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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We also have no idea as to how the drive had been treated. These portable drives don't take mishandling well.
You do have recourse, it's called backups.
If you value your data, you have them, if you don't, then you don't.
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.
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.
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.
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.