DON'T BUY MSI THEY MIS-SOLD TOP SPEC GT SERIES LAPTOPS with MXM Graphics

@Loki

tropicola said:
Since you left are you allowed to tell us anything about the whole subject that you couldn't beforehand?

Or did you leave via an "agreement" so you can't legally say anything?


Goes to show - a lot of people left after this issue, either they got fired for handling it incorrectly or does MSI treat its staff badly also that makes them want to leave? (question, not a statement)
Click to expand...
 
Loki said:
Understand your point of view but I disagree. Your logic is entirely correct if everyone bought a laptop BECAUSE of MXM.

As I said there were many people who bought a laptop at the time just purely because it was the latest tech on the market. MXM upgradeability may have been a 1st choice consideration for some 3rd or 4th choice for others.
Click to expand...

What? If I bought my GT72 purely to watch hentai on, therefore not needing the advertised upgrade path, that in someway should stop MSI's advertising from applying to me?

MSI advertised the feature, sold on the back of the feature, and reneged on it's own marketing.

The end user usage is irrelevant. The advertised and marketed features are the responsibility of the manufacturer, not the customer.

Please stop suggesting anything otherwise.

Loki said:
From the people, I spoke to over the phone (and there was a fair few who I spoke to) quite a few did the upgrade because of the work that you and @MiSJAH had put in to make the public aware. For them, it was as easier to spend let's say £700 to upgrade and get a new Laptop with new warranty etc. than sell their existing privately and then go and spend another £1500 - £2000 on a new laptop.
Click to expand...

But why were these people in the circumstance? Because the manufacturer reneged on their marketing.

Loki said:
People leaving, I take your point. Arjibear is somebody who I have worked with at three companies over the last ten years or so. More like brothers than workers. I can understand why people would think what they did because of the timing of him and me moving on. All I can say was that our time had run its course and time to move on. MXM coincided but was not the motivation.

On a personal level, I admire some the work that has gone on championing the consumer's cause.
Click to expand...

@Loki the questions above are not so much aimed at you, as aimed at the business practices of MSI.

Much as we may disagree about aspects of the MSI MXM situation, I genuinely wish you all the best at ROG.
 
LordT said:
Hi Misjah,

I bought the MSI GT80s 6QF, my first ever laptop and intended it to replace my desktop after it failed to start after coming back to Australia. Didn't realise that I can't upgrade the components and wasn't made aware of any "make amends" trade up programs until today as I'm googling ways to upgrade some internals.

This laptop has already been sent back 3 times, once was within the first month due to a "Mura" effect on the LCD screen, another for a fan issue and the recent one was for a fried motherboard.

Any news on the upgrade scam and would you know of how MSI is treating Australian victims?
Click to expand...

Hi @LordT ,

I think Australia got screwed in the entire ordeal.

Maybe reach out to the UK arm ([email protected]) and ask them to put you in touch with whom would be dealing with the trade in scheme is AUS?

When you get the contact details drop me a pm here.

Good luck!
 
US Class action against MSI Update:

Mealey's (October 25, 2018, 1:50 PM EDT) -- LOS ANGELES — A California federal judge on Oct. 23 dismissed numerous warranty claims asserted by purchasers of laptops made for gaming, but held that the consumers sufficiently pleaded violations of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other claims because they specified the model of allegedly defective laptops and the alleged misrepresentations made about them (Casey Thornton, et al. v. Micro-Star International Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:17-cv-03231, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181912).

(Opinion available. Document #58-181120-011Z.)

Laptops

Casey Thornton and Carl Jones filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against MSI Computer Corp., Micro-Star International Co. Ltd. and Does 1-25. MSI designs, makes, sells and distributes computers, including the GT72 series and GT80 series laptops, which are made for gaming. Thornton and Jones assert that the laptops can be upgraded to have better graphics processing units (GPUs) made by NVIDIA Corp.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants advertised the laptops as being able to be upgraded from the NVIDIA GPUs that were included in the laptops to a later generation of NVIDIA GPUs. The plaintiffs allege that the laptops did not have the benefits that were advertised by MSI and Micro-Star and that the laptops could not be upgraded by even one generation, among other claims.

Dismissal

The District Court granted a motion filed by MSI and Micro-Star to dismiss the complaint. Thornton and Jones filed an amended complaint, which was also dismissed with leave to amend. Thornton and Jones filed a second amended complaint, asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of express warranties, breach of implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose and common counts of assumpsit, restitution, unjust enrichment and quasi-contract.

Thornton and Jones also asserted causes of action for violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq., the UCL, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., the Song-Beverly Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1790, and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.

The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint.

UCL

The defendants argued that the CLRA and UCL claims failed because they were not pleaded with the required particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). They argued that Thornton and Jones failed to identify the “who and how” of their alleged misrepresentations.

In the previous order dismissing the CLRA and UCL claims, Judge Christina A. Snyder said the District Court held that those claims sounded in fraud and, therefore, did not meet the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). She said the second amended complaint cured the defects in the previous complaint as to the UCL and CLRA claims.

“Plaintiffs' second amended complaint specifically identifies the laptop models plaintiffs purchased, as well as the GPU models included in the laptops. Plaintiff Thornton purchased an MSI GT72 Dominator 6QD laptop, containing a single NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 GPU. . . . Plaintiff Jones purchased an MSI GT80S Titan SLI-012 laptop, containing two NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M GPUs. . . . Plaintiffs further allege that defendants' alleged misrepresentations pertained to these models,” Judge Snyder said.

The judge denied the motion to dismiss the UCL and CLRA claims.

Warranty

Judge Snyder said the motion should be denied as to the plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract. She said the plaintiffs alleged that MSI and Micro-Star advertised that they could upgrade the laptops, which was an offer, which they accepted by purchasing the products. In addition, she said Thornton and Jones’ allegation that the defendants breached a contract by failing to allow consumers to upgrade their computers stated a valid claim. The judge also refused to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for breach of express warranty. She said the complaint alleged specifics about the laptops.

However, Judge Snyder held that the claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability should be dismissed because as alleged in the complaint the laptops are gaming machines, which was the ordinary use. Judge Snyder denied the motion as to the Song-Beverly claim on the basis of implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose. However, she granted dismissal of the Song-Beverly claim based on the implied warranty of merchantability. The judge also denied the motion to dismiss the Magnuson-Moss breach of express warranty claim.

In sum, the judge denied the motion to dismiss Thornton and Jones’ claims for breach of contract, fraud-based claims under the CLRA and UCL, breach of express warranty under the California Commercial Code and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose claims and common counts. However, the judge dismissed the other claims under the Song-Beverly Act and breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the California Commercial Code and under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act with prejudice.

The plaintiffs are represented by Alan M. Mansfield of The Consumer Law Group of California in San Diego and Kenneth A. Remson and Jeff S. Westerman of Westerman Law Corp. in Los Angeles. MSI and Micro-Star are represented by Bridget Anne Freeman of Paramount Pictures Corp. and Bryan A. Merryman of White and Case, both in Los Angeles.
Click to expand...

https://www.lexislegalnews.com/arti...laims-related-to-laptop-upgrades-can-proceed-
 
Latest on the class action against MSI in regards to this matter:

MINUTES OF Scheduling Conference held before Judge Christina A. Snyder.The Court confers with counsel, as stated in Court and on the record. The Court sets the last day to add parties or amend pleadings cutoff for April 1, 2019. The Court sets the hearing for plaintiffs Noticed Motion for Class Certification to be noticed for October 7, 2019, at 10:00 A.M. Counsel shall meet and confer regarding the filing and briefing for the motion for class certification, with the briefs to be completed at least two (2) weeks prior to the scheduled hearing date. The Court will visit rescheduling a Further Scheduling Conference, the motion for class certification has been heard.
Click to expand...
 
Just a quick update about the class action lawsuit against MSI over this matter in the USA:

The case is ongoing, MSI's lawyers are trying to drag it out as long as they can to try and make those claiming give in rather than MSI stand up and accept their responsibility in lying to their high ticket gaming laptop customers.

That's what MSI think of their customers.
 
Plec said:
@MiSJAH - finally got through it all.

Kudos, for sticking with it - as mentioned before, remind me never to p*** you off. :D

It will be interesting watching how the US class action plays out, especially as this, on the surface, appears a risky play by MSI - even if they do intend to settle eventually (guessing). The precedent they seem to be desperately avoiding presumably has larger ramifications - but with the intense scrutiny they're under, all be it from a niche audience (Tech heads), still seems a risky PR balancing act.

And here's hoping:
Click to expand...

I await with interest. As I'm sure do MSI UK Gaming.

-self-proclaimed laptop aficionado MiSJAH
 
MSI's lawyers are trying to drag the case out to make it not worthwhile for the class action lawyers to continue.

No one is giving up.

When there is new news I'll update :)

27 months into the case and counting......

JUv0nqC.png
 
It's a surprise to me that this thread is still going after nearly 3 years.

The thing I'm most disappointed is the MSI reps didn't stay for the duration, tried to push people into not talking about the offers they received, and gave people vastly differing offers.

MSI, you are more than welcome to make reparations with the community in the UK via this thread. (Maybe have a chat with OcUK and see how many unique views this thread has had?).

To everyone that has commented, shared this situation, or simple recommended against MSI, thank you.

For anyone still involved in this debacle, you have my sympathies.
 
Furos said:
From my experience I have a gt73vr 7rf and it's been perfect for my needs. Its just over 2 year old and not had a issue with it. I'm looking to upgrade and from my own personal experience I'll be happy to look at other msi products.
Click to expand...

We all know that MSI make some great products, that was never the issue.

The problem is how MSI treat their high ticket customers when MSI themselves screw up.

You're fortunate enough not to have been caught up in this circumstance.
 
Last edited:
As previously stated this was never about the quality of MSI hardware but their mismanagement of their customers due to a situation MSI created.

I had been loyal to MSI from my first GT60, then GS60, then GT72.

MSI broke the trust of their high ticket laptop customers.

As an aside the new GT76 with desktop 9900K is ~£1,500 more than the equivalent Clevo with no gaming or computational benefits.
 
If you follow MSI on any social media platforms, please share this thread there.

Let MSI know we are following the lawsuit and have not forgotten.

(I can't, they blocked me from posting to their feeds, hmmmmm, very strange it's like they don't want their customers to know still.)
 
Last edited:
Alexrose1uk said:
I hope the class action is successful, on principle if nothing else. I like MSI machines/hardware, they make nice stuff, but this sort of customer service failure is unacceptable, and I hope the people responsible are no longer with them.
Click to expand...

I agree, I've never had any real issues with their hardware. Apart from the lack of claimed upgrade path.

But the way they have treated their customers that have spent up to £4,000 on these laptops is offensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom