![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-529488-100x100.png\")
Consumer win! Nicely done - I'm sure the law knowledge helped immensely. $400 lost > PR snafu and extended litigation.
3 replies
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already: $400 Lost > 2 hours of their general council's time.
Consumer win! Nicely done - I'm sure the law knowledge helped immensely. $400 lost > PR snafu and extended litigation.
@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already: $400 Lost > 2 hours of their general council's time.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-465667-100x100.png\")
Well this is a perfect opportunity for anyone else who has dropped their Kindle to copy this letter and send it in.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1053930-100x100.png\")
@GyroMight: Remember, the codes stated in the letter apply only to the laws in the state of California. If you reside elsewhere, you may want to do some reasearch and substitute the regulations as they apply to your state of residence.
Damn. Just Damn. Law school rules!
@rocketbear79: I don't know why people are so eager to go to court. Court is generally not a positive process for people without teams of lawyers and/or stacks of money.
Maybe the guy should buy a replacement and a better padded bag???!?!
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1202787-100x100.png\")
i dunno about this one...sure the video is meant to show durability, but did Paul's bag drop to the ground as slowly as the Kindle in the video? Maybe it fell too fast, and that's why it broke. If I'm going to be clumsy enough to drop expensive electronics, I make them fall as slow as possible.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-436259-100x100.png\")
@DannyJD: Good one. Made me giggle.
Other people DO have a point in that there ARE idiots out there who don't know about gravity and fancy things like that.
@ubermex: Sure you can. Here's a few options:
-Drop the Kindle through a more viscous medium than air (i.e. water, oil, molasses, etc)
-Drop the Kindle on the Moon (or any other location with lower gravity than earth)
-Drop the Kindle in an incredibly strong magnetic field
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-793795-100x100.png\")
@unpolloloco: Not nice. Please allow the poster to maintain his sense of superiority even if his sarcasm sensors are out of whack. He might need the ego boost.
@ubermex: Unless the bag somehow hit the ground at terminal velocity, no. It should have fallen at a releative speed if not less. If you can make an object fall at terminal velocity by simply dropping it within a height of 3 feet then I need to contact you so I may make a lot of money and retire.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-537475-100x100.png\")
@DannyJD: They dropped the kindle from what appears to be two feet. Paul says his Kindle dropped from what appears to be two feet. There shouldn't have been a difference in impact because you can't drop anything faster - you can throw it or push it, so it hits the ground harder, but you can't drop something and will it to get to the bottom faster.
@unpolloloco: Point, and match.
You forgot dropping the Kindle above a giant fan, where the upstream wind matches or is close to the speed of downward gravitational pull.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-129735-100x100.png\")
@pecan 3.14159265: I am not picking on your comment...I just needed someone to respond to.
The difference between the Amazon Video drop and the OP drop was the addition of a messenger bag (with some protective padding), and a laptop computer (and possibly some other paperwork, accessories and other personal items).
The weight of the Kindle is approximately 10oz (0.625lbs). When this is fropped from a height of 2 feet, the device experiences an impact force of 1.25ft-lbs.
A Macbook weighs about 4.7lbs. Adding the weight of the bag, the Kindle and other belongings, his pag likely weighed approximately 5.5lbs. When dropped from 2 feet, the bag and its contents experienced an impact force of approximately 11ft-lbs, almost ten times that of the Kindle alone. While it is reasonable to assume that the kindle will be dropped, Amazon can't anticipate every situation, and to design for an impact force 10 or 20 times (if I had a larger laptop computer) that of the device alone may be going to far.
The video and the OP's circumstances are not comperable, and therefore any claims of \"false advertising\" as noted in the previous comment thread can not be made.
@Rachacha: I don't think it matters what else was in the bag. From what I can gather from the letter, the fact that it was in the messenger bag and what else was in it is a moot point, since the amazon rep didn't dispute his version of events, and instead chose the reason for denying warranty as the kindle dropping at all.
@Rachacha: If the Kindle was at the bottom of the bag this is true, or if the bag and its contents were acting as a solid body. By definition hey weren't a solid body.
It is quite possible that the Kindle was at the top of the bag, experiencing only the added force of whatever fabric was above it and benefitting from the cushioning of the padded bag at the point of impact.
It's possible the Kindle experienced more force than the one in the video did, but that cannot be stated with anything approaching certainty. The range of potential forces on the Kindle exceeds the implied warrantee at the top end, perhaps, but is cleanly below it at the bottom end.
@PeterFS: You can't say with certainty that the Kindle was on the top or bottom of the bag.
You can say with certainty that the customer, not Amazon, is responsible for packing and transportation of the device once it's in the customer's hands.
@Rachacha: You can respond to anyone, delete the html tags and it'll still show up in this particular post.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-545915-100x100.png\")
@kexline: I personally thought this was enough of a sarcasm tag, \"If I'm going to be clumsy enough to drop expensive electronics, I make them fall as slow as possible.\" but clearly I was mistaken. I still found it funny :)
@DannyJD: Unless Amazon did their test on the moon, I'm pretty sure they'd drop at the same rate. Unless the Kindle reaches terminal velocity at 24 inches.
correction: $400 lost < 2 hours of their general council's time.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-498964-100x100.png\")
I wonder if that other guy is regretting getting Amazon to take back their money from his wife's dropped Kindle.
putting that law degree to work. whoa.
Thank you for increasing the price for the rest of us.
You don't seriously think making Amazon pay is anything different than making Amazon's customers pay, right? Every penny that Amazon pays out is a penny paid in by someone buying their stuff.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1274025-100x100.png\")
@nonzenze: If a company misrepresents a product, they're liable for any damages that misrepresentation causes---period!
@nonzenze: You're suffering from the cost-price fallacy. The retail price of a Kindle is the price at which the number of units offered for sale = the number of units demanded by consumers. If Amazon could charge more and still sell as many as it wants to sell, it would do so, settlements and lawsuits notwithstanding.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-318831-100x100.png\")
@nonzenze: Going by your argument, one should always refuse any and all warranty coverage on one's purchases, since expecting a company to pay for defective or covered-by-warranty damage just increases the price for everyone else.
Fail.
@nonzenze: Generally speaking yes...even though companies get deductions for tax purposes on settlements like this, in the end the consumer always pays. The company will need to increase their net income to match the expense (in theory) or risk a share price reduction...do they do it? Debatable.
An increase of a penny across the board on all prices would likely result in reimbursement for the company for all these settlements and then some. No consumer would really care, but the net effect is that everyone ends up paying more for other people's accidents and/or abuse.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-86968-100x100.png\")
@nonzenze: This is true if and only if Amazon has an absolute monopoly on any of the goods it sells. If they increase prices, people can choose to buy Sony readers, or physical books from other retailers.
@nonzenze: That's how it's supposed to work. Businesses are better equipped to accept the risk of a product, etc. because they are able to spread that risk out over the base of consumers purchasing the product. It's an economically efficient method of distributing risk.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-66824-100x100.png\")
@nonzenze: I don't know if that's necessarily true. There is \"price of doing business\" calculation that I think already accounts for incidentals like this and is reflected in product pricing. And the man had every right to seek reparation.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-568700-100x100.png\")
@nonzenze: As the company who manufactures (not literally, it's probably subbed out) and whose name is branded on the product, they are making themselves liable for the durability and reliability. I don't see how this is raising prices for anybody. Someone is taking advantage of the claims of durability they made in the video. It did not perform as advertised. What's the problem?
The floor in the video looks like it is a rubber mat, not tile as was his claim. I think if the video was used with a harder tile floor the results would have been dramatically worse.
@LVSinner: This makes sense, since one of Paul's arguments was that his Kindle didn't bounce like it did in the video. If it was a rubber mat, it would bounce.
@pecan 3.14159265: Actually, a rubber mat would tend to absorb energy from a collision and not promote a bounce. It looks more like an inelastic collision (if you ignore the Kindle frame twisting.)
It seems like a hard surface, because at around :20 when the tip of the Kindle touches the surface...The plastic on the tip shatters and you can see a small white debris cloud. I don't think that would happen with a rubber mat.
@pecan 3.14159265: This is one of my favorite \"Me and My dad\" stories:
My dad and I were shopping at Sams for Christmas gifts for our extended relatives. We were down the kitchen aisle and I said, \"What about that bowl, Aunt Rhonda could use it maybe.\" it was just a clear glass mixing bowl.. and my dad picked it up to look at it and somehow accidentally dropped it.
The floor inside Sams is concrete.
That bowl bounced atleast 5 times, with a huge THWWAANGG sound for each bounce, but it did NOT break.
We were both laughing so hard.. mostly of embarassment. With a noise like that everyone looks at you. Dad picked it up off the floor and carefully put it back on the shelf. \"That's a nice bowl, for somebody else.\"
@Kimaroo - No Stars Upon Thars: Nothing is indestructible. Everything that exists has something that can destroy it. But some things are more durable than others.
I own a set of nice glass plates, that are made of the same glass as a car's windshield. I've had clumsy dinner guests inflict all sorts of things upon those plates, and they just bounce.
There's a big difference between shatter-resistant (corelle, windshields) and shatter-proof (not actually true, just stronger)
@Kimaroo - No Stars Upon Thars: Wow. I'm lucky enough to have Corelle plates and bowls and recently my cat got into my dishes cabinet and sent several things flying. I was in another room, and hear the crash crash of things falling out of the cabinet, several things bounced but at the end of it all there was a bounce bounce SMASH noise.
@Oranges w/ Cheese wants it to be winter already: Ewww... So they really can break? I was thinking that I might get those if/when I want to replace my dishes that I already have. We've broken a couple of things and because of the tv commercials (har har) I thought they weren't breakable.
Maybe you could send them a strongly worded letter with that clip of the runway models.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-488475-100x100.png\")
@Kimaroo - No Stars Upon Thars: Yes, Corelle CAN break, but unlike my thumbprint glass tumblers, if you drop it in the sink while handwashing i (grr!!), it probably won't.
@HogwartsAlum: That seems to be the trouble for me, I've chipped one of my bowls and busted the handle off one of my \"onion soup\" bowls. I super-glued the handle back on and it just recently popped off again. Might try gorrilla glue next.
@Kimaroo - No Stars Upon Thars: I haven't had much luck with Gorilla Glue, but then I tried to glue the mirror back on my car with it...heh. I guess that wasn't a good use of it!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-400379-100x100.png\")
@Kimaroo - No Stars Upon Thars: yeah the Corelle dishes we have break very easily. There is no way they would survive the way the ones in the commercial do. Maybe a letter is in order.
@CompyPaq: Wild. My wife keeps hoping ours will break so she can justify replacing them. Had a set since about 1996 and we've lost one bowl thus far.
Awesome that this guy got what he expected, but even more awesome that Amazon complied. Them losing $400 but keeping a customer and generating positive PR about this is infinitely greater than keeping $400, losing a customer, and getting a TON of bad publicity like so many others have.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-929652-100x100.png\")
This is made of all kinds of awesome. Kudos to Amazon for using some logic and just going with it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-270824-100x100.png\")
You know, I bet this guy is surprised when the McDonalds cheeseburger he ordered looks nothing like the one in the picture.
Most people realize that advertisments are all lies.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1258615-100x100.png\")
@ThinkerTDM: @ThinkerTDM: @H3ion: Which is precisely why so many people found that scene so entertaining - most of us with brains and spines are sick of that crap,
and also why there needs to be a law that pictures are actually of a real corresponding sandwich, or (not quite as good but better than the current status quo) just words with no picture representation. Selling based on lies and fabrications should NOT be an accepted reality, it should be fraud punishable by fines. Just because you have settled and sold your soul for nothing doesn't mean I or anybody else should.
Consumers have a right to know not only the ingredients in and volume of their damn food but the quality of preparation too.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-21984-100x100.png\")
@ThinkerTDM: The big hamburger serving clown got spanked years ago when their cherry pie food thing box had pictures of a bunches of cherries on it yet the actual cherry pie food thing had only one to three cherries or cherry pieces in it. I think I even remember Letterman disecting one of the things...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-88249-100x100.png\")
@ThinkerTDM: There's a difference in the two. The burger you receive from a fast food restaurant is a couple bucks and made by inexperienced and non-willing employees. The Kindle he bought is $400 and the video test is supposed to put skeptical consumers over the edge on buying an expensive product. I'm sure there are plenty of kindles out there that have survived 5 foot falls, but I'm also sure there are many out there that have died from 2 foot falls.
@Moosehawk: I guess I am still confused at how they are different.
1. They both are trying to get someone to buy a product.
2. They both show a product that doesn't exist- a cheeseburger that looks good, a kindle that can survive a drop.
Also- the kindle was probably made in China, by workers making less than a burger flipper.
So, I stand by what I said in my original post: all advertising are lies- without regard to the actual cost of the product.
@ThinkerTDM: There's a Michael Douglas movie, \"Falling Down\", that goes right into that argument. He winds up shooting up a fast food restaurant because the burger he receives looks nothing like the burger on the picture. When I took advertising photo courses, we learned how to make a hamburger look like fillet mignon. There were actually food stylists who worked with the food the same way hair stylists work with a model. It was absolutely incredible. The fact is, what you actually receive will never look like the photo because it can't, unless there are stylists working the grills at McDonalds.
@H3ion: Or make like McDonalds Japan and actually make the pictures look like what you'll be getting. Now their advertising got them in a bit of hot water as referenced in an earlier Consumerist post, but that's better than the food not looking like the picture, I think. It'd be even better if they offered the same Happy Meal toys as in Japan too. Oh, and the Bacon Potato Pie, the Filet-O-Shrimp, the Cheese Croquette burger, the list goes on...
@jamar0303: EXACTLY - if they do it in Japan, no reason they can't do it here too. Tell all the paid marketing liars with invalid jobs to go pound salt and reap what they sow - making a living lying to people.
@Areyouagoodlittleconsumer: When I lived in Florida, there was a fast food chain called Steak & Shake. Their tag line was 'In sight, it must be right', meaning that what you saw on their in-restaurant posters was what the food was supposed to look like. And it did. Exactly. I've never eaten anywhere before or since in the U.S. that did that, and I don't know if Steak & Shake still does, but I hope they do. I still remember them because of it, 30 years later.
I'm always troubled by an expectation that the consumer bears no responsibility for his/her own screwups. If I dropped my netbook from two feet, and it hit in a way that damaged the screen, is that my fault or the fault of the manufacturer? Should I demand that the device be repaired or replaced at no cost to me, or should I accept the fact that the damage was due to my own negligence? Personally, I think Mr. Gowder's letter was overkill but I can't imagine a large corporation going to litigation over a $400 claim, especially Amazon which I've found to be generally very responsive to consumers. I think that failure to accept personal responsibility for some, not all but some, damage is one factor that is driving up the costs for everyone.
@H3ion: It appears that he tried to get customer service to solve the issue but they failed so he brought out the big gun to prove to them why the issue should be addresses. By only pricing his request at $400 he made it very easy for Amazon to comply.
Kudos also to him as identifying the broken one as evidence so it doesn't disappear into the void though it is reasonable for Amazon to want it back.
I have worked warranty cases related to automotive and truck industry parts and the part supplier/ manufacturer usually wants the parts returned for failure review or to ensure they are not repaired/reused. In some cases the parts were sometimes too large to ship back so we had mechanics run the replaced parts over with forklifts and send digital pictures back. Conversely one oem manufacturer was paying a bunch of claims on a suppliers's parts and not sending anything back or any communication so it was a big mess when someone finally asked the right question. Recall is a dirty word in that industry especially for smaller suppliers which would fold up versus paying for a recall campaign...
@H3ion: Next up on consumerist: 'waterproof' watch killed by sinkful of water, owner has to threaten to sue to get a new one, is attacked by indignant readers who say tough luck & it's his own fault for getting the watch wet in the first place.
@P41: Timex used to show a demonstration where they attached a watch to an outboard motor and ran it in a tub of water. At the end of the commercial, John Cameron Swayze (who once was a respected newsman) would take the watch out and day \"It's still ticking.\" Now if you took a Timex and attached it to an outboard motor (you should really wait until the motor is turned off before attaching it) would you expect it to survive? This is a $20 watch in today's dollars.
I don't think that any consumer electronics are designed to be bounced around or dropped from two feet without expecting any damage. Even the ruggedized computers that are carried by our service men and women are not going take unlimited abuse.
Amazon's ad, in my opinion, is akin to attaching a watch to an outboard motor. And the reason the Kindle bounces in the ad is because the surface is a rubber pad or a shock absorber.
If something doesn't perform as advertised, by all means, get recourse because you're entitled to what you were told you were buying, but not everything that breaks is the fault of the manufacturer and I think Mr. Gowder shared some responsibility here.
@H3ion: Yes I would expect the watch to survive, since it's been advertised that way. If devices shouldn't be expected to survive something, the people who know most about that sort of thing (namely the people selling it, but specifically the people showing video of exactly that test) shouldn't misrepresent the product.
So, if the Kindle is not designed to be dropped from two feet without expecting damage, perhaps it's more than a little inappropriate to provide a video of the device being dropped from two feet and implying it suffered no damage.
It's strange that you say \"if something doesn't perform as advertised...you're entitled...\" but then say \"not everything that breaks is the fault of the manufacturer\". Both are absolutely true. But again, when the type of damage is specifically shown to be damage the device is capable of sustaining, but the device doesn't survive, then the device isn't performing as advertised.
(Since few accidental falls occur over rubber mats, it's not unreasonable to think something more typical like a messenger bag would perform a similar role)
@P41: I think part of the problem here is that there is no set standard for durability with respect to the Kindle. For example, there is an ISO 2281 standard that defines the water resistance of watches. My Garmin handheld GPS unit is IPX-8 compliant for water resistance.
A simple video showing a drop test introduces way too many variables into the picture, and really shouldn't be used as any kind of proof of durability.
@Quasigizmodo: If your average consumer would understand it as a promise of durability, that's what matters.
If it looks like a standard Kindle dropping two feet onto a tile and surviving, then that's what it is, and that's the promise Amazon are making.
The alternative would allow advertisers to display all sorts of features, and then claim \"ah well, that was a specially reinforced model, dropped under lunar gravity onto a block of invisi-foam.\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-930037-100x100.png\")
@Quasigizmodo:
I think what you've described is the best argument AGAINST the OP. A simple online video, with no specifics, doesn't really give you enough information to know what kind of drop it will actually survive. It also doesn't show what the devices operational state after the fall is.
@H3ion: Should you be responsible for your screw up dropping the net book? Maybe, maybe not. If the netbook was specifically marketed to be durable and that is a specific reason why you bought it then I would say no, you shouldn't be obligated to purchase a new one without compensation.
@Moosehawk:
Define durable. From what height, and specific impact angle, should it be able to survive a drop unscathed? I think it's unreasonable to buy a consumer-level product, even if marketed as \"durable\", and expect it to survive any and every drop onto concrete. We're not talking about a guy who dropped it onto grass, dirt, carpet or his couch. It was dropped onto concrete (or brick, depending on the makeup of the sidewalk). Unless you're buying something like a Toughbook that is marketed as being essentially bulletproof, I think that it's simply unreasonable to expect to be able to drop a consumer electronic device onto concrete and have it continue to function every time.
@Esquire99: Amazon defined \"durable\" by making the drop test and promoting it. They marketed it as being durable in that situation or, most likely, similar situations.
Amazon *could* argue that the OP's Kindle wasn't dropped at the right angle for \"durability\" or that the floor was different, or the height was off (or whatever). But they're not arguing with the OP that his Kindle should have survived the drop as he described it.
If they hadn't make that video, I would completely agree that it's not Amazon's problem. But they did. They'd be hypocrites to not stand by their product.
I say this as a 3/3 lawyer.
@billy: I am persuaded by the video, but I still have a hard time with the proposition that because it survived that fall on video that it should be expected to survive any fall under any circumstances, which is what the OP seems to expect. The fall his endured was different from the one in the video. I think it was fair of them to offer to replace it for 1/2 price, given that it's unreasonable to expect it to survive any and all falls.
That said, I'm not sure that they'd win in court. That video is pretty convincing evidence that the device was \"Advertised\" as being able to withstand a fall onto a hard surface.
I'm really somewhat torn on this one, though I still think that it's a bit overkill to expect them to replace the product for free because he dropped it, even if it was advertised as being durable.
@Esquire99: \"I still have a hard time with the proposition that because it survived that fall on video that it should be expected to survive any fall under any circumstances, which is what the OP seems to expect.\"
Where did you get 'under any circumstances' from?
He describes the way he dropped his Kindle as similar to the drop in the video, and that's why he expected it to survive.
@Esquire99: Yeah, it's hard to say what would happen in court. On the other hand, the attorney exercised a skill that most lawyers should have: make an offer that you think you opponent will take.
@billy:
Agreed. All the practical aspects aside, I think the letter is brilliant. It's not terribly threatening (to the point it would be ignored), but it cites the applicable law and gives them an easy out. And really, he \"won,\" so what else can be said?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-406173-100x100.png\")
\"I have to agree with Billy. The video is basically an express warranty.\"
I disagree. The video promotes the device's durability. It does not warranty that the consumer has no reasonable expectation to care for their device or that Amazon will reimburse any customer that claims they dropped the device at the same height.
Further, the OP provides no evidence of how he dropped the device. Let's pretend this became a gazillion dollar lawsuit. Wanna make a bet that forensic examination casts doubt on the OP's claim he only dropped it two feet?
Even if a court said the video was an express warranty, the burden would be on the consumer, not Amazon to show that the device failed under those conditions. Good luck with that, right?
I think Amazon is in the clear. There would have to be widespread Kindle failures for implied reasons of shock and impact for that video to be \"on trial\" so to speak.
That's my take...
@twophrasebark: The OP's duty to care for his device is not relevant in an accident that Amazon implied the device would survive.
And forensic examination? Come on. If this did become a class action, tests would be done to determine the Kindle's durability. No-one's going to waste their time trying to prove how it was actually dropped.
Anyway, why speculate on how the OP's letter might be wrong in a totally different situation? His response is clever precisely because it was appropriate and successful in this case.
@nofelix: \"No-one's going to waste their time trying to prove how it was actually dropped.\"
You are completely wrong.
In fact, they would and they do. Apple regularly rejects items under warranty if you have set off internal and/or external water detection markers. They may also have internal accelerometer measurements. The Kindle may have such implementations as well.
This is precisely because everyone who breaks their personal electronics says \"Uh, I didn't do nothing\" or in this case \"I did something but your video said it would survive.\"
I bet you my broken iPod that examination would show the guy is full of crapola.
@twophrasebark: Pictures and videos can and often do constitute express warranties as explained above.
What exactly that warranty would be in this case is a question. The OP would claim that the warranty is that the Kindle is very durable. True Amazon would claim no warranty (though that argument would likely fail). Amazon would further argue if there is a warranty it is not as encompassing as the OP claims.
That would take on to roughly the MTD. At that point it would be determined how broad the warranty was. If it was held that Amazon is warrantying that the Kindle is highly durable it would likely then be for the jury to decide whether the trauma was covered under that warranty. Yes the burden is on the OP to show the device failed under the terms of the warranty but if the court determines the warranty is very wide that may not be such a hard case. If the court determines the warranty is narrow - then true it would be a difficult showing.
@H3ion:
While I think the OP's letter was very well written and has *some* merit, I generally agree with you. Most electronics would break if dropped onto a sidewalk, at least depending on the angle of impact. The fact his MacBook survived doesn't necessarily mean that the Kindle should have. Was the MacBook in a sleeve? Did it impact at the same angle? How were they both positioned in the bag? Even the most durable electronics will have trouble withstanding a 2ft drop onto a sidewalk (save for the Toughbook, etc.).
He dropped his bag and was pissed that he was going to be forced to shell out some $$ to replace his Kindle that HE broke. So he used his legal knowledge and crafted an arguably legitimate claim that Amazon found sufficient to warrant a $400 check. As 2/3 of a lawyer, I think the general idea is brilliant and creative, albeit a bit sleazy. However, as a general consumer, I think this is overkill and that his expectations for the durability of consumer-grade electronics, especially when pitted against concrete, are too high.
@TheUncleBob: Given that the Macbook inside (a far more fragile device) came out fine, no. I would have done the same had I a working knowledge of the law after buying a Panasonic laptop and being dissatisfied by its durability. They wanted over US$1500 to repair the screen. Then again, I think they did more than that since it was much more in line with expectations the second time durability was tested (drop-kicked, in fact).
Yikes - I dropped an actual book, and it didn't become unreadable! Am I on to something here? Anyone?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-505944-100x100.png\")
@Quasigizmodo: I'd like to know the average number of 'books' people keep on their electronic readers.
@JulesNoctambule: Doesn't really help, since people have little incentive to delete e-books even if they're unlikely to read them again.
If you think of a graph of e-books over time, it would go upwards until reaching the capacity of the reader. At no point could you say \"Here is where the user had all the books they needed\".
@Quasigizmodo: Most people only read one book at a time...I have several books going right now and I still only read one at a time. Kindle isn't for everyone.
Personally, I will never buy it. I spill stuff on my books because I read while eating. And of course, in the tub; disaster waiting to happen. *shudder*
Tree killer.
Have you not knowledge that you must worship to the digital god of closed application information resource requiring energy harvested from the wind and sun (as least as soon as those are efficient enough- sticking with coal and nuclear power electricty for now...)
What tee's me the most about Kindle is that now that we seem to FINALLY be moving to one integrated digital thing to do everything - phone/computer/games/camera- after years of all that separate and now here is Kindle yet another thing to carry about and recharge and worry about breaking...
On the one hand, I'm really happy for the OP. On the other hand, I think it sucks that it basically took lawyering to make this happen.
I'm sorry - no where in the video I see does Amazon drop the Kindle in a bag with other equipment. Are you saying there's no chance that the force of the drop combined with the force of another item falling on it wasn't greater than what's shown in this video?
@TheUncleBob: I keep my kindle stored in the bottom of my bowling ball bag, and when I dropped my bag on the floor it crushed my Kindle. FALSE ADVERTISING /sarcasm
I made a post above that went into the math of the impact forces involved in a drop. The kindle in a bag with a 4.5lb laptop experienced an impact force 10 times that of the Kindle alone with all other factors remaining equal.
@Rachacha: The Kindle MAY experience those forces, depending on where in the bag it was. You claim that it as a fact, that it \"experienced an impact force 10 times that of the Kindle alone with all other factors remaining equal\", a thoroughly unsubstantiated claim.
Unless you saw the packed bag, you have no idea if the Kindle was on top, bottom, or to the side of the laptop. With the padding in the bag, I could claim that it experienced less impact than the video and still broke -- also an unsubstantiated, but just as valid, claim as yours.
Now the letter writer is also making claims, but he is more knowledgeable than you on the topic and Amazon decided to pay to make him go away.
@Rachacha: Here's an idea...people...buy a seperate padded case (or hard case) for your 300 piece of technology (or whatever it costs now).
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1034061-100x100.png\")
@TheUncleBob: Yeah, he dropped it on concrete (probably several feet) and it was crushed by the other items and unable to dissipate any force by bouncing. The video demonstrates that the Kindle isn't too fragile for handling or tossing on your coffee table, but this douche who thinks he is a lawyer expects indestructibility.
@TheUncleBob: I don't think Paul is necessarily in the right entirely, but I think Amazon just wanted to make him go away.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-580579-100x100.png\")
Ah, but they didn't show the Kindle 2 turning on after the drop test. Tricky, tricky.
@h3llc4t has a slow work day: Amazon would pay a lot of compensation before turning up in court to say \"We never said it turned on afterwards! :D\"
@h3llc4t has a slow work day: Yeah, that was my question too. Sure, it doesn't shatter, but does the thing turn on?
what a dick, he should just ask for a new kindle. not extort them for 200 additional dollars
@viqas: If they thought it was extortion then they could have fought it in court. Amazon.com can definitely afford any legal costs. They paid up, so that's really all that matters.
And as he said, the $200 was for his time and hassle, and ALSO to compensate for the fact that his replacement Kindle would still be less durable than advertised.
@viqas: Uh, he did. They refused. Come on, at least read past the title. Oh wait, you're just trolling. Ha ha, got me.
While it's not really germane to this discussion, Barnes & Noble is coming out with its e-book in the next month and it seems to have a large number of features that the Kindle lacks, like an ability to show content on the device or on a computer or even on a smart phone, and to share content with others. I don't think the price point has been announced but the photos look pretty interesting. Kindle may be in for a race.
@H3ion: It's called the Nook.
Anyone notice the irony? In Dr. Suess' \"One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish\" the Nook was a creature that can't read...
@H3ion: per my comment above: What tee's me the most about Kindle is that now that we seem to FINALLY be moving to one integrated digital thing to do everything - phone/computer/games/camera- after years of all that separate and now here is Kindle yet another thing to carry about and recharge and worry about breaking...
Hopefully both readers use the same source so we don't have a bluray vs. hddvd or vhs vs. beta type battle of the e-book readers...
@econobiker: My problem with the Kindle is that I don't have to pay any extra to read regular books. I understand that Amazon needs to make money off a pretty expensive thing to produce, but I'm not spending hundreds of dollars on a Kindle because the only thing it does is let me read books.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-345620-100x100.png\")
@H3ion: And the announcement is today at 4pm.
I'm most interested in the Nook's ability to lend e-books, a feature the Kindle sorely lacks.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-248249-100x100.png\")
\"Admittedly, if everyone did this it would cease to work\"
The same can be said for EECBs, and it's not necessarily true. It only ceases to work if they call your bluff and discover you are, well, bluffing. If people write letters like this and fully intent to follow through with any threats made, the letters will continue to work.
Dropping something by itself and dropping something inside a weighted bag are completely different things. Anything inside the bag could have been on top of the kindle highly increasing the amount of stress it received during the fall.
This is a case of a lawyer being a lawyer and twisting things in a way that makes it difficult for amazon to say no. This is the sort of thing that increases costs to everyone and this sort of lawyering is exactly the sort of thing most commentators on blogs like consumerist usually rail *against*.
It's turncoat for people to like it just because it's a little guy winning against a big company rather than the other way around. It's still bad lawyering.
Look - Amazon nowhere says \"you're right.\" All they say is, \"OK, we'll pay.\" $400 just isn't worth the time to defend the lawsuit.
Now, if we had losing party pays, Amazon might well have said go ahead and sue.
Lawyers should be shot. ALL of them. Amazon probably decided it was cheaper to do it this way instead of making an example of this guy.
Unless you purchase accidental warranty/protection you and only you should be responsible for the damages.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1055924-100x100.png\")
That letter got me hard.
Way to go!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-64499-100x100.png\")
Well I bet that guy is a LAWYER!!!!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-262414-100x100.png\")
BRAVO!!!!
This makes me want to go to law school just so my strongly worded letters would be awesome.
I think he should NOT have won, NO WAY NO HOW. He had other items in that bag and they could have hit his kindle with a sharp edge and broken it. There is no correlation between the video and what occurred in his incident. I am sorry to see Amazon caved in. I normally am all for customer support when items get damaged but this is ridiculous. No wonder we all hate lawyers now!
If you read the Amazon comments on Kindle, there are many indicating that, if dropped, even from a low height, the Kindle can break. It has a glass screen; it is perhaps the major weakness of this product.
The same is obviously true of a laptop and other electronic equipment. The differenc may be that the Kindle is sold as a reader ... a book replacement. even with a cover ($30 extra), it is slippery. If you fall asleep with the Kindle on your lap, you may wake up with it lying broken on the floor.
For $60.00, Kindle buyers can get an extra year warranty and ONE drop and break no-questions-asked replacement.
The next generation will be plastic and I suspect at that point, the problem will pretty much go away.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-371772-100x100.png\")
This guy is a big douche bag, it's his own fault for dropping it. Plus he has his Macbook, which could have damaged it.
Amazon shouldn't have paid him shit.
So he still has his old Kindle, which the whole story could have been a lie to get a second Kindle, or did he even owned a Kindle in the first place, and he just wanted a free one.
I think it shows to what lengths most people would have to go to force companies to behave in a fair and legal manner. This is what loony preacher Fred Phelps means when he says everyone needs a law degree to get by in today's society.
Or at least a friend with a law degree who's willing to write letters for a price.
Well...2 feet isn't good but it's not horrible. I've thrown electronics further than that and unless it's a sony it's going to break.
I still find the idea of the kindle stupid because reading books that aren't teardown manuals or c# books feels stupid to me. Maybe non-fiction; no book has ever made me re-evaluate things regardless of the awards it's author covets.
Besides...\"Movies give twice the knowledge in half the time!\" (+1 if you get the quote)
In general I'm in favor of consumers milking corporations for whatever they can get but this situation seems more like a greedy lawyer making a threat and getting more than he was entitled by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. It's his fault he dropped it he should have been happy with simply getting a free replacement. On top of that I doubt that Amazon accepted his offer because they felt his claims had merit and would guess it was more because they made a financial decision that paying him 400 bucks would be a lot cheaper for them then paying their lawyers to fight him in court.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-257467-100x100.png\")
Considering how different his conditions were (that surface has more give, greater height (he can say the fall is cushioned but, he couldn't see it, so that's hard to say) other items in the bag (maybe his macbook survived so well because the kindle broke it's fall!)), I'm not sure that Amazon misled him. Is that video even from Amazon? From what I can tell, it's a youtube that a review site put up (but I haven't really investigated).
I'm not saying he's to blame, but I don't think Amazon was in this case. I also think the 400 is overkill, a new Kindle would have been fair.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-175610-100x100.png\")
I saved a copy of that awesome letter for my own use in the future. I almost hope something crappy like that happens to me so I can use it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-612567-100x100.png\")
I should write something like this for my $13,000 AT&T bill, which was THEIR FAULT.
I don't think this is that great.
- He broke the device.
- He made a somewhat dubious claim legally that the device failed to meet Amazon's claims
- Amazon wrote him a $400 check for what is generally known to be a \"nuisance claim.\"
Companies write checks like this all the time. They get hassled for legitimate claims and hassled by people claiming the product caused cosmic radiation to corrode their brains. The companies pay out. It's just easier for them to make you go away.
I don't think these folks are heroes. Mr. Paul probably could have gotten his Kindle replaced by simply writing a letter to Jeff Bezos.
And the truth is, I'm not really sure he deserved to be reimbursed for anything. As I said, his claim that Amazon represents it will replace any products not surviving a drop is probably not going to hold up. If you have a commercial showing a product is durable, then does not legally translate into the company guaranteeing to replace a product when the consumer is at fault.
They gave him $400 because it would have been more expensive to deal with him.
I just want to add that this all sounds \"well and good\" until you realize that the OP never proved or provided any evidence whatsoever that he dropped the device from less than 30 inches.
(As I said in another commnent) even if a court said the video was an express warranty, the burden would be on the consumer, not Amazon to show that the device failed under those conditions. Good luck with that, right?
I think Amazon is in the clear. There would have to be widespread Kindle failures for implied reasons of shock and impact for that video to be \"on trial\" so to speak.
damn, I wish I could write like that
I am surprised there was not a non disclosure attached to the payment. Amazon get ready for the flood of lawsuit threat letters. How long before the drop video disappears?
Someone finally got some justice.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1050308-100x100.png\")
I'm reasonably sure that Class Action threat made someone a little bit worried at Amazon.
Maybe its just the Engineering degree, or the excessive amount of physics classes I have taken, but I do not think Amazon should have shelled out money to him. He said very blatantly in the letter that a Mac Book was also in the bag. Force = Mass * Acceleration, seeing as how the acceleration is constant gravity, and his mac book + kindle mass > kindle mass. He is at fault and h accident is not the same or even a similar event / circumstance as shown in the Amazon video.
@septer012: Yes, force=mass times acceleration. The relevant force here is the force of gravity. The mass involved is the mass of Earth, the mass of the mac book, and the mass of the kindle. We've known since Galileo that a five-pound device and a ten-pound device fall at the exact same speed. (The mass of the planet is so much greater than the mass of a Kindle, or three Kindles, or the Empire State Building, that the resulting force is pretty close to the same.)
Momentum might be relevant, but for that we would need to know the arrangement of objects in the messenger bag: in particular, did the other hardware hit the kindle, or did the two objects hit the ground separately?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-227813-100x100.png\")
This is why I bought an Astak eReader.
People who buy the Kindle are paying for a logo. And beyond that the fact that it doesn't have it's own memory card slot makes me wonder why in the world people buy it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-105855-100x100.png\")
He achieved perfection. Seven of Nine would be proud.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-326180-100x100.png\")
I just want to mention that I left my Sony Reader on top of my car and drove away from my house. When I realized my error, I drove back home and found my Reader in the middle of the road. I was sure it would have been broken from the fall and had probably been run over.
To my surprise, despite falling off my car at 25 MPH, it had only a single (minor) dent and no damage that prevented it from functioning.
rosvicl you are WAY off, first they only fall at the same rate in a vacuum if you wish to get technical. Although the height of this drop would only allow for a slight difference. HOWEVER, lets say the kindle did not even fall but was just laying on the ground but OPPS i dropped my 5 or 20 pound pack on it and an edge hit the screen. OY... my kindle broke and it was just laying on the ground! give me $400 or I will sue (actually I won't due anything I am just a jerk hoping to write a fraudulent letter and hope to get $400 if Amazon is stupid enough).
an add on... i am referring to the shape and weight of a kindle, it is rather feather like and hence DRAG if you take two bowling balls of the same size they would fall at the same rate given your 5 and 10 pound balls, if you take a bowling ball and a kindle that is flat the kindle will tumble and toss and land later. The drag will not give you the 32'/second speed increase that will happen in the vacuum.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1184475-100x100.png\")
I wonder if they'll make it available in Canada, so far the kindle is not.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-890638-100x100.png\")
If anyone ever wonders why a device that costs $45 to manufacter is sold for $200... you can thank whiners like Paul Gowder.
People who use threats of legal action in place of personal responsibility disgust me. The man admitted he dropped it and yet he feels entitled to compensation for his own act.
Does anyone actually wonder why lawyers (and those who pretend to be lawyers) are so dispised?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-552772-100x100.png\")
Amazon should have made him sign an NDA (non-disclosure improvement) before releasing the dollars. It is rather embarrassing their lawyer, Kathryn Sheehan, didn't make him do this. Most people are banned from discussing such settlements.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-149187-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1223549-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-665956-100x100.png\")
That is just purely awesome.
While I applaud the guy for what he did, since when are we supposed to believe all the product claims we see/read/hear in marketing?
@dragonfire81: If a company makes an explicit claim about their product, they had best be able to actually deliver on that claim, or they suffer liability.
They published a drop test result, and used it as a selling point for the durability of their product. They therefore have a serious legal problem if the test was rigged.
@dragonfire81: Nobody said \"all\" genius
@dragonfire81: That's the point. If companies make the statement, then they have to stand by it. There's laws that say so, but since no one holds companies and ad companies accountable, they've claimedwhatever they want about their products for far too long.
@dragonfire81: Since false advertising is illegal. I think this is a pretty explicit warranty of durability.
@dragonfire81: I agree! Amazing composition, epic win!
@dragonfire81: Should be believe everything in marketing? No...but we shouldn't be overtly lied to in that marketing, either. Based on the OP's story, Amazon's video seems to be more than a little misleading.
@dragonfire81: There is an allowance for puffery. The drop test video is more of an explicit claim about the product's durability.