Lawsuits filed over Sidekick outages

It was only a matter of time, but the T-Mobile Sidekick issue has now spilled over to the courthouse.

A number of lawsuits have been filed, including two filed in federal court in Northern California on Wednesday that allege both negligence and false claims on the part of Microsoft and T-Mobile.

T-Mobile Sidekick LX

(Credit: CNET)

The suits come amid a massive outage of the service that powers the Sidekick, which has hampered data service since early this month and left many users without access to their calendars, address books, and other information. At one point, Microsoft and T-Mobile indicated that any data not yet recovered was probably lost permanently, however the companies said Monday that they were more optimistic about being able to bring back users' information.

One suit, filed on behalf of a Bakersfield, Calif., man "and all others similarly situated" charges that, among other things, Microsoft and Danger failed to use reasonable care in handling Sidekick owners data and that the Sidekick was falsely advertised. That suit seeks monetary damages as well as an order requiring the companies to fix the Sidekicks and service or offer a full refund.

"T-Mobile and its service providers ought to have been more careful the use of backup technology and policies to prevent such data loss" said Ira P. Rothken, an attorney working on that case. "We are hopeful that T-Mobile and the rest of the defendants will do the right thing, use this as an opportunity to redesign the system as a new standard for cloud computing storage, and provide full compensation for the data loss."

Another suit, filed on behalf of Maureen Thompson "and all others similarly situated" seeks unspecified damages for Thompson and others who have lost data as a result of the recent Sidekick problems.

According to her lawyer, Thompson owns a Sidekick used primarily by her daughter, an aspiring model, singer, and songwriter who used her Sidekick to store personal and business contacts, appointments, and even irreplaceable song lyrics not stored anywhere else. The lawyer said that Thompson bought the device "primarily because T-Mobile promised that any data would be protected and available no matter what happened to the phone."

"T-Mobile's initial efforts to reimburse Sidekick users are a step in the right direction, but fail to sufficiently compensate Sidekick users for this disastrous loss of data," Thompson attorney Jay Edelson said in a statement. "T-Mobile and Microsoft promised to safeguard the most important data their customers possess and then apparently failed to follow even the most basic data protection principles. What they did is unthinkable in this day and age."

In that lawsuit, Thompson's lawyers argue why the outage of the Sidekick was particularly devastating, noting the device's cloud-based architecture in which the primary copy of the data is stored, not on the devices, but on servers operated by Microsoft's Danger unit.

"Further complicating the data loss is the fact that Sidekicks, unlike iPhones, BlackBerrys and other smartphones, are not designed to sync locally with a user's personal computer without additional software and hardware," the suit states. "This means that most users were not able to backup their data locally, but were encouraged and required to rely on Microsoft/Danger."

Microsoft declined to comment on the lawsuit, but, a representative said on Wednesday that the company is "obviously very sorry for the inconvenience that this situation has caused Sidekick users, and we are working around the clock in an effort to recover and restore the data for any affected users. While it is still too early to say for sure, we announced on Monday that our engineering teams were increasingly optimistic."

For its part, T-Mobile said in a statement that it "does not comment on pending litigation."

"We are focused on helping our Sidekick customers recover from this recent service disruption and are continuing to support Microsoft's ongoing efforts to address and resolve the Danger platform issues," the company said.

T-Mobile has halted sales of the Sidekick amid the ongoing issues.

[protagonistic--2008]

While I sympathize with people who have apparently lost valuable data doesn't it all come back to the advice my grandmother used to give me about not buying a pig in a poke? Let's face it, if you don't do your research you are bound to get fleeced. That is not to say the companies should not set things right, though.

[XiroMisho]

the issue here is that the "Cloud" shouldn't loose data - the cloud is supposed to be a redundant system where, when all else goes to pot, you can finally restore your information from the cloud.... It's the point of the entire system, and I cannot believe that somehow Danger managed to completely and totally do the one thing a company it's mass and size should never do... completely loose everything!

They didn't have redundant servers? They didn't have back up locations? I don't mean in the same room either, I'd expect something of this size to have at least 2 sites, preferably more, all backing up the data redundantly to the point where a nuke could drop on point A and B and C can take over... and the only thing the end user should notice is that the system is running "slow."

you ever have a website start to run really slow? That's because half the servers crashed - but does the site have issues? No.

The fact this even could have HAPPENED is a complete failure on Danger's part... I'm serious, if someone said "This may happen." That'd be enough for the suit, for it to happen, I have one thing to say to Danger.

EPIC FAIL.

[leodavinci314]

I bet the case T-Mobile will probably bring against Microsoft will be even better than this.

[richard993]

Microsoft/Danger was not cloud based infrastructure. Neither are 99.99% of self proclaimed cloud products which offer little or no redundancy. Just because you have a few web servers on the internet connected to several databases, it doesn't mean you have a cloud. The concept has been oversimplified and has become another marketing term and no longer applied correctly.

I would consider a cloud to be more than just a web farm, it is a sophisticated solution which involves a group of machines to work on a common problem in a coordinated way that enables nodes to share enough information not just to solve the problem but to agree on the number of nodes that needs the same piece of information in a way that would not allow any number of failures to bring down the system, providing that there are still enough nodes remaining to process the information and serve web requests.

What this means is that if one server goes down, no user data or partial user data should be lost. If you have 500 servers in the network, then you should not loose a single piece of data even if you loose 250 servers or even 400 servers, as long as the remaining nodes can handle the data and processing loads from the servers that are down. The rules are a lot more complicated than that however. For example, if 250 machines go down at EXACTLY the same time because of bad design (same power grid, network switch, etc) it may be possible to loose the current working set (which includes cached data) that had no copies elsewhere on the network. The piece of data that would be lost would not have user affinity but could affect small different parts of data belonging to a number of users.

Normally when a node goes down, there will always be a copy of data elsewhere on the system, and the nodes that have that piece of data will be aware that the node has gone done. The nodes will then negotiate with other partners to replicate another copy of that data. This will occur very quickly so as long as a large group of nodes do not fail at the same time, they should have enough time to reorganise themselves back to a fully redundant state.

There is also another level of sophistication regarding redundancy. Nodes are aware based on both localisation and node attributes, what the failure rate is and they create enough redundant copies in order to maintain a balanced system.

There are only a few major vendors that really offer true cloud computing, Google is one of them but not all their services are cloud based, some of them are based on web farms connected to redundant databases. Neither Facebook nor MySpace use cloud computing. It should be fairly obvious whether Microsoft uses true cloud computing based on the outcome of this event.

So take great care when using "cloud services" as it might not be a true cloud but a puff of hot air.

[protagonistic--2008]

@ XiroMisho

No, the issue here is that people rarely take the time to thoroughly check out what they are purchasing. If you trust someone else who is telling you that they will take care of your important data so you don't have to worry about it then you bear some responsibility when you find out the really aren't doing so. I never solely rely on someone else to protect my important data. If it is that important I keep a copy myself. If they won't let me keep a copy then I look for a product that will. It is that simple.

Would you trust a car salesperson that told you the vehicle was only driven to church by a little old lady on Sundays? Well guess what, these people are also salespeople.

[richard993]

The reason why I discussed the true definition of cloud computing and it's properties is that it is now getting practically impossible for users to be able to evaluate services especially when the underlying implementation is hidden to the end user. Microsoft have made numerous claims about their mobile platform being in the cloud, which by it's very definition would be more reliable than a machine or a bunch of machines at home or in an ordinary data center.

What this really is, is a case of false advertising and making false claims to customers. Such technology and reliability claims are simply becoming marketing gimmicks used by Microsoft and other vendors. If customers were made aware of the underlying implementation, then they could make an informed decision about what they are purchasing. How can anyone do research on services that a company is offering when all the information you can find about those services have been created by the marketing department?

This is an an area that need to be better regulated. Fortunately consumer protections laws apply when customers have not been told the entire truth about the product they are purchasing ("misleading and deceptive conduct"). And it appears that some customers have decided to exercise that right against Microsoft... rightfully so. The outcome hopefully would keep some of these organizations honest, especially when they use terms from emerging technologies to describe their inferior and outdated systems.

[dacopper]

I spilled hot coffee on myself, gimme $300 bazillion for not indicating that hot liquids may be hot!!! Oh, wait, somebody has already done this... Umm, how about for not syncing up my data and loosing it during a network outage? Nobody has thought of this yet? Yey, I'll be the first in line then!

[C0mmanderB0nd]

Read the facts of the actual default punchline "McDonalds Coffee Lawsuit" case and you will see why the damages were so high.

[ferricoxide]

Actually, since the beginning of data outsourcing, legal liability for third-party loss of data has existed. For instance, were I customer of Verizon business, hosting my E-commerce site in Verizon data centers, if through Verizon's actions or inactions, my data was lost, damaged, compromised or made unavailable, I could sue them with a reasonable expectation of recovering damages. Nothing new here.

[Knightendo]

oh god, over use of the legal system. file a lawsuit for something that Tmobile and MS are working on and the fact that tmobile already gave everyone one free month of data and 100 dollars?
what a bunch of morons.

[t8]

You probably don't have valuable data that is worth something in monetary terms.
But others do.

[JoeF2]

@t8:
A person who has valuable data on these systems should have backed it up. If you don't back it up, it obviously isn't valuable to you.

[protagonistic--2008]

@ t8

Anybody who has data that is worth something in monetary terms and doesn't insure they have a backup is an idiot. It all comes back to my previous comment about buying a pig in a poke. All my important data has a copy stored offsite, the boot drive gets cloned weekly onsite and Time Machine backs up to a 500GB Firewire RAID array onsite.

As for the Sidekick, I would not buy any device that did not let me keep a local backup of my important data. I agree that the companies involved bear some of the blame, but the individual is also at fault for not doing their research.

[XiroMisho]

"oh god, over use of the legal system. file a lawsuit for something that Tmobile and MS are working on and the fact that tmobile already gave everyone one free month of data and 100 dollars?
what a bunch of morons."

actually the people suing are more within their right - I would actually have sued if I just found out this MIGHT have happened and I had information out there using this service... realize the word "Guarantee" and "Reliable" are used with Danger's service... it's a serious breach of contract - not something that is frivolous.

[leodavinci314]

@t8: You are correct. In legal terms, information is considered property, and Microsoft, T-Mobile, and others are all liable, whether they were or were not at fault. If they claim that your data will be safe, they are at fault. Your comment is not trolling (regardless of which way you swing), as these others claim, you were not picking a fight. Also, and I don't understand why this needs to be repeatedly said, the average user does know, nor does not think it is necessary when they are told it will be safe, to back up data on a phone; most don't even know how a cloud network works. This does not mean the information holders are allowed to be reckless with it (e.g., not having a RAID set up).

[leodavinci314]

It should also be said that if they claimed in the product labeling (this includes labeling on the device packaging, in the manual, or marketing literature) or in advertising that the data are suppose to be safe, this will be a slam dunk case and settled out of court for an undisclosed sum (most likely). If they provided themselves an escape clause at any time, this case might get interesting.

[leslieanne831]

Just FYI, Tmobile is NOT giving out $100 to people. They said they might. And whenI called to ask about the qualifications, they had no information to give me.

[ferricoxide]

The *SERVICE* bought from T-Mobile and outsourced to Microsoft/Danger was to include proper protection of data. A proper data service provider has tape backups, disaster recovery sites, etc. Any given customer of T-Mobile (and T-Mobile as a data customer of Microsoft/Danger) should have ZERO requirement to back up their own data beyond what is already provided through the service.

[t8]

Never ever host your data with a company who makes an OS that crashes.
Yes, their Cloud is probably using Windows.
If not, then the problem is their systems.

[atriusNY]

Well, this leaves us with no company since humans haven't invented an OS yet that doesn't crash.

[t8]

Linux is better suited. It doesn't crash nearly as often as Windows and in a data center it is incredibly reliable.
The reason is that you can strip it down to perform functions that are needed.
Windows has everything including Internet Explorer and the kitchen sink.

[jandler]

except that danger is uses a java backend. it's written all over their website. a quick research will show

http://www.danger.com/developer/

[t8]

Who knows, they may have tried to swap out the Java with .Net.
Like they did with Hotmail. Linux for Windows, and then it falls over.

[sharmajunior]

I think the Danger database unit was using Linux primarily as the OS.

I could be wrong but that's what I know.

[ferricoxide]

Please try not to be overmuch of a fanboi. It's not really a question of the hosts and what OS they run. It's a question of the storage used for the data and the lack of redundancy/backups. Doesn't matter whether you're runnins Window, Linux, BSD or other, if the storage subsystems don't have adequate protection, you're boned. And, even if there's a perceived crashy-ness to an OS, that is fairly easily overcome by local and wide-area clustering.

[GreySkies01]

I just wanted to respond to this. I have read a great article about how Danger was setup. Microsoft bought the company because they wanted the developers, and then they stripped all the engineers from the data centers. They outsourced to a couple of overseas contractors. It was NOT running Microsoft databases or Windows OS, and they didn't have a clue how to manage it. They are completely in the wrong, but I wanted to say this was not your typical Microsoft datacenter running their sofware. This is something they bought, threw in the corner, and forgot about until it blew up!!

[JeffDS3]

I just think it is idiotic that every thing that should be on the phone is instead in the "cloud". The smart way should be that the device has a permanent local copy and copy in the cloud that way should the device get go missing then you can instantly back up and if the cloud goes away there is still a copy. I always have 2-3 copies of all my contacts, calendars and mail in different places.

[Michichael]

I think the issue is more with the fact that, you know, they don't make your data readily available in any other way where you can back it up yourself. That's one of the reasons I left sidekicks for android. The lawsuits are because Microsoft not only failed to keep addequate backups of customer data, some of which has some direct financial impact on the customer.

Now I'm going to play the devil's advocate and say that the user should maintain an offline copy themselves, but Danger and Microsoft really locked down the user's ability to do that. It wasn't easy, and it wasn't user friendly, because it's always stored in the "safe and secure Sidekick account".

I will admit though, my estimates that there'd be class action by today were spot on >:P

[J.G.]

There are still some people who did not grasp that there is no local backup provided for the Sidekick. These people did not have the option of simply backing up their devices to their computers as iPhone and Blackberry users can.

[JoeF2]

Then you don't use such a device for valuable data. It is THAT simple.
Ever heard of common sense?

[sharmajunior]

Sidekicks are meant mostly for High school kids who like to show off. Ofcourse their data isn't important that's why the device does not have any other backup options.

[gggg sssss]

A stimulous for the lawyers. What a bunch of bottom feeders. To the botttom of the sea with the lot.

[iamrta]

don't store all your **** on a phone. period. if you don't lose data for some stupid reason then you're gonna drop it in the toilet or leave it on the tray at mcdonalds. and for crying out loud, it's a SIDEKICK, not exactly critical enterprise hardware we are whining about here. gimmie a freaking break.

[Knightendo]

ok, so just because i have 400 contacts i have the right to sue for an unspecified amount of money? can you put a amount on each contact? besides, the majority of people how have sidekicks are teens and youngters and i highly doubt they will have "customer" information on their phones. all they want to do is make money out of the situation.
promosed that the data would be protected? please people

[skspartan117]

I find this very funny... Mainly because i have always seen the sidekicks as pieces of crap. if you want to talk about contacts and files and this and that, then i'd recommend a blackberry or an iphone. screw sidekicks, they're too bulky and not very appealing. Lawsuit because you lost personal data?... Really??? that's just ridiculous. Maybe if people wouldn't live with their damn phone glued to their head they wouldn't be in this situation. Wonder if they have ever heard of a computer and a USB, or an external hard drive to save data. People go through so many cell phones as it is, keeping irreplaceable data on ANY phone is just a dumb idea, period!
Just my opinion of course, take it as you wish. Bottom line is people don't take the time to actually live and enjoy life, they just play around with this damn technology (I'm a M.I.S Manager, and i make time to do both live with and without technology)

[hnavp66]

maybe this question has been asked, but seriously Microsoft? no backup?

[baconstang]

This MAY shed some light...
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/10/12/microsofts-sidekickpink-problems-blamed-on-dogfooding-and-sabotage/

[solvback]

Oh because it's a sidekick not an iphone or blackberry (blackberries are ugly stupid looking thing) so a person should thank "oh i should have expect having a problem with backup"!
SHUT UP!
Same thing happens on the iphone and blackberry. I've seen it! Don't tell me they should have done this or that.
If your so smart solve cancer problem! Shut up!
Tech companies are putting a lot of crap out there but holla REGULATE and you will strifle tech companies. Shut up!
The phone did not cause the problem it was the service!
SUE, SUE AND SUE!
I HOPE A JUDGE HIT THEM WHERE IT HURTS!
To all the great minds out there!

[iamrta]

on the bright side...the loss of data probably foiled thousands of illegal drug deals this week.

[no-bs-just-the-facts]

I see this often. Microsoft products fail, and usually after an in depth analysis it is found there are ignorant admins also at fault. MS shops are run by ignorant admins that don't know any better and fail at higher paying jobs managing superior non-MS products.

[protagonistic--2008]

To be fair, every big company has these problems. Once the bottom line becomes more important than the customer you are going to have these kind of incidents.

[heygeo]

wow.. so as Danger's platform is MySQL and Linux.. absolutely nothing from MS... what happened here?
yeah I think your handle should read "no-facts-just-the-bs" on account you dont have any facts in your post just a bunch of BS.

[clynx]

Serves T-Mobile right for limiting the Pay-As-You go data day pass to the Sidekick only and killing a great service for those without a sidekick but would benefit from the plan that actually made some since. In a market of nonsense rip-off data plans the sidekick data plan worked. Go sink in a lake now T-Mobile.

[halflinggray]

Heh.. wonder what happens when their data turns back uo on their phones...

http://www.t-mobile.com/sidekick

Could of at least waited a month before filing. It is actually in everybody's best interest for Sidekick users to get fully functional again with all their data intact. I would hate to think these lawsuits were filed over internet speculation of what might have happened.

[kaibelf]

Is it just me? What kind of legitimate singer/actress/model with ANY talent would rely so heavily on a handheld that she's be professionally lost without it? What if she dropped it into the toilet? Would she sue the city for providing water? And I HIGHLY doubt her "irreplaceable song lyrics" were decent, since they were probably some crap she typed to herself on a bus. If anything, she should be embarrassed for appearing completely incapable of handling her professional life in a responsible manner. Furthermore, it reflects poorly on her mother who is suing to deflect the fact that she raised an idiot.

[spencerdav]

what kind of ******* file a lawsuit over loosing their sidekick data? grow up! I can understand it is annoying to lose your contact list and some other information, but to hire a lawyer is ridiculous. Shame on anyone who is involved with this. Feed the hungry, help the people in need with your extra time if have it. SHAME SHAME. I am tired of all you geeks out there crying about this stupid stuff.....oh no the Kindle is too expensive, my sidekick doesnt work, itunes song are a 1.29, whah whah whah....I make choices every day not to do business with people I disagree with, that is our choice. But I dont cry to the world about something that is not my right to make decisions about. If you are unhappy with your sidekick outage, get a new plan. Get a blackberry or some other device that has syncing capability, you are stupid for buying a sidekick in the first place, and even more stupid for not having a back up of your contacts. Losers

[AppleSuxLeo]

Sidekick data important ? Bwahahahaha !
Now iv`e heard everything.

[maikerusugoi]

to Spencerdav and kaibelf- you are obviously not creatives. If you were, you would know that when you are struck with an idea or lyrics or notes, you put them in your travelling device of choice. I am a working entertainer in Los Angeles and quite a number of our communities "acting circles, dance circles, composer circles" are shut down because of this crap MS just pulled. A lot of us rely on our smartphones for these kinds of things, and companies know that. That is why "notes" is a main front feature on the sidekick.

You guys are honestly just flat out stupid if you think that just because you aren't creative enough to write songs, scripts, notes for the story deadline later today, or whatever, that nobody else is. Go die somewhere you losers.