Details on proposed Seagate class action settlement revealed

It looks like those that bought a Seagate hard drive in the past few years could possibly be in store for a few freebies or a bit of cash, at least if a proposed class action settlement goes ahead. According to a recently-launched website for the settlement, the suit centers on alleged misleading sales and marketing by Seagate, which stated that "purchasers of the drives would receive approximately 7% more usable storage capacity than they actually received." To make up for that allegedly egregious offense, the settlement proposes that anyone who purchased a drive between March 22nd, 2001 and September 26, 2007 (which wasn't pre-installed in a system) receive either some free backup and recovery software or a cash payment equivalent to five percent of the price paid for the hard drive. To get in on that potential windfall, however, you'll have to sign yourself up as part of the class action on the website linked below, where you can also opt out of the suit if you so choose.

[Thanks, Joey]

[John @ Oct 22nd 2007 1:47PM]

I've got this nasty feeling that this lawsuit is based on the difference between 1E10 and 2^30....

[John @ Oct 22nd 2007 1:54PM]

Oops, meant 1E9

Anyhow, 1,000,000,000/107,374,1824 is about 93%... and it's rather standard practice to market gigabytes as a billion bytes.

[Justin B @ Oct 22nd 2007 1:48PM]

Scam. Do a Google Search for that case number and all you get is that website.

[Jonathan @ Oct 22nd 2007 1:58PM]

http://www.rustconsulting.com/About_Us.html
Seem real to me???

[Sam @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:38PM]

I got an email about it this morning. It came in on the custom email address I used for a Seagate rebate a few years ago.

[Jonathan @ Oct 22nd 2007 1:55PM]

USA only (save people reading).

[chris @ Oct 22nd 2007 3:47PM]

Obviously, the case is in the US court system.

[Shawn @ Oct 22nd 2007 7:49PM]

@Chris: And how is that obvious without reading the article?

[Jeff @ Oct 22nd 2007 1:57PM]

In the documentation it states....

Plaintiff claims that Seagate's use of the decimal definition of the storage capacity term "gigabyte" (or GB), whereby 1 GB = 109 (1 billion) bytes, misleads consumers because computer operating systems report hard drive capacity using a binary definition of GB, whereby 1 GB = 230 (1,073,741,824) bytes, a difference of approximately seven percent.

...so are they going to sue microsoft next for reporting diffrently then the manufacturers? Isn't this something that all manufacturers do?

[John Doe. @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:00PM]

Yes and yes.

[John Doe. @ Oct 22nd 2007 1:59PM]

Even though I would be eligible for this I won't get it. Because:

1. I'm not a slime ball.
2. I'm not a greedy SOAB.
3. I'm not an idiot that doesn't know WHY you never get 8GB of storage space on an advertised 8GB drive.

[modenadude @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:07PM]

I'm in the same boat as you - I've bought maybe five Seagates since 2001 and I do not want to participate in any way with this. Getting money for something you learned in grade school? That's cheap. Real cheap.

:)

[Sue H @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:13PM]

Ditto, here. I got the e-mail, rolled my eyes and deleted it.

[HineyWipe @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:16PM]

And all this *before* you lose to formatting or RAID levels!

[bsm0f0 @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:59PM]

same here for a different reason. I've never had two seagate drives crap out on me within seconds of each other. If this was Western Digital or IBM ... I'd be first in line with my lawn chair.

[futurepastnow @ Oct 22nd 2007 3:06PM]

I, too, would be eligible for this (three times, even). If I took the 5% cash settlement, it would be worth... $12.

As far as I'm concerned, I paid for what I wanted and got what I paid for.

[rockintom @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:05PM]

Er... wouldn't this class action suit affect *every* hard drive manufacturer as well? Flash ones, too.

[zack Fanning @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:10PM]

You've got to start somewhere. Just because "everyone is doing it" doesn't mean it is right. As we get higher and higher capacities this is only going to get worse. It needs to stop.

[Randomness @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:17PM]

No, it would only affect the company (Seagate) that worded its boxes wrong.

Haven't all the hdd companies been sued for this yet? It's pretty funny, because I'm pretty sure no one really cares about the difference between the 2 numbering systems besides some really stupid person that got pissed when he thought he was missing hdd space and thought seagate was ripping him off. How is this even a serious issue.

I agree with John Doe. @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:00PM above.

[bobartig @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:38PM]

I can definitely understand how this could create consumer dissatisfaction, when, for instance, a customer with just under 200 GB of files to backup (and a larger internal drive), goes and buys a 200 GB external drive, then goes home and discovers that they need an additional 13 GB of storage.

Or, the customer with xx GB of MP3's, who goes out and buys an XX GB iPod and cannot put all their music on it.

But really these are customer education issues, to be handled at the point of resale. I'm not sure how this can be considered 'misleading', when Seagate makes the storage distinction clear on their packaging. If the consumer couldn't understand the explanation, or did not care to read it, I hardly see how that is Seagate's problem.

Could an illiterate chain smoker sue big tobacco for health problems because he could not read the health warnings on the packaging? Wait, don't answer that. I gotta start smoking two packs a day, and forget how to read. $$Cha-ching$$! (cough-cough)

[Sidney @ Oct 22nd 2007 5:33PM]

Agreed. Let's look at the 1TB hard drives that are starting to come out... by my calculations, they're "missing" about 92GB space. Hard drives are sold today with less capacity than that "error."

I think a class action lawsuit might be the only way to get the storage companies to realize that we take issue with their insistence on using a system of measurement (base 10) that makes so little sense with respect to computers.

I also don't think it's ambitious enough to ask Seagate to add some small print to packaging that nobody'll ever read. There'd be parties held in the streets if Seagate and other companies were forced to report storage in binary. Then they'd have to choose between marketing 149.1GB drives and adjusting capacities slightly.

I'd PAY my 7% to see that.

[Billy @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:14PM]

A) Drives are so freaking huge and so freaking cheap, even 5 years ago, you're just a douche if you sue over this

B) All HD marketing I've ever seen always states that 1GB = 1 billion bytes.

[r @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:30PM]

exactly, drives are huge now, which makes that 7% diff very noticeable to the average guy that doesnt didnt notice the diff before. i also wont bother to get my $3.50 off of this.

[Jacob Kennedy @ Nov 2nd 2007 12:32PM]

But what stops the marketing department from saying on the box 1GB = 500 million bytes? They are essentially changing the acronym.

Why can't I release a product whose marketing states "Includes no CFCs" and then further down state "CFCs = California Furry Chickens"? Because it's misleading, regardless of the disclaimer.

I hope this suit goes to trial and they finally have to stop marketing in this manner. It IS misleading and does cause issues when backing up and moving music etc. (as others have mentioned).

[Rednecs @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:29PM]

Just because every manufacturer uses this marketing tactic does not make it right. Everyone goes through the phase where they are not aware of this and then you gain this knowledge. It all starts to make sense and you can now figure it out. That still doesn't make it right...may I add 'ethically' right in marketing.

I have bought many a hard drive from seagate and others and will not look to profit from the suit like some others here because of our personal ethics. I would like to lend support to this though so that some kind of sanction is brought against the manufacturers so that they do not resort to these cheap marketing tactics.

[Scott @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:34PM]

I don't get how this works, where are the technical definitions of these measurements that the lawsuit would draw from? Like gigameter = 1 000 000 000 meters, shouldn't gigabyte = 1 000 000 000 bytes? I know thats not how it really works but where is the official definition here.

[John @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:48PM]

A gigabyte is 1,000,000,000, or 1000*1000*1000 bytes. one billion, just like "giga" implies. Your computer uses a different way of expressing amounts of memory based on powers of 1024 because it works better for the binary system.

[Fred @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:34PM]

Any techie would know why the reported size won't match what the box says, but the average consumer won't.

It's about time HD manufacturers stop using a technical loophole. Remember when monitor manufacturers would say 17" monitor, but only 15" was visible? Pure BS.

[John @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:45PM]

Well, see, there's a difference here that's rather inevitable. The term 'gigabyte' literally means 1 billion bytes. And that is what is delivered. Then you get home and learn that computers find it easier to classify a gigabyte as a number that can actually be easily represented natively, i.e., 1024^3 instead of 1000^3.

It is not misrepresentation. 'giga' means billion. Not 2^30.

[Andrew Pollack @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:36PM]

Class action suits are the most abused aspect of U.S. law after copyright and patent.

You end up with law firms that are little more than class-action mills. You see these commercials on T.V. at night "Are you or do you know someone who ever...".

Why do you suppose that is? Simple. Once a class has been established, its a race for these firms to sign up as many people into that class as possible. Their incremental costs per client are almost nothing, but at settlement time the agreement pays them based on the number of people they represent. Often, you may see tens of thousands of people earning $10 at the end of the suit, but the law firm representing them earning millions.

[Greg Legowski @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:41PM]

I'm opting out, as well, and putting in comments on SEAGATE'S behalf.

Companies shouldn't be forced to suffer for CONSUMER ignorance.

[Montusama @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:44PM]

Okay I know you never get the space advertised on a hard drive because of formatting...so why is this even happening? Not that I can't complain about free legit software or money....

[John @ Oct 22nd 2007 2:50PM]

This isn't about formatting, this is about the difference between 1000^3 and 1024^3... one is used by humans, one is used by computers when it comes to 'giga'.

[Michael @ Oct 22nd 2007 3:14PM]

I recently had a WD hard drive fail, so I decided to replace it with two drives in a RAID-1 array.

I saw that Fry's had Maxtor (owned by Seagate) 300 GB SATA-II drives on sale for $70 a piece...not a bad price.

When I went to the store, the drives had stickers on the boxes saying "Extra 20 GB included FREE!"

After formatting and with the difference between 1024^3 and 1000^3, I now have a RAID array with 298 GB of space.

At first I thought it was corny to make it seem like they had slapped in an extra 20GB (obviously it's just a 320GB hard drive), but this method will surely help less tech-savvy buyers remain satisfied with their purchases as 298 GB is preeeety darn close to 300GB (99.33% of the total, to be exact).

Kudos Maxtor/Seagate (and a big fat "suck it" to the vampire class-action-lawsuit-chasing lawyers)

[Angus Hedger @ Oct 22nd 2007 3:17PM]

I really don't see what the problem is... Yes, the drive might be a bit smaller, but unless I am really wrong, all your files are that bit smaller as well? My two 200 gig HDD's only read as 190GB, im not going to sue anyone for the way binery works.

It just makes it easer to sell to the customer, The average one, not the kind of person who knows why the size is different.

And frankly, if someone wants to back up 200Gb of data, why don't they get a 300gig HDD, its not like there more than a few Quid more.

HDD's are big and cheap, this is just consumer stupidity and seemingly taking a stand over a non issue.

[Reid B. @ Oct 22nd 2007 3:26PM]

This is moronic. Let's sue someone over mathematics we don't understand! Hurray!

If you don't know what you are doing, you shouldn't be buying the product. It's that simple. The notion that Seagate is ripping anyone off is ludicrous. They are a good company. If you want to sue somebody, sue someone who has it comin' - like Apple. :-)

[Paul @ Oct 22nd 2007 3:26PM]

poor Seagate

[tn @ Oct 22nd 2007 3:41PM]

who cares
just ship the 1tb externals already seagate
thank you

[John @ Oct 22nd 2007 5:44PM]

yeah, but then you just know they'll get sued for 9.1% "discrepancy".

[Traveler @ Oct 22nd 2007 4:05PM]

I got an email from them. I wonder how they got my email address...

[echiu @ Oct 22nd 2007 4:21PM]

This is just money in the pockets of the law firm. While some class action lawsuits are essential to corporate responsibility to the customer (think epson auto-emptying ink cartridges), it's quite clear that these guys don't give two cents about the company or the consumers.

These guys are the reason that people (sometimes unfairly) have a blanket distaste for all lawyers.

[KC @ Oct 22nd 2007 4:29PM]

That is very sad. Sad that the judge didn't throw it out in the very first place.

[Pete @ Oct 22nd 2007 4:45PM]

I got the e-mail too. The claim form asks for name (including middle initial), address, e-mail, date of purchase, price, serial number, and merchant. To get the 5% money back (rather than software), you HAVE to use the mail-in form and send in "Proof of Purchase (store receipt, credit card statement or bank statement) that shows ALL the “Purchase Information” above." Sounds like a sneaky way to get a lot of marketing data and make millions for the lawyers at the same time. The 5% is only on the net (excluding taxes and rebates), so most individuals are going to get the usual piddly amount. And if they "deem" you ineligible for the money rebate, you still end up with just software (as long as you check the right box -- otherwise you end up with nothing). And you CANNOT opt out online -- you have to mail in a written request listing all said personal information. Sleazy. What gets me is all the trees that are sacrificed to all the paper for suits like this...

[bitethisbullet @ Oct 22nd 2007 5:48PM]

Maybe we should sick Green Peace on the lawyers. It would be a battle royal, I'd even fork out the exorbitant Pay-Per-View prices to watch.

[BestSnowman @ Oct 22nd 2007 5:56PM]

1 GB IS NOT 2^30
1 GB IS 1E10
1 GiB is 2^30

That said, the only way seagate would be misrepresenting their product is if they listed a 500GB drive as 500GiB drive.

[Stephan @ Oct 22nd 2007 6:13PM]

The problem is that the SI definition of a GigaByte is 10^9 bytes. That is the official definition. The operating systems report gibibytes(i know it sounds like a dumb as word but it is official) which is defined as 2^30.

So technically the hard drive manufacturers are reporting the numbers correctly and the operating systems are reporting incorrectly.

[Austin @ Oct 22nd 2007 6:31PM]

Of course, no one in these lawsuits mentions the fact that this is common practice, and that only the uneducated buy a drive expecting Windows' and the drive manufacturer's numbers to match!

Hell, next there will be a lawsuit for Microsoft, Sun, Mac, etc under-representing the drives sizes!

[Ken @ Oct 22nd 2007 6:32PM]

I think that (a) anyone who is involved in filing this suit (the plaintiffs; the plaintiffs' lawyers), (b) anyone who allowed this suit to move forward (the presiding judge), and (c) anyone who benefits from it (the lawyers, mostly; the consumers, a little) is actively promoting and rewarding ignorance of mathematics and the most basic of computer concepts. This is like bringing a class action suit against all breakfast cereal manufacturers because consumers of cereal are so clueless they don't understand that "net weight" has little to do with how full the cereal box appears to be. I have purchased and used many Seagate products for many years (as well as hard drive products from other manufacturers), and would never consider profiting in any way from yet another attempt to reward consumers who don't make any effort to understand what it is they're buying. How about bringing a class action suit against the inventor of both the binary and decimal number systems for originating this confusion in the first place? Or perhaps a solution would be to ban the use of numbers altogether, and just force drive manufacturers to make larger-capcity hard drives look and feel physically larger than smaller-capacity drives. Then buying a hard drive and buying an onion would require the same level of consumer knowledge. This suit is just so ridiculous...it is not pro-consumer, because it rewards consumers for not knowing what they're doing...what a complete waste of time and resources.

[Waruwaru @ Oct 22nd 2007 7:12PM]

To screw the lawyers, lawyers should get their cut of all the extra spaces combined in floppy disks. The 5.25 floppies with single density.

[wssddc @ Oct 23rd 2007 12:52AM]

I got an email about this, but even if it is valid, it looks bogus. The plain text says www.harddrive-settlement.com, but the real base URL is http://content.dynamicmessenger.com/. My email program notices the discrepancy and won't even let me click on the link. So is this a scam trying to get me to go to a website that will do something nasty or just incompetence sending emails that look like a scam?