A class-action lawsuit was recently filed against Seagate Technology in response to the widespread failure of its 3TB hard drives. This is only one of numerous occasions in which the hard drive mogul has failed to offer the reliability claimed in its marketing rhetoric.
General consumer frustration led to the consumer-rights law firm Hagens Berman filing suit on February 2nd in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Hagens Berman claimed that Seagate not only sold faulty drives, but that the warranty appointed replacement drives were similarly defective, making it impossible for consumers to ever get the value for which they paid.
“Seagate promised purchasers reliable hard drives that would safeguard their important documents and cherished photos, but consumers report that these Seagate hard drives fail sometimes just days after their first use,” stated managing partner of Hagens Berman, Steve Berman.
“These hard drives failed to deliver on Seagate’s promises, and replacements from Seagate were just as defective, amounting to loss of data and wasted money for thousands of purchasers- something we believe to be direct violation of federal consumer-rights laws.”
The offending drives in question are the Barracuda 3TB hard drive line as well as Seagate’s Backup Plus 3TB external hard drive. Hagen Berman claims that consumers who purchased either drive may be entitled to compensation that would cover both the cost of the replacement and repair of the drive.
The Barracuda 3TB hard drive was marketed by Seagate as an “engineering triumph” and “a major milestone for the hard drive industry.” The marketing rhetoric continued on to claim that the Barracuda possessed “a host of refined technologies to further boost performance,” which plaintiffs have claimed is flat-out incorrect.
In addition, the plaintiffs claim that Seagate’s drives “were defective and failed prematurely at spectacularly- and in many respects unprecedentedly- high rates.”
Their assertions are backed by studies conducted by Backblaze, which stated that in “terms of raw percentages, approximately 32% of the (drives in question) deployed in 2012 failed by early 2015,” and that “only 68%… that were deployed in 2012 were operational after three years, well below Backblaze’s overall drive survival rate of 80% after four years.”
The suit also cites the over 700 negative reviews for the Barracuda posted on Newegg’s website.
“Plain and simple,” continued Berman, “Consumers paid for a product that they did not receive, and we intend to fight for their rights to receive payback from Seagate.”
The firm stated that consumers who purchased either of the notoriously defective drives can fill out certain forms to figure out if they are entitled to “damages including replacement costs and damages from loss of data and data recovery expenses.”
Seagate has stated in response that it “has received a copy of the complaint but has not yet been served. Seagate is reviewing the complaint and will response to it in due course.”
It seems more than likely the suit will produce some kind of settlement, as going to court would only bring further negative press upon the tech giant.
Unfortunately for consumers, to receive a faulty hard drive generally means to lose more than the money wasted on a defective product; hard drives are meant to safely house cherished photos, valuable business information, and often irreplaceable memories or works of art. If a faulty hard drive crashes and loses the only copy of this kind of information, the consumer not only loses the value that he or she thought she purchased, but he or she loses access to whatever data he or she already had.