Bumpgate: Difference between revisions

Line 63:

Regardless of if Nvidia was truthful in their report or not, they denied the claims that individuals like Demerjian were making- that their GPUs were defective and failing en masse.<ref name=":11" /> However, by 2010, consumers' trust in Nvidia had eroded to the point that a class action lawsuit was filed because of the defect.

==Nvidia Lawsuit (2010)==

==Nvidia Class-Action Lawsuit (2010)==

In 2008, individuals and companies began filing lawsuits against Nvidia. A total of nine cases were filed that were found to be related, and by 2010, these became a class-action lawsuit.

===Claims===

Class members claimed that Nvidia had manufactured defective GPUs and knowingly failed to compensate them.

Main claims of the suit.

===Rebuttal===

Nvidia denied all allegations of wrongdoing and tried to defend their actions.

The response of Nvidia or counterclaims.

===Outcome===

The ~~outcome~~ of the suit. ~~(Settlement)~~

Nvidia opted for a settlement<ref>{{Cite web |date=2010 |title=Frequently Asked Questions - What can I get from the settlement? |url=http://www.nvidiasettlement.com/faq.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101001080625/http://www.nvidiasettlement.com/faq.html |archive-date=1 Sep 2010 |access-date=13 Jun 2025 |website=The NVIDIA GPU Litigation}}</ref>- though, asserted that the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing. Consumers who participated as Settlement Class Members were presented with three options to be compensated:

# A replacement GPU inside their affected notebook;

# A replacement HP notebook computer with one "similar in kind and value" to the one they owned;

# Reimbursement of either the whole cost of repairing the notebook due to a previous GPU failure or a portion of that amount (dependent on how many people submitted valid claims for reimbursement).

Of course, all the settlement benefits for Class Members were paid for by Nvidia.

The majority of people got their notebooks repaired, but some HP laptops could not be repaired, so they had to be replaced. Many of the systems eligible for the settlement were high-end laptops, originally valued around $1,000 USD. Unfortunately, they were given a budget Compaq Presario CQ56 that was not equivalent in specifications or original value, because it costed approximately how much the three-year-old, defective laptops they replaced were valued at by the time the settlement was reached. Outraged, some of those Class Members contacted Ted Frank from the Center for Class Action Fairness, who promptly filed a complaint with the court. However, US District Chief Judge James Ware ruled in Nvidia's favor, because the Compaq Presario CQ56 "[came] with an advanced operating system, new warranty and other programs".<ref name=":15">{{Cite web |last=DeCarlo |first=Matthew |date=3 May 2011 |title=Customers get shafted in Nvidia class action suit |url=https://www.techspot.com/news/43614-customers-get-shafted-in-nvidia-class-action-suit.html |url-status=live |access-date=13 Jun 2025 |website=TechSpot}}</ref>

==Consumer response==

Line 90:

Line 103:

===Nvidia Consumer Response===

~~Based on various facts (e~~.g., Bumpgate affected the Xbox 360's ''ATI'' graphics processor), Nvidia was likely not fully responsible for the underfill defect. In fact, they alleged in the SEC report that it was their packaging company that caused the problem. However, ~~their appearance of~~ a ~~poor response to~~ the ~~defect ultimately~~ left consumers ~~very~~ angry ~~with~~ the company- ~~enough~~ to ~~prompt a class~~-~~action lawsuit~~.

Many consumers were uncomfortable with purchasing Nvidia's products for several years, because they saw Nvidia as untrustworthy after their perceived response to the Bumpgate scandal. A GPU is one of the most expensive components in a computer, and it's an investment expected to last for approximately as long as the component remains technologically relevant. Therefore, consumers had some right to be cautious when hearing about defective Nvidia GPUs- especially before the defect was publicly acknowledged.

If a product does not last because of a defect, then the company should respect their customer's investment by honoring the warranty- or by recalling the product if the defect is found to be common, as with Bumpgate. Nvidia's SEC report<ref name=":10" /> shows that they appeared to have this intention, and the company informing Dell<ref name=":8" /> and HP<ref name=":7" /> of the defect also seem to demonstrate this. In addition, based on the fact that Bumpgate affected some non-Nvidia processors (such as the Xbox 360's ''ATI'' graphics processor<ref name=":3" />), Nvidia was likely not fully responsible for the underfill defect. In fact, they alleged in the SEC report that it was their packaging company that caused the problem. However, this did not quell consumers' anger at Nvidia, and a class action lawsuit was filed. Unfortunately, the results of that lawsuit and subsequent settlement left consumers still angry and frustrated at the company- especially those who received insufficient compensation, like those who ended up with a budget laptop to replace their high-end laptop.<ref name=":15" /> This only fueled consumer distrust for Nvidia. Although the defect may not have fully been Nvidia's fault, their failure to properly compensate some Class Members when they agreed to settle was unacceptable.

===Misdiagnosis/Poor Repair of Faults===

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 Regardless of if Nvidia was truthful in their report or not, they denied the claims that individuals like Demerjian were making- that their GPUs were defective and failing en masse.<ref name=":11" /> However, by 2010, consumers' trust in Nvidia had eroded to the point that a class action lawsuit was filed because of the defect.
-==Nvidia Lawsuit (2010)==
+==Nvidia Class-Action Lawsuit (2010)==
+In 2008, individuals and companies began filing lawsuits against Nvidia. A total of nine cases were filed that were found to be related, and by 2010, these became a class-action lawsuit.
 ===Claims===
+Class members claimed that Nvidia had manufactured defective GPUs and knowingly failed to compensate them.
 Main claims of the suit.
 ===Rebuttal===
+Nvidia denied all allegations of wrongdoing and tried to defend their actions. <!-- Needs expansion; what specifically did Nvidia do to defend themselves? -V -->
 The response of Nvidia or counterclaims.
 ===Outcome===
-The outcome of the suit. (Settlement)
+Nvidia opted for a settlement<ref>{{Cite web |date=2010 |title=Frequently Asked Questions - What can I get from the settlement? |url=http://www.nvidiasettlement.com/faq.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101001080625/http://www.nvidiasettlement.com/faq.html |archive-date=1 Sep 2010 |access-date=13 Jun 2025 |website=The NVIDIA GPU Litigation}}</ref>- though, asserted that the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing. Consumers who participated as Settlement Class Members were presented with three options to be compensated:
+# A replacement GPU inside their affected notebook;
+# A replacement HP notebook computer with one "similar in kind and value" to the one they owned;
+# Reimbursement of either the whole cost of repairing the notebook due to a previous GPU failure or a portion of that amount (dependent on how many people submitted valid claims for reimbursement).
+Of course, all the settlement benefits for Class Members were paid for by Nvidia.
+The majority of people got their notebooks repaired, but some HP laptops could not be repaired, so they had to be replaced. Many of the systems eligible for the settlement were high-end laptops, originally valued around $1,000 USD. Unfortunately, they were given a budget Compaq Presario CQ56 that was not equivalent in specifications or original value, because it costed approximately how much the three-year-old, defective laptops they replaced were valued at by the time the settlement was reached. Outraged, some of those Class Members contacted Ted Frank from the Center for Class Action Fairness, who promptly filed a complaint with the court. However, US District Chief Judge James Ware ruled in Nvidia's favor, because the Compaq Presario CQ56 "[came] with an advanced operating system, new warranty and other programs".<ref name=":15">{{Cite web |last=DeCarlo |first=Matthew |date=3 May 2011 |title=Customers get shafted in Nvidia class action suit |url=https://www.techspot.com/news/43614-customers-get-shafted-in-nvidia-class-action-suit.html |url-status=live |access-date=13 Jun 2025 |website=TechSpot}}</ref>
 ==Consumer response==
@@ Line 90: / Line 103: @@
 ===Nvidia Consumer Response===
-Based on various facts (e.g., Bumpgate affected the Xbox 360's ''ATI'' graphics processor), Nvidia was likely not fully responsible for the underfill defect. In fact, they alleged in the SEC report that it was their packaging company that caused the problem. However, their appearance of a poor response to the defect ultimately left consumers very angry with the company- enough to prompt a class-action lawsuit.
+Many consumers were uncomfortable with purchasing Nvidia's products for several years, because they saw Nvidia as untrustworthy after their perceived response to the Bumpgate scandal. A GPU is one of the most expensive components in a computer, and it's an investment expected to last for approximately as long as the component remains technologically relevant. Therefore, consumers had some right to be cautious when hearing about defective Nvidia GPUs- especially before the defect was publicly acknowledged.
+If a product does not last because of a defect, then the company should respect their customer's investment by honoring the warranty- or by recalling the product if the defect is found to be common, as with Bumpgate. Nvidia's SEC report<ref name=":10" /> shows that they appeared to have this intention, and the company informing Dell<ref name=":8" /> and HP<ref name=":7" /> of the defect also seem to demonstrate this. In addition, based on the fact that Bumpgate affected some non-Nvidia processors (such as the Xbox 360's ''ATI'' graphics processor<ref name=":3" />), Nvidia was likely not fully responsible for the underfill defect. In fact, they alleged in the SEC report that it was their packaging company that caused the problem. However, this did not quell consumers' anger at Nvidia, and a class action lawsuit was filed. Unfortunately, the results of that lawsuit and subsequent settlement left consumers still angry and frustrated at the company- especially those who received insufficient compensation, like those who ended up with a budget laptop to replace their high-end laptop.<ref name=":15" /> This only fueled consumer distrust for Nvidia. Although the defect may not have fully been Nvidia's fault, their failure to properly compensate some Class Members when they agreed to settle was unacceptable.
 ===Misdiagnosis/Poor Repair of Faults===