[Serkevan]

Most corps don't give a damn. You still bought the Kx didn't you (not China I know but the priciple is applicable) ? And your K5II was still manufactured in such area wasn't it? That's enough so most corp won't move.
Not that I agree with such reasoning.

Let's take another example. Vertuous, really vertuous. Fair Phone (Android, sold in EU only AFAICT). It really is a thing well done (can always be better though). Easily repairable. No blood minerals etc.
Even this one has mostly chinese components. It costs hell for a "dated" phone.
That's the price to pay (and it is still mostly chinese).
Each one will judge if all this is important or not. Just providing food for thoughts.

We as buyers can make choices. But the cost of making really vertuous choices is high. Very high (IMO).

I was looking at the Fairphone, but it's about 3 times the price of a similarly-specced normal phone running, in the end, similar components. And I'm unfortunately not made out of money .
The Librem is also free from Android (runs Linux) and can physically kill microphone, speaker and camera modules as it should be so that apps or hackers cannot hijack them for data siphoning. It's also ridiculously expensive and the components are still made in China AFAIK.

The main, root problem is that we have been made to accept that consumerism has to go on at ever-increasing speeds, and that the "reasonable" price (because of wage stagnation, inflation and globalization, but that's again a topic for never in the forum) is for stuff that is manufactured in countries with none-to-barely-any worker protections, using low-quality components and materials sourced at any cost. To top it all, the eternal comsumption engine can only go on if thinks break early and repairing is made more complicated/expensive than replacing or upgrading. Cue fully-integrated devices designed as disposable goods. Consumers are not dumb, we know that things aren't made to last anymore, so anything that looks like systematic failures is going to attract anger.

All of these things (solenoids, Nikon oily sensors, the works) should be scrutinized. Sure, evil intent shouldn't be assumed (Hanlon's Razor and all that), but negligence is still bad.

"Thousands of customers" and "millions in profits".

The purpose of that line is to establish venue and personal jurisdiction over a nonresident due to his extensive economic activity within the forum state, which provides a basis for personal jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant even though the defendant never came into the forum state and has no physical presence there (called the "long arm" provision).

I say good luck. They will need it.

The problems are:...

Steve

Any chance in NY, you think, of a "piercing the corporate veil" approach due to common control of the corporate entities involved?

One thing people miss is that the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Enforcement Act sort of redefines, for the purposes of that specific statute, the word, "warranty", and that there are two warranty "periods" involved: the first being a period of time during which the manufacturer promises that the product will meet some criterion or standard, and the second being the time in which the purchaser can get free repairs. But the standard definition holds that a "warranty" is a promise made at the time of sale that the product will perform a certain way or meet some standard.

If that promise is violated, it is violated at the time of the sale, because the promise is part of the consideration for the contract to sell the product. The focus is on the violation of the promise, not the defect in the product - one who wins a breach of warranty suit recovers damages for the false promise, which is related to but not dependant upon, damages due to the defect itself.

Under the Uniform Commercial Code which is pretty much the same throughout the U.S., the statute of limitations on a breach of warranty suit is four years. So if a manufacturer said the product is guaranteed (or warranted, synonymous terms) to work fine for a year, and it doesn't, the purchaser has four years from the date of the sale (when the promise occurred) to file a claim with a court for his remedy. And that's all completely independent from operation of the federal Warranty Enforcement Act, which focuses on remedies, and not warranties.

[Rondec]

I just can't imagine that there is much money in this. That is to say the number of cameras sold and the cost of the repair together won't add up to a huge amount. And we are now 7 years since the release of those cameras.

But I'm not a lawyer and didn't even stay last night at Holiday Inn Express.

[fsge]

Most corps don't give a damn. You still bought the Kx didn't you (not China I know but the priciple is applicable) ? And your K5II was still manufactured in such area wasn't it? That's enough so most corp won't move.
Not that I agree with such reasoning.

Let's take another example. Vertuous, really vertuous. Fair Phone (Android, sold in EU only AFAICT). It really is a thing well done (can always be better though). Easily repairable. No blood minerals etc.
Even this one has mostly chinese components. It costs hell for a "dated" phone.
That's the price to pay (and it is still mostly chinese).
Each one will judge if all this is important or not. Just providing food for thoughts.

We as buyers can make choices. But the cost of making really vertuous choices is high. Very high (IMO).

I am fairly aware that most corps dont give a damn but I bet things will change. Look at all the brands shaming we see these days with BLM wave.
Second hand is a trend that will last and Chinese products in general are not durable enough for that.

For a couple of years I try to change my purchasing habits, fighting made in china (or equivalent) as often as possible / as I could. This higher cost you underline has to be balanced with much higher durability.
It is not easy to be picky in this IT sector as most products are manufactured there or have subparts produced there.
2 recent purchases : electric bike, bought German product, and wireless loudspeakers, bought French HiFi. I am aware some bits here and there are probably from China but they wont have most part of my money
Same for a company I am an administrator of. I pushed and we stopped buying machines from China, though 3 times cheaper and since 2017 favor British and Italian gear instead. In terms of much higher reliability, lower maintenance, almost no downtime (less than 1 day per machine and per year) we didnt complain so far...

It has to start with our habits first, sometimes it is better not to buy at all than to buy from there.

[SharkyCA]

Pentax Camera Class Action Alleges Aperture Defect | Top Class Actions

https://www.classaction.org/media/kyszenia-v-ricoh-usa-inc.pdf

FWIW, the plaintiff has incompetent lawyers. I hope they are being paid contingent on a favorable settlement against a copy machine company for defective cameras. The filing reads like it was written by a layperson.


Steve

I think with all the negative feelings that are coming out about this style of "ambulance chasing" there must be too many lawyers with nothing better to do than "Brand Bashing" if you invest in a stock and then drive the company into the ground by continually telling everyone "how bad" they are don't expect your stock to give you great returns!

As "ALL" the DSLRS' have their issues with failures by comparison and a market that is on shaky ground to begin with when will it all stop, when they have all thrown their hats in and said "OK, no more consumer cameras, let them use their phones if they want to take pictures!" When phones are surpassing DSLRS' in PRICE POINT and most phone consumers are replacing them every two years you will reap what you sow!

As I suffered through the aperture defect and paid the price on my K-70 (under $300 including shipping & insurance) I was not happy about it but I still LOVE THE CAMERA & have FAITH in the Pentax brand. The class action law suit is open to consumers of the US but I don't see anyone else in the world reaping a benefit from this action other than the LAWYERS, I originally paid less than $1300.00 for my K-70 starter kit and I now have about $2500.00 invested in other equipment to pair with it.

Do you have any GUARANTEE if you went with another BRAND today that in 3 years time you would not be in the same place? I think not, so my rant is done good luck with your lawsuits sometimes you just have to wipe the crap from your shoes and walk on.

Based on prior comments, I can't wait to read the pleading. (Can't view that version of PDF on this computer since I don't use Adobe products and depend on Firefox for PDF's.) Sounds like a manufacturing defect kind of case, which normally requires proof that the product injured someone or caused serious property damage. Doesn't really sound like a warranty claim, either. Clearly a consumer protection case, but under what statute?

[SharkyCA]

Based on prior comments, I can't wait to read the pleading. (Can't view that version of PDF on this computer since I don't use Adobe products and depend on Firefox for PDF's.) Sounds like a manufacturing defect kind of case, which normally requires proof that the product injured someone or caused serious property damage. Doesn't really sound like a warranty claim, either. Clearly a consumer protection case, but under what statute?

Link to PDF FILE Class Action Downloadable 260KB file
Class Action

[Serkevan]

It has to start with our habits first, sometimes it is better not to buy at all than to buy from there.

Absolutely this! There's a reason why "Reduce", not "Recycle", is the first of the three Rs
I've always considered myself fairly spartan; I don't own that many things and I always try to make sure, before I buy, that I will use the item in question until it's ground down to dust (and almost everything photography-related I own is second hand).

I still fly more than I should, but working abroad means that I don't have a lot of options to visit the family .

[stevebrot]

Any chance in NY, you think, of a "piercing the corporate veil" approach due to common control of the corporate entities involved?

There being no higher entity within the US to plumb, that might not be fruitful. The two companies are quite separate as far as their boards, I believe and ownership is publicly known.


Steve

[ThorSanchez]

Do users here really want Pentax to be destroyed? The majority of the comments certainly come across like that.
I still have a k-30 and i don't recall any more than a couple dark-ish images.
This law suit suddenly comes up when the K-new is coming out. In no way that is a coincidence particularly during a pandemic and in the USA and directed at Ricoh USA. Just who are the people (in general) that are litigating this? Of all the possible brands they choose Pentax and for something as old as the K-30. It makes no sense especially with the lawyers fees. This sounds like a money grab and they aimed for a company that wouldn't have as much legal process funds to spend like Nikon, Canon or Sony would. Nikon never wanted to fix my original D850 IQ processing problem and that happened every time at 400 iso or higher. I got a refurbished one and it works fine and made a-lot more sense that any litigation. I also ended up with a decent ND filter in the process.

All this does have a familiar blind range attacks on the Nikon D750 vibe to it.

That, maybe, is what Pentax should have asked itself.

Right. Pentax shouldn't have been selling $800 cameras that failed after less than 10k clicks, or if they did they should have fessed up and fixed it. I'm not on some crusade, but I thought it was at least slightly crappy that the first good camera I ever bought died pretty early into its lifespan, and to fix it, it took a four-month odyssey of sending it out three times for repair (along with $200 plus 3x shipping fees). I'm still with Pentax, I bought a K-3ii to replace my K-30, and I'll probably buy the K-new. But it still wasn't great that the camera died in relative infancy and it was a pain to get it fixed.

Wanting Pentax to succeed includes wanting them to be top notch in customer service.

[stevebrot]

Based on prior comments, I can't wait to read the pleading. (Can't view that version of PDF on this computer since I don't use Adobe products and depend on Firefox for PDF's.) Sounds like a manufacturing defect kind of case, which normally requires proof that the product injured someone or caused serious property damage. Doesn't really sound like a warranty claim, either. Clearly a consumer protection case, but under what statute?

I have copied stuff from the filing that might indicate what theories are being proposed.

Here is the list of questions of law and fact:

a. Whether the Pentax cameras are defective;

b. How long the Defendant has known the cameras are defective;

c. Whether the defects in the cameras constitute material facts that reasonable purchasers would have considered in deciding whether to purchase them;

d. Whether the cameras possess material defects;

e. Whether Defendant knew or should have known of the inherent defects of the cameras when they placed them in the stream of commerce;

f. Whether Defendant concealed the defects from consumers;

g. Whether the cameras are merchantable;

h. Whether the cameras are fit for their intended use;

i. Whether any accessories or attachments purchased with the cameras are useless;

j. Whether Defendant was unjustly enriched by the sale of the defective cameras;

k. Whether any false warranties, misrepresentations and material omissions by Defendant concerning their cameras caused class members financial damages;
and

l. Whether Defendant should be enjoined from further sales of the defective cameras.

Under "Negligent Misrepresentation and Negligence":

35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

36. Defendant owed a duty to plaintiff and class members to design, manufacture, produce, test, inspect, market, distribute, and sell the defective Pentax cameras with reasonable care and in a workmanlike fashion.

37. Defendant breached that duty by, among other things, defectively designing, manufacturing, testing, inspecting and distributing the defective Pentax cameras.

38. Defendant unreasonably failed to provide appropriate and adequate warnings and instructions about its defective Pentax cameras, and this failure was a proximate cause of the harm for which damages are sought.

39. In addition, at the time the defective Pentax cameras left its control, Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, its defective Pentax cameras had exposure problems rendering them unfit to take photographs.

40. And at the time the defective Pentax cameras left its control, Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, the defective Pentax cameras it designed, manufactured, produced, tested, inspected, marketed, distributed, and sold, would fail to perform as intended.

41. Defendant acted unreasonably in designing the defective Pentax cameras. Further, at the time the defective Pentax cameras left the control of Defendant, it unreasonably failed to adopt a practical, feasible and otherwise reasonable alternative design that could then have been reasonably adopted and that would have prevented the exposure problems without substantially impairing the usefulness, practicality or desirability of the defective Pentax cameras.

42. Furthermore, at the time the defective Pentax cameras left the control of Defendant, their design was so defective that a reasonable person, aware of the relevant facts, would not use or purchase a camera of this design.

43. Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the defective Pentax cameras had exposure problems rendering them unfit to take photographs.

44. Based on this knowledge, Defendant had a duty to disclose to plaintiff, and class members, the defective nature of the defective Pentax cameras.

45. Defendant had a further duty not to put the defective Pentax cameras on the market and has a continuing duty to replace its defective Pentax cameras, remove them from the market and seek a recall of them from consumers.

46. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care with respect to the design, manufacture, production, testing, inspection, marketing, distribution and sale of the defective Pentax cameras by, among other things, failing to design and manufacture the defective Pentax cameras in a manner to ensure that, under normal intended usage, they would not have exposure problems rendering them unfit to take photographs.

47. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in failing to warn, or to warn adequately and sufficiently, either directly or indirectly, plaintiff and class members of the defective Pentax cameras.

48. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care when it knew of the defects of the defective Pentax cameras and actively concealed those defects from Plaintiff and class members.

49. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care when it knew of the defects of the defective Pentax cameras and failed to replace, repair or recall the defective Pentax cameras that it knew were defective.

50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff and class members bought the defective Pentax cameras without knowledge of their defective nature.

51. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff and class members purchased defective products which could not be used for their intended use.

52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff and class members have suffered damages.

53. Plaintiff and class members seek to recover the damage caused by Defendant.

It goes on to claim violation of expressed and implied warranties, intentional sale of defective goods, unjust enrichment, and violation of all applicable state and federal statutes.

You should be able to download the pdf file and print directly from Windows without using an Adobe product.

https://www.classaction.org/media/kyszenia-v-ricoh-usa-inc.pdf


Steve

[clackers]

As poorly done as this lawsuit seems to be, with guessing and very little research, I'm still on the side of consumers versus corporations. I have emailed both contact addresses listed in the filing and advised them the defendants should be Ricoh Imaging USA, not Ricoh USA, to at least get the ball rolling correctly.

[Kunzite]

I'm still on the side of consumers versus corporations

“Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.”
J. Michael Straczinski, Babylon 5

[clackers]

“Understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.”
J. Michael Straczinski, Babylon 5

Let a judge see if there's merit, I reckon. We take it as read that Ricoh don't have much money to spend on legal stoushes, well the customers have even less.