The case
Willem Vroegh v. Eastman Kodak Company is a class action complaint that alleges that the defendants, "In marketing, advertising and/or packaging their Flash Memory Cards and Flash Memory Drives, Defendants misrepresent the size of the memory storage contained in the Flash Memory Cards and Flash Memory Drives."[1] The complaint accuses the defendants of "false advertising, unfair business practices, breach of contract, fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation, and violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedy Act".
The complaint, case number CGC-04-428953, was originally filed in Superior Court of the State of California for the county of San Francisco on February 20, 2004. The compaint was first filed under "Willem Vroegh vs. Dane Elec Corp., USA, A Foreign Corporation et al", but Dane-Elec settled out of court and was dismissed from the case on March 15, 2005, thus Eastman Kodak became the first defendant. Scott Witthoff was added for the Third Amended Complaint as an equal co-plaintiff to Vroegh.
The complaint specifically named[2]:
- Dane Elec Corp. USA
- Fuji Film USA, Inc.
- Eastman Kodak Company
- Kingston Technology Corporation
- Lexar Media, Inc.
- Memorex Products, Inc.
- P.N.Y. Electronics, Inc.
- Sandisk Corporation
- Verbatim Corporation
- Viking Components Incorporated
- And up to 200 defendants "to be named at a later date".
The basis for the complaint is the apparent loss in hard drive capacity that is caused by the difference between the the measurements calculated using the binary prefix and SI prefix systems.
Settlement
On August 16, 2006, there was a proposed final judgement on a proposed settlement[3] and on November 1, 2006, LexisNexis reported in their "California Legal News" that the settlement agreement calls for $2.4M in attorney fees[4].
In the end, five defendants chose to, or were unable to settle out of court. The five remaining defendants in the complaint[5] were: Eastman Kodak Company, Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc., Lexar Media, Inc., PNY Technologies, Inc., and SanDisk Corporation.
Attorneys for the plaintiff
The lawfirm of Adam Gutride and Seth Safier, Gutride Safier, LLP, has been involved in other significant class action lawsuits in California from which they received significant payments and which have been cited as classic examples of frivolous lawsuits that called into question the true motivation[6] of these particular attorneys. Two of the most notable class actions brought by Gutride Safier are the Netflix v. Chavez class action that was settled when the defendants agreed to pay Gutride Safier $2.5 million[7] and the Orin Safier v. Western Digital Corporation class action that was settled when the defendants agreed to pay Gutride Safier $500,000[8]. The Western Digital case involved the same "binary vs decimal calculation" issue as the Vroegh v. Eastman Kodak case. In each of these cases, the named plaintiff was awarded $1000 to $2000 "for their time and effort"[9], while rest of the class comparatively little.
Even though Netflix agreed to pay $2.5 million, the Judge in the case ultimately awarded Gutride Safier only $1.3 million[10]
On June 23, 2003, Gutride and Safier brought a Business Tort complaint against numerous defendants, including: Amazon.com, Target Corporation, Wal-Mart Corporation, Dell, Good-Guys, and many others for false and deceptive advertising of MP3 players on the same "binary vs decimal calculation" issue[11]. Ultimately, the complaint was dismissed on March 14, 2005. The plaintiff in this case, Matthew Leffert, and his attroneys, Seth Safier and Adam Gutride happened to be co-sponsors of the 2004 San Francisco Jewish Film Festival[12]. In addition, Matthew Leffert and Seth Safier also competed in the 2002 Marin Trail 1/2 Marathon[13] and the 2006 Angel Island 12K race[14].
References
- ^ Third Amended Complaint Vroegh TAC
- ^ Willem Vroegh v Dane Elec Corp USA, et al - Filed February 20, 2004
- ^ Proposed Final Judgement Vroegh Proposed Final Judgement
- ^ California Legal News LexisNexis
- ^ Party Contacts Flash Memory Settlement
- ^ Is It a Real Class Action Settlement, or Is It a Scam? Both Reason Magazine Online
- ^ Netflix Settles Class Action Lawsuit BetaNews
- ^ Western Digital Settles Capacity Suit BetaNews
- ^ "What are the Attorneys’ Fees for the Case?"Vroegh FAQ #13
- ^ Judge approves Netflix settlement of 'throttling' case Mercury News - AP Wire
- ^ Leffert v. Amazon.com, Inc - Case Number: CGC-03-421769
- ^ SFJFF.org Sponsors list
- ^ envirosports.com Marin Trail 1/2 Marathon Results, 2002
- ^ athleteslounge.com Angel Island 12K & 25K - 17th annual - Results