 people support this post

wellygary:

Linux: That is insane this is going to open a big can of worms

I would imagine that PB Tech's liability insurers will ensure there is an appeal in the District court pretty swiftly

100%. This is a awful decision by the DT. I would suggest strongly that it comes about as a lack of understanding of the issue by the decision maker. Given the breadth of topics they adjudicte over it's understandable they get things wrong from time to time.

tchart

1513 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 194

Trusted

Reply # 2200616 18-Mar-2019 10:14

I've got mixed feelings on this. The amount of drives I've lost over the years...

I'd say that if a drive failed under normal operation within the warranty period then I think paying for data recovery is fair. I've lost drive less than 12 months old that haven't been dropped etc and TBH it's a bit sh1te that I've had no recourse. Usually I don't even bother getting it replaced under warranty.

For drive manufacturers they should either insure for this and build into the price or stop selling spinning drives. I know ssd aren't infallible but no moving parts protects both parties.

Dynamic

2517 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 750

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 2200618 18-Mar-2019 10:17

2 people support this post

We also have no idea as to how the drive had been treated. These portable drives don't take mishandling well.

"4 wheels move the body. 2 wheels move the soul."

“Don't believe anything you read on the net. Except this. Well, including this, I suppose.” Douglas Adams

networkn

19718 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5939

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 2200622 18-Mar-2019 10:19

5 people support this post

tchart: I've got mixed feelings on this. The amount of drives I've lost over the years...

I'd say that if a drive failed under normal operation within the warranty period then I think paying for data recovery is fair. I've lost drive less than 12 months old that haven't been dropped etc and TBH it's a bit sh1te that I've had no recourse. Usually I don't even bother getting it replaced under warranty.

For drive manufacturers they should either insure for this and build into the price or stop selling spinning drives. I know ssd aren't infallible but no moving parts protects both parties.

You do have recourse, it's called backups.

If you value your data, you have them, if you don't, then you don't.

trig42

Banana?
4653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1158

Subscriber

Reply # 2200624 18-Mar-2019 10:21

I wonder if there isn't some unconscious bias form the referee in this case (also, it sounds as if the PB Tech manager who showed up to the tribunal p*ssed them off too).

It is an awful decision, with some potentially damaging ramifications if it is used as a precedent (can DT rulings be used as precedents?). Would have been good if PB had taken it further, but it looks like they just paid to make it go away.

tchart

1513 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 194

Trusted

Reply # 2200635 18-Mar-2019 10:25

networkn:
tchart: I've got mixed feelings on this. The amount of drives I've lost over the years...

I'd say that if a drive failed under normal operation within the warranty period then I think paying for data recovery is fair. I've lost drive less than 12 months old that haven't been dropped etc and TBH it's a bit sh1te that I've had no recourse. Usually I don't even bother getting it replaced under warranty.

For drive manufacturers they should either insure for this and build into the price or stop selling spinning drives. I know ssd aren't infallible but no moving parts protects both parties.

You do have recourse, it's called backups.

If you value your data, you have them, if you don't, then you don't.

Hahaha true. Obviously I've learnt my lesson and I do have multiple backups.

Usually in my case it's the backup that does for a machine that no longer exists.

I'm dealing with an issue currently where I have a 1TB drive which is probably 10 years old and is giving me errors. Do I have a backup? Yes. Do I expect the drive to be replaced? No. However if the drive was under 3 years old I'd be pretty triggered.

hio77

'That VDSL Cat'
9893 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2317

Trusted

Spark

Subscriber

Reply # 2200636 18-Mar-2019 10:27

Well... i expect hdd costs to increase if this becomes norm...

#include <std_disclaimer>

Any comments made are personal opinion and do not reflect directly on the position my current or past employers may have.

gjm

753 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 91

Reply # 2200638 18-Mar-2019 10:31

I agree this is a terrible decision but as far as I know a disputes tribunal decision does not set any kind of legal precedent that is required to be followed

[Amstrad CPC 6128: 128k Memory: 3 inch floppy drive: Colour Screen]

tripp

3250 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 865

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 2200643 18-Mar-2019 10:37

One person supports this post

I love the first few lines .

"I bought a Seagate external harddrive from PBTech Hamilton in early 2017 and used it to store over a TB of data; mainly of movies to watch on the go since I move between Hamilton and Auckland frequently."

I wonder if those movies were copyright movies that he got off the net without paying for them. This would mean that the DT helped him recover data he had no right too.

networkn

19718 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5939

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 2200645 18-Mar-2019 10:42

One person supports this post

hio77:

Well... i expect hdd costs to increase if this becomes norm...

I can't see it standing. The implications are too massive.

The number of people who will stop bothering with backups, knowing they can rock up and get recovery for free is significant.

Not even taking into account what would happen if the data recovery isn't possible, then is there liability on the retailer for the value of the data? What about if a virus/ransom gets into the machine, and the customer has no AV protection.

I believe it's an anamoly and will be resolved in short order.

1 | 2 | 3