# LAWSUIT AGAINST BMW (Sept 04 Update)



## Named Plaintiff (Jan 6, 2004)

Hello everybody.

It has been some time since I last posted but I thought an update was due.

For those of you who don't recognize my screen name, or don't know what this is about, I have instituted a lawsuit against BMW for consumer fraud as a result of a serious problem in the Radio/Nav package in certain BMW vehicles.

The original thread (and a detailed description of the problem) can be found here:

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49518

Beware though, that thread is very very long and a lot of the issues that were debated in that post were rendered moot by BMW's own admission of the problem as evidenced by a Service Measure they issued about 3 weeks after they were served with the law suit papers back in February (2004).

Well this is where we stand today (more than 7 months later).

We know that the radio at fault is the BM-53 Radio which was installed in E46 (3 Series), E39 (last generation 5 Series) and X5 SUV's. We believe that the problem dates back to the 1999 model year but we are not sure because BMW has been utterly uncooperative in our discovery requests.

BMW's strategy thus far has been to attempt to delay any meaningful adjudication. They cannot defend themselves on the merits because the Service Measure is a de facto admission of a serious defect (and that this is a legitimate problem). Their strategy has been to make this case about everything else but the defective radio and their deplorable conduct in dumping these cars into the market for five model years without doing anything about it.

They have given us almost none of the documents we requested, they have spent an inordinate amount of time doing things like objecting to my lawyer's application to appear in a New Jersey court (usually a rubber stamp kind of application). They have moved the case to another county. They requested delays in their discovery obligations, and then asked for protectiive agreements when the documents were due. We generously gave them more time, and signed the protective documents they requested, only for them to give us virutally nothing of what we asked for. (We, on the other hand, have cooperated with everything they have asked for.)

They are trying every trick in the book to make this case about something other than their culpability for their deplorable conduct. These shenanigans are likely to come to an end soon as we have an important hearing before the judge that is coming up at the end of the month. After that we will be seeking class certification to transform this into a Class Action Litigation.

That leads me to my next point. Through my efforts on this, and other BMW web boards, I was able to locate other people who were affected by this problem. Several of those people agreed to join me as class representatives, but since this has drawn out for so long, a couple of those people have since gotten rid of their cars and have lost interest.

We still have multiple parties interested, but the case only gets stronger if we can add more people from other states. I once again am asking people to join in this lawsuit. If you have a car that has experienced the fading audio problem described in the initial thread and are interested in joining in this suit, please contact me at [email protected]

My greatest hope is that we will be able to bring enough pressure to bear on BMW that they will have to address this problem in a manner that will actually get everyone's car fixed (and maybe even get BMW to rethink their whole approach to customer service). While the service measure tells dealers how to fix the problem, it is "on a customer complaint basis only." Furthermore, unless you know about the service measure when you go to the dealer chances are good the dealer is not going to know what to do.

And once again, for the inevitable criticism that will likely be heaped my way, THIS IS NOT ABOUT GETTING RICH. THIS IS ABOUT MAKING A DIFFERENCE!!

[email protected]


----------



## roadie (Jun 1, 2004)

Hello,
You are doing 3 things:

A) Launching a law suit against bad FM reception - hardly a safety issue.
B) Helping to make trial lawyers wealthy - 
C) Raising the cost of products

If this was a serious safety issue, I might think this effort worthwhile, but nope - this comes off as whining and helping create an ever more spiralling litigonous society.


----------



## Named Plaintiff (Jan 6, 2004)

roadie said:


> Hello,
> You are doing 3 things:
> 
> A) Launching a law suit against bad FM reception - hardly a safety issue.
> ...


Here we go again :banghead:

Thank you for your opinion, though.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

AFAIK, there is already a Service Bulletin out regarding the HK problem. 

What is the situation right now ? Did you have yours fixed ?


----------



## FireFly (May 2, 2002)

hummm... I was thinking about this the other day while I was driving in my car and the radio faded from all speakers to just the rear speaker- sounded a bit funny but I am not concerned and it's not worth me getting involved in a LS over. Beside, I'll likely be deaf in a few years so it really does not matter much


----------



## Named Plaintiff (Jan 6, 2004)

Alex Baumann said:


> AFAIK, there is already a Service Bulletin out regarding the HK problem.
> 
> What is the situation right now ? Did you have yours fixed ?


Yes, Alex. There is a service bulletin (which I believe was issued only as a result of the pressure of my law suit). And Yes, I have had the problem addressed since my original posts.

That only means that BMW has mooted out one of my original claims (i.e., breach of warranty). But that does not change the issue of the 5 years of consumer fraud that has not been addressed, nor has BMW issued a recall for the untold thousands of cars with BM-53 radios that have not been fixed.

The VAST majority of BMW owners do not visit these forums. Most of these people have no idea what is going on. And, as I said in this post. If you do not go to your BMW dealer with knowledge of the specific service measure, YOU WILL NOT GET IT FIXED. I have heard from several people with the exact same story.

So while my radio has since been fixed, there are issues in play that still make this very much relevant. This is very much a matter of principle that I see this through.


----------



## LeucX3 (Dec 26, 2001)

Good luck, but the sound of the car is the best audio and it never fades.


----------



## freq019 (Dec 4, 2002)

I thought recalls were only for safety related issues, and I don't see how this falls into a safety catagory. Also where is the fraud?


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

Named Plaintiff said:


> So while my radio has since been fixed, there are issues in play that still make this very much relevant. This is very much a matter of principle that I see this through.


 :yawn:

It is good that people find things to do to make themselves feel worthwhile. Or just to give themselves something to do.



.


----------



## MicahO (Apr 19, 2004)

freq019 said:


> I thought recalls were only for safety related issues, and I don't see how this falls into a safety catagory. Also where is the fraud?


 :thumbup:

On the nose, freq. Not a 'recall' issue, since people aren't going to die.

Not that it doesn't stink, but this is overstatement of a problem to the Nth degree. This is more the sort of problem that forums like this exist for - so people who suffer can get good information and have the dealer correct the problem properly.

This is not the sort of problem that the legal system exists for.


----------



## James (Jun 30, 2004)

Maybe we can sue over the CDV :rofl: . Sorry, couldn't resist  . 

The "sticking gas pedal" issue (which could have been a safety issue) got a customer-complaint-only service bulletin and everyone seemed happy about that. When I first got my CPO'd 330Ci it had a horrible sound from the Sub in the trunk. They found it was a cracked plate and replaced it no questions asked and no lawsuit required. 

I guess it is just my personal opinion that if people are concerned enough to join a lawsuit they'd probably complain to their dealer and get the "fix" that you got. Perhaps the fix was from lawsuit pressure but given the timing between the two it is hard to tell (i.e. the turn around of the fix release was very quick which implies it was in the works before the lawsuit).

Good luck with the suit. I don't think you are doing this for the money, and I really think you are trying to do some public service...but I suspect we'll see the cumulative results in the MSRP.

James.


----------



## ljh824 (Jul 14, 2004)

Are ya kidding me? Lawsuit against poor FM reception? I think I've heard everything now. :thumbup:


----------



## bbkat (Oct 27, 2002)

:jack:


----------



## pony_trekker (May 26, 2003)

Named Plaintiff said:


> Hello everybody.
> 
> BMW's strategy thus far has been to attempt to delay any meaningful adjudication. They cannot defend themselves on the merits because the Service Measure is a de facto admission of a serious defect (and that this is a legitimate problem). Their strategy has been to make this case about everything else but the defective radio and their deplorable conduct in dumping these cars into the market for five model years without doing anything about it.
> 
> ...


Sounds like you are having a problem with class cert. Told you so.


----------



## Named Plaintiff (Jan 6, 2004)

James said:


> Maybe we can sue over the CDV :rofl: . Sorry, couldn't resist  .
> 
> The "sticking gas pedal" issue (which could have been a safety issue) got a customer-complaint-only service bulletin and everyone seemed happy about that. When I first got my CPO'd 330Ci it had a horrible sound from the Sub in the trunk. They found it was a cracked plate and replaced it no questions asked and no lawsuit required.
> 
> Good luck with the suit. I don't think you are doing this for the money, and I really think you are trying to do some public service...but I suspect we'll see the cumulative results in the MSRP.


I appreciate the good wishes. I am glad that I think I have conveyed the message that my motives are not about getting rich here but rather fixing the problem.

I do not know what the legal requirements are for issuing a recall. I think they may be compelled to issue a recall for a safety related issue. There is nothing in law, however, that prevents them from issuing a recall to fix something that is not safety related. They just don't like doing that because it is expensive.

And just to answer the people who think I am doing this because I have nothing better to do, they could not be further from the truth. I am a very busy person. I could have easily decided that I got my car fixed so why continue. The fact is that I have taken on a committment that I take seriously and I intend on seeing it through.


----------



## pony_trekker (May 26, 2003)

pony_trekker said:


> Sounds like you are having a problem with class cert. Told you so.


But with all due respect -- this is exactly what the legal system is for. Don't believe the insurance company hype. If you paid a penny short on your lease, you can bet your ass BMW would eventually sue you.


----------



## ff (Dec 19, 2001)

Originally, I was totally opposed to this lawsuit. But after being raped by BMW repeatedly over the past few years, in the form of bad service and unresponsive problem solving, I'm all for it. 

Take it to 'em, Named Plaintiff. :thumbup:


----------



## roadie (Jun 1, 2004)

pony_trekker said:


> Sounds like you are having a problem with class cert. Told you so.


Yes but greedy trial lawyers will buzz all over this. The way it works is that they play on people's greed, get a whole bunch of people excited about class action lawsui - and then if a settlement is reached they are reimbursed by the defendant for all legal fees and the poor saps that signed onto the frivilous law suit get a voucher for something - like a free BMW demo music cd :rofl:


----------



## Named Plaintiff (Jan 6, 2004)

pony_trekker said:


> Sounds like you are having a problem with class cert. Told you so.


Not so. Haven't even had the class cert hearing yet due to all the delaying tactics.


----------



## Patrick (Dec 23, 2001)

Named Plaintiff said:


> And just to answer the people who think I am doing this because I have nothing better to do, they could not be further from the truth. I am a very busy person. I could have easily decided that I got my car fixed so why continue. The fact is that I have taken on a committment that I take seriously and I intend on seeing it through.


Get over yourself and have a nice day ... It is just a F*CKING car!



.


----------



## roadie (Jun 1, 2004)

Patrick 520iAT said:


> Get over yourself and have a nice day ... It is just a F*CKING car!
> 
> 
> 
> .


 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## rwg (May 10, 2002)

Named Plaintiff said:


> Not so. Haven't even had the class cert hearing yet due to all the delaying tactics.


 :rofl:

Those aren't delaying tactics (nor are the rest of the tactics you described). That's called "litigation." Ok, maybe they are delaying tactics, but they aren't despicable, they are par for the course and normal defendant behavior. BMW has nothing to gain by having the case heard quickly and everything to lose, so they will delay. If you want this type of situation to change, we would have to reform the legal system. In part, such reform would make it much more difficult (and possibly punish) bringing frivilous lawsuits. Like, say, those brought even after the problems the complainant is complaining about have been rectified. :tsk:

It's great you think your lawsuit made them bring the fix out. I mean, BMW isn't constantly issuing such service bulletins for all types of problems.

I am normally the first one saying the plaintiff has a right to have his case heard in court - but this just isn't one of those cases. They fixed your car - where are your damages? If you want to change BMW's customer service policies, write them a letter explaining why you don't like them and start buying cars from other manufacturers.

You know, I wonder why nobody has sued BMW for making crappy cup holders. I mean, somebody must have been burned by the spilled coffee by now . . .


----------



## Clarke (Oct 21, 2002)

Named Plaintiff said:


> 5 years of consumer fraud


In your mind and who elses?:dunno: Could you find no more worthy "cause" out there to devote all this energy and commitment towards? If it's not about money what are you filing for,an apology?


----------



## TLudwig (Mar 30, 2004)

I sit on both sides of the fence on this one. I have been screwed by large corporations when it comes to making a product work as it should, so I understand the frustration involved. I also understand that BMW hasn't always been the best about resolving various issues with its cars, but then again what car company necessarily is?

On the other hand, you've gotten your car fixed. Anyone who has this problem can get their car fixed now. Just let it be done. 

I also don't see the fraud in this situation. Even if there is, fraud is very relative to the particular individual affected by it vis a vis his or her reliance on it (a necessary element). This variation from person to person on such an essential element of the case is really going to give you problems come certification time.

Another problem you might have if this thing does go all the way to trial is getting evidence of the Service Measure admitted. You talk about this service measure as if it wins your case for you if it goes to trial on the merits. That just isn't so. This kind of evidence of a subsequent remedial measure is barred by the federal (and most states) rules of evidence for purposes of proving the existence of a defect. Even if it weren't, it definitely isn't determinative of the outcome.

I haven't taken the time yet to look up the pleadings that your attorney has filed in this case, so I can't comment any more. But I will say this from a practical perspective: just let it go. Your car has been fixed and anyone else who has this problem can get their car fixed. You say this isn't about the money, and maybe you believe that, but that's the only thing left for you to get in this situation.

Until I became involved with representing auto manufacturers and their financing arms, I didn't realize the amount of money that these companies spend in litigation every year. A single frivolous case, not even a class action, can easily run into the millions of dollars in attorneys' fees and much more for a settlement or judgment. These companies face many such cases every year. Obviously, this translates in to higher prices for everyone, so essentially, you're stealing from Peter to pay Paul in this situation. So, like I said earlier, just let it go.


----------



## LeucX3 (Dec 26, 2001)

I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but i'd like to sue BMW for the Bangle Butt, bad eyebrows, and iDrive. They wouldn't have to pay me anything, just take those things away from their cars. 

I think that would be a lawsuit we would all jump on board with.


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

:jack:

I'm thinking I should sue you for compensatory damages for the time I've wasted reading and posting to your threads. :rofl:


----------



## Plaz (Dec 19, 2001)

rumratt said:


> So you're suing them for damages, even though there is already a fix available for anyone who asks for it?


Thank you.


----------



## johnnygraphic (Jun 26, 2004)

Aw...The poor baby's got a little monophonic music coming from his prized german engineered automobile...This must not happen! Sue them all! Somebody pay some greasy lawyers a ton of money & they'll litigate! What? There IS a solution? What? The plaintiff's stereo is FIXED? BMW will do it at no cost? Hmmm...

Oh well, the lawyers will just suck up tons of time from the lawyers, clog the justice system with frivolous lawsuits and make sure somebody PAYS FOR THEIR ERRORS!!!

Really...

Let's move on.


----------



## AB (Jan 11, 2002)

Named Plaintiff said:


> So while my radio has since been fixed......


:loco:


----------



## pony_trekker (May 26, 2003)

roadie said:


> Yes but greedy trial lawyers will buzz all over this. The way it works is that they play on people's greed, get a whole bunch of people excited about class action lawsui - and then if a settlement is reached they are reimbursed by the defendant for all legal fees and the poor saps that signed onto the frivilous law suit get a voucher for something - like a free BMW demo music cd :rofl:


Don't use the words "greedy" and "trial" together simply because the insurance companies tell you to.


----------



## pony_trekker (May 26, 2003)

rwg said:


> :rofl:
> 
> I am normally the first one saying the plaintiff has a right to have his case heard in court - but this just isn't one of those cases. They fixed your car - where are your damages?


Wait a second, if they fixed the car, then he can't be a class rep.



> You know, I wonder why nobody has sued BMW for making crappy cup holders. I mean, somebody must have been burned by the spilled coffee by now . . .


Because we own 3 series cars.


----------



## norihaga (Aug 25, 2004)

pony_trekker said:


> Don't use the words "greedy" and "trial" together simply because the insurance companies tell you to.


 :stupid:

I blame the greedy law schools and their extortionate tuition fees...


----------



## DN325CI (Oct 5, 2002)

TLudwig said:


> I sit on both sides of the fence on this one. I have been screwed by large corporations when it comes to making a product work as it should, so I understand the frustration involved. I also understand that BMW hasn't always been the best about resolving various issues with its cars, but then again what car company necessarily is?
> 
> On the other hand, you've gotten your car fixed. Anyone who has this problem can get their car fixed now. Just let it be done.
> 
> ...


Very well said. 100% right.

There is no doubt in my mind the BMW has a cultural "denial" problem - they have an extremely hard time admitting they were wrong. My father is like that sometimes.

But this issue is 1.) fixed, and 2.) trivial. You probably helped bring the fix to light. Well done. Thank you. Let's move on.

Don


----------



## TLudwig (Mar 30, 2004)

pony_trekker said:


> Wait a second, if they fixed the car, then he can't be a class rep.


That's not necessarily true. It depends on the claims in the case.

I would like to say this: I know my original post probably came off a little harsh. I understand your original frustration, Named Plaintiff, and I think that it's good that you forced BMW to deal with this issue. But I really feel that now that a fix has been developed for you and others with this problem, it's become only about the money and sticking it to BMW, which just hurts everyone in the long run.


----------



## dorkus (Sep 4, 2003)

TLudwig said:


> But I really feel that now that a fix has been developed for you and others with this problem, it's become only about the money and sticking it to BMW, which just hurts everyone in the long run.


i'm a little on the fence too... i don't like frivolous lawsuits, but i see where Named is coming from. let's put aside the legal costs for now, because that is just the cost of doing business in this country - there are ALWAYS going to be lawsuits and i really think it is silly to heap all this loathing and blame on Named for "raising our MSRP." *maybe* in principle this is contributing to the total cost of our cars, but it's a drop in the bucket and believe it or not his case is probably a lot more legitimate than a lot of other ones out there.

the question is the ultimate purpose (other than "getting back" at them), and whether the success of this suit will really change anything at BMWNA. i agree their complacency is unacceptable and they could probably use an attitude adjustment. maybe this lawsuit is just a good case of consumer-corporate checks and balances - the "principle" being that BMW is not going to get away with things (i'm hesitating to call it fraud) so easily. however, i think at the very least you will need a little more backing, perhaps in the form of a consumer advocacy group. i haven't read all the details in the thread - have you contacted some type of consumer rights group? if so, what did they say? if their reaction was that the suit is not worth pursuing now that the issue is solved, i'd tend to agree that it might be time to just let it go, not for BMW's sake, but for yours as well. i do think you should take satisfaction for sticking it to them til they fixed your car, but i don't know if this lawsuit road will lead to anything more positive than that.


----------



## Andy (Jul 16, 2003)

roadie said:


> Hello,
> You are doing 3 things:
> 
> A) Launching a law suit against bad FM reception - hardly a safety issue.
> ...


I couldn't have said it any better. :tsk:


----------



## 325i RocketGuy (Sep 27, 2002)

Named Plaintiff said:


> I am glad that I think I have conveyed the message that my motives are not about getting rich here but rather fixing the problem.


And the problem has been fixed. Why are you continuing?



> There is nothing in law, however, that prevents them from issuing a recall to fix something that is not safety related. They just don't like doing that because it is expensive.


And the problem is? They are a car company after all, not a charity. As a non-safety issue, I see nothing wrong with limiting the fix to a customer complaint basis only. If a customer hasn't experienced the problem or isn't bothered by it, why should BMW go through the effort and expense?

If BMW has developed a fix (albeit belatedly and after much foot-dragging), and they have communicated that fix to their dealers through customary and standard communication channels, then any subsequent failure to address a customer complaint is due to dealer negligence, not BMW.


----------



## dorkus (Sep 4, 2003)

325i RocketGuy said:


> If BMW has developed a fix (albeit belatedly and after much foot-dragging), and they have communicated that fix to their dealers through customary and standard communication channels, then any subsequent failure to address a customer complaint is due to dealer negligence, not BMW.


not sure if you read the entire original thread (i read most of it at some point), but it was not a dealer negligence problem. it was with BMWNA and their complacent attitude. if i understand correctly, they basically told him, tough luck, just live with the broken radio it's still a BMW, or something like that.


----------



## anon (Jul 8, 2003)

i think his motive is pure junk.

it's not "principle" and it's not helping others out.

he felt insulted that he wasn't taken more seriously when he first approached BMW about getting the AM reception fixed and it spiralled from there to today, where everything is fixed and hunky dory but he has the silly idea that he, one powerful man, that they should have taken more seriously, is going to bring down those arrogant german car makers. bmw.


----------



## norihaga (Aug 25, 2004)

Seems like theoretically this is a good case for a class action suit - BMW represents you're buying a car with a working sound system, but knows it is actually selling you one with a 'broken' sound system. Although lives aren't at stake, individual claimants won't bring actions because the difference between the value of a car with a better and a car with a worse stereo won't pay BigLaw's bills ... or even their filing fees and expenses. Er, and it's a pain in the ass to sue anyone, even if you do it pro se.

On the other hand, the question is whether continuing to go after them is going to make BMW stop shifting the cost of its design ***ups onto the consumer. Although I don't agree that having an unpublicized TSB or free repairs for those who are particularly irate is a good solution to the problem, I think the economics of manufacturing and distribution are such that if every car mfg. fixed every problem after its vehicles get to the consumer, they'd probably all be in chapter 7. (What would it cost to replace transmissions in every Chevy Blazer, for example?) So if what we want is for BMW to either fix every issue with our cars, or admit to problems when they occur, I sort of doubt that will ever happen. :dunno:

The fact that a class action firm is willing to roll the dice with the named plaintiffs means that the company has to weigh the risk having to make a big payout if it tries to deliberately stiff its customers. Class action suits (or the threat of them) may be blunt instruments, but I'm not sure there's any clear evidence that the value of cost-shifting manufacturers engage in is outweighed by class action fees and the costs of defending meritless suits. Like personal injury actions, it's easy to make fun of them, especially when you don't know all the facts, but in many cases there are both real injuries/losses and good policy reasons to make defendants pay up. 



dorkus said:


> i'm a little on the fence too... i don't like frivolous lawsuits, but i see where Named is coming from. let's put aside the legal costs for now, because that is just the cost of doing business in this country - there are ALWAYS going to be lawsuits and i really think it is silly to heap all this loathing and blame on Named for "raising our MSRP." *maybe* in principle this is contributing to the total cost of our cars, but it's a drop in the bucket and believe it or not his case is probably a lot more legitimate than a lot of other ones out there.
> 
> the question is the ultimate purpose (other than "getting back" at them), and whether the success of this suit will really change anything at BMWNA. i agree their complacency is unacceptable and they could probably use an attitude adjustment. maybe this lawsuit is just a good case of consumer-corporate checks and balances - the "principle" being that BMW is not going to get away with things (i'm hesitating to call it fraud) so easily. however, i think at the very least you will need a little more backing, perhaps in the form of a consumer advocacy group. i haven't read all the details in the thread - have you contacted some type of consumer rights group? if so, what did they say? if their reaction was that the suit is not worth pursuing now that the issue is solved, i'd tend to agree that it might be time to just let it go, not for BMW's sake, but for yours as well. i do think you should take satisfaction for sticking it to them til they fixed your car, but i don't know if this lawsuit road will lead to anything more positive than that.


----------



## roadie (Jun 1, 2004)

anon said:


> i think his motive is pure junk.
> 
> it's not "principle" and it's not helping others out.
> 
> he felt insulted that he wasn't taken more seriously when he first approached BMW about getting the AM reception fixed and it spiralled from there to today, where everything is fixed and hunky dory but he has the silly idea that he, one powerful man, that they should have taken more seriously, is going to bring down those arrogant german car makers. bmw.


 :rofl: :thumbup:


----------



## 325i RocketGuy (Sep 27, 2002)

dorkus said:


> not sure if you read the entire original thread (i read most of it at some point), but it was not a dealer negligence problem. it was with BMWNA and their complacent attitude. if i understand correctly, they basically told him, tough luck, just live with the broken radio it's still a BMW, or something like that.


I only said it was dealer negligence for a dealer to _continue_ to claim ignorance of the problem after BMW communicated the problem and fix to them via the TSB. I do not disagree that BMW's prior behavior was far below most customers' expectations.


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

325i RocketGuy said:


> And the problem has been fixed. Why are you continuing?


Perhaps costs incurred to date, effort already expended, a little bit of pride... and it's his right as an American to be as litigious as possible!


----------



## SizzlerMA (Sep 23, 2003)

Did you ever consider getting a signal booster which you can easily self-install between the antenna and the head unit? This has been known to improve FM reception considerably . . .

Also, every tuner has an "FM Sensitivity" figure, measured in dbF, that basically measures the potential strength of FM reception. Did you evaluate the FM Sensitivity of the BMW head unit before buying your car?

Perhaps you could buy some test instruments and test whether the head unit achieves its (claimed-by-BMW) FM Sensitivity . . . If it does, drop the lawsuit since you have no claim, else go forward with it.

Just my $0.02.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

Clarke said:


> In your mind and who elses?:dunno: Could you find no more worthy "cause" out there to devote all this energy and commitment towards? If it's not about money what are you filing for,an apology?


Oh, come off it. Beslan and global terrorism, Sudan, worldwide homelessness and hunger are nothing compared to the PAIN of being a consumer with a malfunctioning stereo switch. Forget military dictatorships, genocide and gloabl teorrrist netwroks, the real public ENEMIES are those evil GERMANS in Munich out to screw the American consumer.


----------



## norihaga (Aug 25, 2004)

andy_thomas said:


> Oh, come off it. Beslan and global terrorism, Sudan, worldwide homelessness and hunger are nothing compared to the PAIN of being a consumer with a malfunctioning stereo switch. Forget military dictatorships, genocide and gloabl teorrrist netwroks, the real public ENEMIES are those evil GERMANS in Munich out to screw the American consumer.


 Andy...most of us are in America...where none of the above exist! (except the global terror network) 

Did I mention the petrol prices have reached nearly 30 pence a liter over here? I am contemplating a lawsuit. :angel:


----------



## Spiderm0n (Dec 19, 2001)

I supported what you were doing initially. But BMW has fixed the problem. Instead of trying to get people to sue over something that has been fixed perhaps you should spend your time making people aware of the fix?


----------

