Dell complaints

[c_duffer]

NEW YORK - A New York state judge says Dell Inc. engaged in repeated false and deceptive advertising of its promotional credit financing and warranty terms to consumers.

State Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi says New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo showed "many customers" are entitled to restitution, but the record was insufficient to determine how much.

A call to Round Rock, Texas-based Dell was not immediately returned Tuesday. When Cuomo sued the computer maker last year, Dell spokesmen said the company's conduct had been honorable, customers were its top priority, and it had six million transactions in New York between 2003 and 2006.

Cuomo said in May 2007 his office had received 700 complaints against Dell and they were still coming in.

http://www.startribune.com/science/19288424.html
_________________
I was burned out and didnt mean to prank call customers from work. I am sorry.

[FallenAngel]

[Licky_201]

Here's a bit more on it...hope i'm not duplicating....

Judge: "Dell Has Engaged In Repeated Misleading, Deceptive And Unlawful Business Conduct"

A state judge in Albany, NY has found that Dell "has engaged in repeated misleading, deceptive and unlawful business conduct,including false and deceptive advertising of financing promotions and the terms of warranties, fraudulent, misleading and deceptive practices in credit financing and failure to provide warranty service and rebates."

In addition, the judge also found that Dell Financial Services "has engaged in repeated misleading, deceptive and unlawful business conduct, including false and deceptive advertising of financing promotions, fraudulent, misleading and deceptive practices in credit financing and improper debt collection practices."

NY's Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, sued Dell and Dell Financial Services for depriving consumers of the technical support they were entitled to under their warranty or service contract by:

*

repeatedly failing to provide consumers who purchased service contracts promising “onsite” and expedited service with timely onsite repair;
* for pressuring consumers, including those who purchased service contracts promising “next day onsite” repair, to remove the external cover of their computer and remove, reinstall, and manipulate hardware components;
* discouraging consumers from seeking technical support; those who called Dell’s toll free number were subjected to long wait times, repeated transfers, and frequent disconnections;
* for using defective “refurbished” parts or computers to repair or replace consumers’ equipment.

The lawsuit also accused Dell's financing operation of luring customers into high interest rate financing deals by using a "bait-and-switch" tactic. Dell advertised "no interest" or "no payment" financing, but according to the lawsuit, "the vast majority of consumers, even those with very good credit scores, were denied these deals. "

In addition, the lawsuit also alleged that Dell incorrectly billed customers on canceled orders, returned merchandise or on accounts that were fraudulently opened. The AG's office says that "Although many consumers repeatedly contacted Dell and/or DFS to advise them of the errors, DFS did not suspend its collection activity and Dell failed to expeditiously credit consumers’ accounts, even after assuring consumers it would do so. As a result, many consumers have been subjected to harassing collection calls for months on end and have had their credit ratings harmed."

For more information about how this lawsuit affects Dell customers in New York state, please click here. According to the Wall Street Journal, Dell has no comment at this time.

Decision and Order in NY vs Dell (PDF)[NY AG]

[c_duffer]

ALBANY, N.Y. - A New York judge concluded Tuesday that Dell Inc. engaged in repeated false and deceptive advertising of its promotional credit financing and warranties.

State Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi ordered the computer retailer to more clearly disclose that most customers don't qualify for free financing or get "next day" repair service.

"It appears likely that there are many more New York consumers who are entitled to restitution who are not included in the complaints," Teresi wrote.

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo sued Dell last year. Teresi gave him until Dec. 1 to identify all consumer claims for third-party repairs, new computers or higher interest payments than they would have paid otherwise.

"For too long at Dell the promise of customer service was a bait and switch that left thousands of people paying for essentially no service at all," Cuomo said. "This decision sends an important message that all corporations will be held accountable for the promises they make to consumers."

The attorney general's office had 700 complaints against Dell when the lawsuit was filed in May 2007 and has received more than 1,000 since, spokesman John Milgrim said.

Dell spokesman Jess Blackburn said the Round Rock, Texas-based company disagreed with the judge's decision and would be putting up a vigorous defense of its position, although it had not decided yet whether it would appeal.

"We are confident that when the proceedings are finally completed the court will determine that only a relatively small number of customers have been affected," Blackburn said.

The company noted earlier that it had 6 million transactions in New York between 2003 and 2006, with alleged complaints representing only a tiny fraction. Dell also told the court that it has started selective recording and auditing of sales representatives to avoid misrepresentations and has invested millions of dollars in customer service and technical support, significantly reducing customer waiting times on the phone.

According to the judge, Dell ads offered promotions like free flat-panel monitors, additional memory, rebates, instant discounts and financing with no interest or no payments for a period to "well qualified" or "best qualified" customers. However, Cuomo's submissions indicated as few as 7 percent of New York applicants qualified for some promotions.

"Most applicants, if approved for credit, were offered very high interest rate revolving credit accounts ranging from approximately 16 percent up to almost 30 percent interest without the prominently advertised promotional interest deferral," Teresi wrote. Financing was done through Dell Financial Services, a joint venture of Dell and CIT Bank.

"Dell certainly has knowledge of the relative numbers of customers who qualify for various promotions," Teresi wrote. "It is therefore determined that Dell has engaged in prominently advertising the financing promotions in order to attract prospective customers with no intention of actually providing the advertised financing to the great majority of such customers. Such conduct is deceptive and constitutes improper 'bait advertising.'"

Many customers applied for credit thinking they would get the promotional rate, Teresi wrote. He enjoined Dell from advertising promotional rates without prominently disclosing how many applicants are likely to qualify, as well as the usual credit terms.

The judge also noted many affidavits alleging long telephone waits on hold for technical support, numerous phone transfers among departments, the need for repeated customer calls to get through and "numerous instances" when Dell refused to provide on-site service before it had determined what parts needed to be replaced. Some customers said they waited weeks, months and even years.

The judge also faulted Dell for denying timely rebate requests that contained all required documentation and ordered Dell Financial Services to stop reporting payments were late from customers who offered documentation they had already returned equipment for full refunds
http://www.startribune.com/science/19288424.html
_________________
I was burned out and didnt mean to prank call customers from work. I am sorry.

[c_duffer]

Dell Engaged in Misleading Conduct, N.Y. Judge Rules (Update2)

By Karen Freifeld

May 27 (Bloomberg) -- Dell Inc., the second-largest personal-computer maker, engaged in ``repeated misleading, deceptive'' customer practices related to warranties, financing and promised on-site repairs, a New York judge ruled.

State Supreme Court Justice Joseph Teresi in Albany said more information was needed to determine what restitution and penalties Dell must pay in the lawsuit by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Teresi's May 23 ruling ordered the company to cease illegal business practices.

``For prospective PC buyers thinking of using Dell's financing options, this gives them a reason to rethink their purchase,'' Bill Kreher, an analyst at Edward Jones in St. Louis, said in a telephone interview. ``It certainly doesn't help Dell's sales aspirations.''

New York sued Dell and its financing unit, Dell Financial Services LP, a year ago, alleging the Round Rock, Texas-based company misled consumers with financing offers, warranties, service contracts and rebates. Dell said March 31 that it was looking for a buyer for the unit's consumer-lending business.

Dell disagreed with Teresi's ruling, spokesman Jess Blackburn said in an e-mailed statement today. Cuomo has until Dec. 1 to say how much restitution he's seeking and Dell has until Feb. 2 to respond.

``We are confident that when the proceedings are finally completed the court will determine that only a relatively small number of customers have been affected,'' Blackburn said. Dell hasn't yet decided whether to appeal, he said.

`Bait and Switch'

``For too long at Dell the promise of customer service was a bait and switch that left thousands of people paying for essentially no service at all,'' Cuomo said today in a statement. ``We have won an important victory that will force Dell to live up to its responsibilities and pay back its customers.''

According to Teresi's ruling, Dell advertised no-interest financing and other promotions with no intention of providing them to most customers. Cuomo showed that as few as 7 percent of New York applicants qualified for some promotions, while most were offered revolving credit accounts of 16 percent to almost 30 percent interest, Teresi said.

Teresi said such conduct was deceptive and constitutes improper `bait advertising.'' Dell didn't clearly tell customers they didn't qualify for the better terms, he said.

The judge also said Dell failed to provide rebates, comply with warranties or live up to its advertised promise of ``next- day'' service. In addition, Dell Financing engaged in improper debt-collection practices, Teresi said.

Cuomo submitted affidavits from customers who became so frustrated with technical support, long holds and phone transfers that they gave up trying to get repairs and got others to fix their machines or replaced them.

Hewlett-Packard Co. is the biggest personal computer maker.

Dell rose 30 cents to $21.49 at 5:19 p.m. New York time in Nasdaq Stock Market trading. The shares have fallen 12 percent this year.

The case is New York v. Dell, 07-3778, New York Supreme Court, Albany County (Albany).

To contact the reporter on this story: Karen Freifeld in New York at kfreifeld@bloomberg.net.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&sid=aoVL6pKJ.E5Q&refer=technology
_________________
I was burned out and didnt mean to prank call customers from work. I am sorry.

[DellMgmt]

My manager has said we are having an 'ALL HANDS' meeting in the morning. He said someone has been leaking out information to the public about our Project Medical Care- Lithium. He says since our team cant be trusted we should be polishing up our resumes. All of this is because of New Yorks Cuomo. If you care about your job at Dell, now is the time to identify those co-workers around you who LIE. This is NOT a Dell problem. This is an employee problem. One or two Dell sales representatives have caused this great company to get the biggest black eye we could get. Dell has an open door policy and as such we need to identify the weeds amongst us. If we dont get those people fired, the weeds will overtake the building. Dont let Dell go down,PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE tell your manager if you know anyone who has EVER given any bad information to a customer or hung up on anyone from New York. All New York phone calls going forward will go into a special que and will receive white glove treatment.

[Licky_201]

DellMgt:

Since you insist I am going to have to tell the managers that YOU are the culprit who has been leaking the information. In fact I have digital pictures of you meeting with DA Cuomo however when I tried to load them onto my Dell Laptop, it crashed....you'd better hope that Dell customer service lives up to its reputation and makes matters worse....or you'll be out.

[Rocke_T_Sinetist]

Uploading digital pictures ALWAYS crashes Dell laughtops. Especially if you have a cat.
_________________
Rocke T Sinetist
as in, 'it doesn't take a...'

[FallenAngel]

[InTheKnow]

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/05/27/dell.lawsuit/

STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK by
ANDREW M. CUOMO, Attorney General of
the State of New York,
Petitioner,
DECISION and ORDER
INDEX NO. 3778-07
RJI NO. 01-07-089339
DELL, INC. and DELL FINANCIAL SERVICES, L.P.,
Respondents.
--- ---
Supreme Court Albany County All Purpose Term, February 27,2008
APPEARANCES:
Andrew M. Cuomo, Esq.
Attorney General of the State of New York
(Amy Schallop, Esq. AAG)
Attorney for the Petitioner
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
(Steven P. Caley, David Zalman and Lewis Rose, Esqs.)
Attorneys for Respondent Dell, Inc.
1 0 1 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10 178
and
Washington Harbour, Suite 400
3050 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20007
Featherstonhaugh, Wiley & Clyne LLP
(James D. Featherstonhaugh and Randall J. Ezick, Esqs.)
Co-Counsel for Respondent Dell, Inc.
99 Pine Street
Albany, New York 12207
Reed Smith, LLP
(Robert Miller, Mark Melodia and Andrew B. Messite, Esqs.)
Attorneys for Respondent Dell Financial Services L.P.
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10022
TERESI, J.:
Petitioner commenced the instant special proceeding alleging that respondents have
repeatedly engaged in fraudulent, deceptive and illegal business practices in violation of Executive
Law 8 63 (12) and General Business Law article 22-A and seeking injunctive relief, restitution,
penalties, disgorgement of excess profits, an accounting to identify consumers entitled to restitution
and an award of costs and disbursements. The proceeding involves the practices engaged in by
respondents in the sale, financing and warranty servicing of computers and related electronic
equipment. Respondents have each separately cross-moved for an order dismissing the proceeding.
The proceeding was initially removed to Federal Court and thereafter was remanded back to
Supreme Court.
A special proceeding brought pursuant to either Executive Law 5 63 (12) or General Business
Law article 22-A is the functional equivalent of a motion for summary judgment in an action with
the same procedural standards applicable (see Matter of People v Applied Card Sys.. Inc., 27 AD3d
104, 106, [3d Dept 20051; see also Matter of Port of N. Y. Auth. [62 Cortlandt St. Realty Co.], 18
NY2d 250,255 [1966]; National Enters. Inc. v Clermont Farm Corp., 46 AD3d 1 180,1183 [3d Dept
20071). "[Tlhe proponent of a summary judgment motion must make a prima facie showing of
entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, tendering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence
of any material issues of fact" (Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320,324 [1986]; see also Bush
v St. Clare's Hosp., 82 NY2d 738,739 [1993]). The petition and cross-motions to dismiss must be
Page 2
a supported by "evidentiary proof in admissible form" (Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs.,
46 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1979]). Conclusory assertions without factual proof are insufficient (E
Matter of Sour Mtn. Realtvv New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation, 260 AD2d 920,923-924
[3d Dept 19991). Once the movant has established a right to judgment as a matter of law, the burden
shifts to the opponent of the motion to establish, by admissible proof, the existence of genuine issues
of material fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). The Court will then
view the evidence in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, giving them the benefit
of every reasonable inference, and determine whether there is any triable issue of fact which would
warrant denial of a motion for summary judgment and necessitate a trial (see Boyce v Vazquez, 249
AD2d 724,726 [3d Dept 19981; Martin v Brig@, 235 AD2d 192,196 [l st Dept 19971; Simpson v
Simpson, 222 AD2d 984,986 [3d Dept 19951).
Petitioner has submitted numerous affidavits from consumers alleging various deceptive,
misleading and unlawful conduct by the respondents. Petitioner has also submitted a number of
unsworn complaints prepared on forms which state immediately before the signature that any false
statements would be punishable as a class A misdemeanor under section 175.30 andlor section
210.45 of the Penal Law. Respondents object to the Court considering such complaints as they are
not sworn. Petitioner contends that such complaints are the substantial equivalent of an affidavit and
thus may be relied upon as admissible proof in support of the application, citing Peo~lve Sullivan,
(56 NY2d 378,383 [1982]). However, such decision involved construction of a statute referring to
undefined oaths or affirmations relating to an application for a search warrant. The Appellate
Division, Third Department, has stated:
"Notwithstanding the existence of some caselaw tending to equate an affirmation with an
Page 3
affidavit (see, People v Sullivan, 56 NY2d 378, 383-384; Matter of Kurt EE., 199 AD2d
945), the inescapable fact is that CPLR 3212(b) very specifically requires a summary
judgment motion to 'be supported by affidavit'. In addition, the provision of CPLR 21 06 that
attorneys, physicians, osteopaths and dentists may submit an affirmation 'with the same force
and effect as an affidavit' clearly manifests the Legislature's intention that no other class of
witness be granted that privilege. Although there is much to be said for permitting written
affirmations by all persons, the Legislature has repeatedly failed to take action on proposals
to that effect (see, Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws ofN.Y., Book
7B, CPLR 2 106, at 8 16)." (Sam v Town of Rotterdam, 248 AD2d 850,85 1 [3d Dept 19981).
The Third Department's statements are only dicta, as they held that the party opposing the motion
for summary judgment failed to raise the objection, thereby waiving the issue. The reasoning is,
however, compelling and is clearly supported by People v D.B.M. Intl. Photo Corp., (1 35 AD2d 353,
354 [lst Dept 19871). It is therefore determined that only the affidavits will be considered on the
liability phase of this proceeding. Nevertheless, a restitution and penalty phase, if required, need not
comply with all of the procedural requirements of a trial or a motion for summary judgment. As
such, the unsworn complaints may be considered during such phase (see ex. People v Introductions,
[Index No. 3571 -96, Sup Ct, Albany County, March 30,1999, Teresi, J.]). The Court also notes that
respondent Dell has submitted an unsworn "declaration" to which there has been no objection.
Petitioner has submitted copies of typical advertisements published on behalf of Dell. The
ads offer such promotions as free flat panel monitors, additional memory, significant rebates and
instant discounts in very large point print in contrasting color. They also include offers of very
attractive financing, such as no interest and no payments for a specified period of time in prominent
positions and similar large fonts and colors. While there is fine print below the financing offers
limiting them to "well qualified" customers, and after certain litigation, "best qualified" customers,
nothing in the ads indicate what standards are used to determine whether a customer is well
qualified. There is also no indication of how many customers are likely actually to qualify.
Page 4
Petitioner's submissions indicate that as few as 7% of New York applicants qualified for some
promotions. Petitioner has submitted several affidavits from consumers alleging that they saw these
ads and were persuaded to call or access Dell's internet site to shop for a computer because of the
financing promotions. However, most applicants, if approved for credit, were offered very high
interest rate revolving credit accounts ranging fiom approximately 16% up to almost 30% interest
without the prominently advertised promotional interest deferral.
Petitioner contends that respondents improperly applied an ultra restrictive credit policy to
limit the number of applicants who actually benefitted fiom the promotions. However, in the
absence of any deception or misrepresentation, there is nothing improper about applying restrictive
qualifications for credit.
In any event, respondents contend that the restrictive credit policies are governed by CIT
Bank, the actual lender for Dell promotions and that Dell does not have any say in how credit is
approved. Such claims are belied by the record. Dell Financial Services, L.P. is a joint venture of
Dell and CIT Bank. Dell has a 70% interest in the joint venture, including its profits, and also
provides hundreds of millions of dollars of financing for its sales. Moreover, the varying percentages
of customers who qualify for different promotions indicates that credit approval is often based upon
the product in question, and not the customer's creditworthiness. As noted above, promotions
applicable to Dell products across the board have approval rates of as little as 7%. However,
promotions with no interest for as long as 24 months applicable only to Dell TV's and XPS computer
systems have consistently had approval ratings between 52% and 62%. Respondents have not
offered any explanation of why CIT Bank would find purchasers of such items less risky than
purchasers of other items. While petitioner has not offered any evidence as to who bears the costs
Page 5
of interest free financing, it is almost certain that such costs and expenses are born by Dell, and not
CIT Bank. It is thus apparent that Dell is the true lender (see Matter of People v County Bank of
Rehoboth Beach. Del., 45 AD3d 1 136 [3d Dept 20071) and has considerable control over how many
customers are approved for financing promotions.
Moreover, Dell certainly has knowledge of the relative numbers of customers who qualify
for various promotions. It is therefore determined that Dell has engaged in prominently advertising
the financing promotions in order to attract prospective customers with no intention of actually
providing the advertised financing to the great majority of such customers. Such conduct is
deceptive and constitutes improper "bait advertising" (see e.g. Electrolux Coy. v Val-Worth, Inc.,
6 NY2d 556,566 [1959]; Goldber~v Manhattan Ford Lincoln-Mercury, 129 Misc 2d 123,127 [Sup
Ct, New York County 19851).
The Court does not hold that it is improper to advertise attractive financing terms for
which not all customers qualifl. However, the advertising is deceptive when the sellerladvertiser
has significant control over or knowledge ofthe restricted number of customers who qualify and fails
to include any meaningful information with respect to the likelihood of obtaining the advertised
financing (see Matter of People v Applied Card SYS.. Inc., 27 AD3d at 106-108).
Petitioner has also made a prima facie showing of other repeated deceptive acts concerning
financing Dell equipment. While respondents contend that a customer can not apply for promotional
financing, but rather merely applies for a standard revolving credit account which may or may not
include favorable terms, respondents' application process does not make this legal distinction clear
to the applicant. The print out of the online application submitted by petitioner involves an offer of
no interest financing followed immediately by an active link labeled "Apply Online Now!" creating
Page 6
an inference that the customer is applying for no interest financing. This link takes the customer to
an application for a "Dell Preferred Account" which boasts "instant approval for qualified
applicants," essentially the same language used with respect to the promotional financing
"disclaimer." It is designated a "preferred" account, implying that it is better than a regular account.
While the fine print states that the account may or may not include promotional financing, the
application does not expressly state that it is not an application for the advertised financing.
Petitioner has submitted numerous affidavits from customers who believed that they were applying
for the 0% interest financing. The Court finds that under all of the circumstances, such beliefs were
not unreasonable.
Petitioner has also submitted numerous affidavits fiom customers who believed that they
applied for the promotional financing over the telephone. Some of them told the Dell representative
that they were only interested in the offer if they received the promotional financing. Most alleged
in effect that they were not clearly informed that they were applying for a regular revolving line of
credit with no beneficial features. While it does not appear that such misperception as to the nature
of the credit application standing alone would cause a consumer any injury, it would change their
rights with respect to receiving written notice of the reasons why promotional financing was denied
under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 USC 1691 [dl) (see infra).
More importantly, petitioner has submitted affidavits allegng that consumers were deceived
with respect to whether they were actually approved for the promotional financing. The online
application process included a screen which stated "Congratulations, (consumer's name!) You've
been approved for a Dell Preferred Account!" in a large print and contrasting color. This was
subsequently modified to remove the congratulatory language. If promotional financing was not
Page 7
approved, the screen then stated "Please note that your account does not qualify for or include any
promotional financing features." Thereafter, the screen set forth the credit limit and the APR and
stated "Promotional Financing Features: NOT INCLUDED." Certainly a careful consumer would
read all of the information and realize that they had not been approved for the no interest promotion.
However,
"[tlhe test is whether the act complained of 'has the capacity or tendency to deceive, or
creates an atmosphere conducive to fraud. Executive Law $63 (12) was meant to protect not
only the average consumer, but also "the ignorant, the unthinking and the credulous"'
(People v General Elec. Co., 302 AD2d 314, 314 [2003] [citations omitted], quoting
Gu~~enheimve rG inzburg, 43 NY2d 268,273 [1977])." (Matter of People v Applied Card
Sys., Inc., 27 AD3d at 106).
Viewing the process as a whole, including the initial link to apply for an advertised promotion and
the statement that the consumer was approved for a "preferred" account, it is certainly possible, if
not likely, that a significant number of consumers would accept the credit account believing that they
had qualified for the no interest financing. This is born out by the fact that Dell has prepared scripts
for its sales representatives specifically addressed to consumers who believed that they had qualified
for promotional financing following online applications. It seems unlikely that they would have
done so had such misperceptions been truly isolated and unusual.
Petitioner has also submitted many affidavits from consumers who purchased Dell equipment
over the telephone alleging that they believed they were applying for promotional financing and that
the sales representative told them they were approved, but failed to set forth the terms of the
approval, including the fact that they were not approved for the promotional financing. A smaller
number of consumers have alleged that they were actually told that they were approved for
promotional financing when they had not been. Such allegations are supported by logs maintained
Page 8
by Dell which show numerous complaints about being charged interest when the customers believed
they had been approved for promotional financing and prepared scripts apologizing for any
misrepresentations concerning financing. Moreover, some of the affidavits submitted by petitioner
indicate that such misrepresentations caused consumers actual injury as they had credit available for
considerably lower interest rates. It is therefore determined that petitioner has made a prima facie
showing that respondents have engaged in deceptive practices with respect to the advertising and
issuance of credit.
Petitioner asserts that respondents have repeatedly opened Dell Preferred Accounts for
customers without authorization and thereafter charged equipment to them. Petitioner has submitted
only two affidavits supporting such claim. In one instance, the customer provided the information
to apply for the financing promotion and decided to purchase the equipment with his credit card.
Through error, the customer was shipped two systems, with one charged to the credit card and one
charged to the Dell account without permission. The second affidavit involved a similar application
for a Dell account with the customer deciding to use a credit card. By mistake, the equipment was
charged to a Dell account instead. There is no indication that these were anything other than isolated
good faith errors which would not support the imposition of any penalty or injunctive relief.
Moreover, it appears that all financial issues have been fully resolved such that there is no basis for
any restitution. Petitioner has therefore failed to meet its burden on such claim.
Petitioner has also raised numerous objections to respondent Dell's technical suppor'
warranty service, contending that Dell has engaged in deceptive and false advertising wi'
to the availability of technical support, that it has deprived customers of timely repaif
provide "next day" service, and that it has failed to disclose that customers 7'
Page 9
disassemble their own computer before on site service will be provided. Such claims are supported
by affidavits alleging long waits on hold for technical support, numerous transfers from one
department to another with additional holds, the necessity for repeated calls and numerous instances
in which Dell refused to provide on site service because it could not or had not yet determined what
parts needed to be replaced.
Petitioner contends that Dell has engaged in deceptive and false advertising by claiming that
it has award winning technical support available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. However,
petitioner has not shown that Dell's technical support has not won any awards. Moreover, while
consumers may have to wait on hold to actuallyreceive technical support, they may do so at any hour
of the day or night. As such, petitioner has not shown any deceptive, fraudulent or illegal practices
with respect to the general provision of technical support. The Court finds that neither Executive
Law 5 63 (12) nor General Business Law article 22-A were intended to create a cause of action to
enforce the provision of superior customer service. Such aspect of a business is for the marketplace
to determine, not the petitioner or the courts.
To be distinguished, however, is the circumstance in which poor customer service is intended
to or has the effect of denying customers their warranties. Petitioner has submitted affidavits
alleging that consumers have gotten so frustrated with repeated requirements of calling technical
support to troubleshoot a computer, with its attendant long holds and transfers, that they have given
up on trylng to get warranty repairs and have gone to third-party repair services to fix their
equipment, or even worse, have stopped using the equipment and purchased new replacement
equipment. Moreover, numerous affidavits have alleged that Dell regularly refuses to provide
warranty service unless and until it has been able finally to determine the cause of a problem by
Page 10
telephone troubleshooting, rather than properly utilizing telephone troubleshooting to diagnose
andlor repair obvious issues. Petitioner has also submitted asdavits alleging that Dell also informs
customers that the problems are software related and not covered by the warranty even though they
actually involve hardware failures. The affidavits also allege that Dell has refused to provide
warranty service on the ground that the warranty had expired, even though the customer first
complained about the issue before the warranty had ended. The Court finds that petitioner has made
a prima facie showing that Dell has repeatedly refused and failed to provide service as required by
the terms of its warranties.
Petitioner also contends that Dell has engaged in deceptive advertising with respect to such
warranties. Dell has advertised its on site warranties as providing "next day" service, or used words
of similar effect. However, Dell has often required customers to call technical support repeatedly
in an attempt to troubleshoot the problem before it will provide on site service. Petitioner has
submitted affidavits alleging that it has taken weeks, months, or even years actually to receive on site
service. This is certainly not within the reasonable and normal expectation of a consumer who
purchases a service contract calling for "next day" service.
The terms of the warranty provided to the customer before sale also state that the customer
will be required to cooperate with telephone based troubleshooting. Dell does not provide any detail
as to what such telephone based troubleshooting may entail. However, petitioner has shown that
Dell requires much more than merely discussing the nature of the problem over the telephone.
Rather it is alleged that Dell has required inexperienced consumers to disassemble their entire "hard
drive" and "motherlode." Such troubleshooting is not limited to remote connections or keyboard
manipulations but rather often requires the consumer to remove and reinstall internal components
Page 11 . ,
requiring the use of tools. Such measures do not appear to be within the reasonable and normal
expectations ofwhat would constitute "telephone based troubleshooting." Moreover, petitioner has
shown that Dell construes this to require successful troubleshooting, refusing to provide on site
service unless and until it has determined the nature of the problem over the phone, even if the
problem eludes diagnosis remotely. Certainly, it would be reasonable for a customer to assume that
under such circumstances, when telephone based troubleshooting had failed, a service technician
would be dispatched to determine the cause of the problem. The Court therefore finds that petitioner
has made a prima facie showing that Dell has engaged in deceptive advertising with respect to its
warranties.
Petitioner has alleged that Dell has fraudulently refused to honor rebates and has failed to
issue rebate checks in a timely manner as required by the second General Business Law 5 391-p.'
Such statute became effective September 1, 2005. Essentially all of the affidavits submitted by
petitioner involve sales in 2003 and 2004. Two affidavits involve sales in August, 2005, but neither
of them indicate specifically when the rebate submissions were made. As such, petitioner has failed
to show any violation of General Business Law 5 391-p. However, petitioner has offered proof that
Dell has repeatedly denied timely rebate requests which included all of the required documentation
on stated grounds that they were never received or that they were missing items, that Dell has
repeatedly made only partial rebate payments, and that customers have had to wait as long as three
years to get their promised rebates. The submissions show an alarming pattern of failure to provide
the rebates until after a complaint is made to the Attorney General's Office. Thus, in many
'Another unrelated statute designated General Business Law 5 391-p was enacted shortly
before the statute applicable to rebates.
Page 12
instances, only the most diligent customers actually receive the rebate to which they were entitled.
The Court finds that petitioner has made a prima facie showing of fraudulent or deceptive practices
in administering the rebate program.
Petitioner further contends that Dell has engaged in fraudulent and deceptive practices by
using refurbished and sometimes defective parts to repair equipment under warranty, even if the
equipment is defective "right out of the box." However, Dell's warranties expressly state that
refurbished parts may be utilized in any warranty repairs. Moreover, since a customer has the right
to return a defective system for refund if it is defective "right out of the box," the fact that they
choose to have it repaired under the express warranty can not constitute a fraudulent or deceptive
practice. Petitioner has also failed to show that the incidence of defective refurbished parts is
significantly greater than the incidence of defective new parts, nor has it shown that such defective
refurbished parts are not regularly replaced within the warranty. As such, petitioner has not met its
burden of establishing that the use ofrefurbishedparts to repair equipment is fraudulent or deceptive.
Petitioner asserts that Dell Financial Services has engaged in fraudulent, deceptive and illegal
activity in its debt collection practices by continuing to attempt to collect debts which it knows or
has reason to know are not justly due and owing as a result of Dell's patterns of delay in providing
credit for returned merchandise. Petitioner has not shown that any consumers were defrauded or
deceived by such practices. However, General Business Law 5 601 (3) makes it unlawful to disclose
or threaten to disclose information affecting a debtor's reputation for credit worthiness with
knowledge or reason to know that the information is false. General Business Law 5 60 1 (5) makes
it unlawful to disclose or threaten to disclose information affecting a debt known to be disputed
without disclosing that fact. General Business Law 5 601 (6) prohibits communication with a debtor,
Page 13
a family member or a member of the household with such frequency or at such unusual hours as can
reasonably be expected to abuse or harass a debtor.
Petitioner has submitted numerous affidavits indicating that Dell Financial Services has
reported or threatened to report late payments to credit reporting agencies even though they have
been informed by the alleged debtor that the equipment was returned to Dell for full refund and that
no sums are due and owing. While only a very small number of affidavits allege that the customers
followed the required procedure of mailing a billing dispute to the correct address, the record shows
that Dell Financial Services must have been aware that Dell regularly failed to issue credits for
returned merchandise in a timely manner. Moreover, several affidavits alleged that the customers
provided or offered to provide documentation of the fact that Dell had actually received the returned
merchandise. The affidavits allege that notwithstanding such facts, which would constitute reason
to know that information concerning a debt was false, Dell Financial Services reported and
threatened to report allegedly late payments to credit reporting bureaus.
Petitioner has also submitted numerous affidavits alleging that consumers received incessant
telephone calls demanding payment, even though the amounts were not justly due and owing. They
allege numerous calls per day starting early in the morning and going until late at night which could
reasonably be expected to abuse or harass the consumer (see Matter of People v Applied Card Sys.,
Inc., 27 AD3d at 109).
15 USC 5 168 1 s-2 requires that any business which regularly furnishes information to credit
reporting agencies must submit corrected information promptly. Petitioner has submitted affidavits
indicating that false credit information was not corrected for months or even years on several
occasions. Petitioner has thus made a prima facie showing of repeated violations of such statutes.
Page 14
The petition also alleges that respondents have failed to provide notice of the reasons for an
"adverse action," that is the denial of promotional financing, as required by the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act (1 5 USC 5 1691 et seq.) and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (1 5 USC 5 168 1 et seq.).
Initially, it is questionable whether the New York State Attorney General has standing to enforce the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Such statute authorizes an injuredparty or the United States Attorney
General to enforce it. Moreover, the failure to provide notice of the reasons for a denial of credit
would not constitute an independent wrong or a deceptive or misleading business practice in the
absence of the federal statute which would provide an independent basis for the Attorney General's
lawsuit (cf. Morelli v Weider Nutrition Grouv, 275 AD2d 607 [lst Dept 20001).
In any event, the applications for credit were technically for a general account, and not
specifically for the promotional financing. As such there was no adverse action within the meaning
of the statutes. Moreover, even if it were considered a denial of the initial application, with respect
to almost every affidavit submitted by petitioner, the affiant actually accepted the "counter offer" of
a regular account, which eliminates any duty to provide notice of the reasons for a denial of credit
(see Diaz v Virginia Housing Develovment Authority, 117 F Supp 2d 500,504 [2000]). Petitioner
has therefore failed to make a prima facie showing of repeated unlawful conduct.
Based upon the foregoing, petitioner has made a prima facie showing of numerous and
repeated instances of misleading, deceptive and unlawful business practices in many areas.
However, petitioner has failed to show such practices with respect to overly restrictive credit
requirements, opening accounts without authorization, general claims of poor customer service,
violations of General Business Law 5 391-p, the use of refurbished parts to make repairs under
warranty, and providing notice of adverse credit actions. As such, the cross-motions to dismiss shall
Page 15
be granted to the extent that such claims shall be dismissed. Concerning the remaining claims, the
burden is shifted to respondents to raise a triable issue of fact with respect to petitioner's claims or
respondents' affirmative defenses.
Respondents contend that recovery of any penalty or restitution with respect to many of the
instances of improper conduct is barred by the three year statute of limitations. There is appellate
authority which appears to hold that all claims under Executive Law 5 63 (12) are subject to the
residual six year statute of limitations of CPLR 213 (I), while all claims under General Business
Law 5 349 are subject to the three year statute of limitations for recovery of a liability imposed or
created by statute (see e.a. Matter of People v County Bank of Rehoboth Beach. Del., 45 AD3d at
1 138; Morelli v Weider Nutrition Group, 275 AD2d at 608). However, the Court ofAppeals in State
of New York v Cortelle Corn., (38 NY2d 83 [1975]) made it quite clear that in determining the
applicable statute of limitations, the court must look to the essence of the claim, and not the form
in which it is pleaded. Thus, the six year statute of limitations would only apply if the conduct was
sufficient to constitute common law fraud ( ~ .se;e also Gaidon v Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 96
NY2d 201,208-210 [2001]; State of New York v Daicel Chemical Indus., Ltd., 42 AD3d 301,303
[I st Dept 20071).
"The essential elements of a cause of action for fraud are 'representation of a material
existing fact, falsity, scienter, deception and injury' (Channel Master Corn. v Aluminium Ltd. Sales
COY., 4 NY2d, at 407)" (New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308,3 18 [1995]). The
only acts alleged by petitioner which meet these elements are the limited number of instances in
which purchasers were expressly and falsely told by telephone representatives that they qualified for
promotional financing, rebates or free shipping. The remaining claims are all based upon statutory
Page 16,
provisions making deceptive or misleading conduct, which does not rise to the level of common law
fraud, subject to restitution and penalties or upon other statutory violations. It is therefore
determined that the remaining claims of deceptive and misleading conduct are subject to a three year
statute of limitations. Pursuant to 15 USC 8 1691e (f), the claims for violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act are subject to a two year statute of limitations. Thus any restitution, disgorgement or
penalties relating to acts which occurred more than the applicable period before commencement of
this proceeding shall be barred. However, the Court finds that acts which occurred more than three
years ago may still be considered to establish a course of conduct of repeated deceptive, misleading
or unlawful acts even if petitioner may not recover anything based upon such specific acts due to the
expiration of the statute of limitations (see Sullivan v Sullivan, 188 AD2d 953,954 [3d Dept 19921).
Respondents further contend that a class action settlement concerning claims of deceptive
advertising of financing bars certain of petitioner's claims. While such settlement would bar
recovery of restitution for any members of the class, it does not prevent petitioner from seeking
injunctive relief, recovering penalties and costs or seeking disgorgement of excess profits (see Matter
of People v Applied Card Sys.. Inc., 41 AD3d 4, 6-8 [3d Dept 20071). As such, the affirmative
defense shall be limited to restitution on behalf of members of the class action settlement.
Respondent Dell Financial Services apparently contends that it can not be held liable for the
acts of employees of respondent Dell, relying upon an alleged separate corporate structure.
However, the submissions indicate that Dell Financial Services is a joint venture. The answer of
Dell Financial Services admits the allegation of the petition that it is a limited partnership. Dell
Financial Services has not shown that it would not be responsible for the acts of one of its partner's
employees undertaken in the scope of the limited partnership's business. Moreover, Dell Financial
Page 17
Services exercises considerable control over the sales representatives employed by Dell by preparing
scripts for them to read when "selling"Del1 Financial Services' services. Furthermore, the Dell sales
representatives earn additional compensation when they convince a customer to finance his or her
purchase through Dell Financial Services.
While Dell Financial Services has attempted to downplay this incentive, the submissions
indicate that as much as 40% of a sales representative's income is based upon additional
compensation for selling services such as extended warranties or Dell financing. Respondents have
failed to provide any detail as to the actual compensation a sales representative receives for
purchases financed through Dell Financial Services. They also seek to downplay the incentive by
alleging that sales representatives lose any such compensation when a system is returned. Again,
there is no specific information provided as to the percentages of systems that are returned following
complaints of misrepresentations concerning financing. Such conclusory assertions are insufficient
to raise any triable issue of fact. As such, Dell Financial Services may be held responsible for any
misleading, deceptive or unlawful conduct of Dell sales representatives concerning financing
purchases through Dell Financial Services.
Respondents also contend that in recent years they have started selective recording and
auditing of sales representatives to ensure that there are no misrepresentations being made.
However, such allegations are irrelevant to respondents' prior practices and the results of such audits
have not been disclosed. Similarly, respondents contend that they have invested millions of dollars
in their customer service and technical support functions, significantly reducing hold times and
transfers. Again, such claims are irrelevant to the prior practices alleged by petitioner. As such, the
claims fail to raise any issues of fact.
Page 18
Respondents further contend that petitioner has submitted only a handful of complaints,
amounting to less that 0.01% of Dell's total sales in New York State during the relevant period.
However, petitioner is not required to establish misleading, deceptive or unlawful conduct in a
significant percentage of a business' activities. Rather petitioner need only establish repeated
improper conduct (see State of New York v Princess Prestige Co., 42 NY2d 104, 107 [1977]).
Thus, the fact that respondents sell and finance many thousands of computers in the State of New
York does not give them license to mislead or deceive a small percentage of their customers.
Moreover, petitioner has alleged that it has received at least 1000 additional complaints since the
instant application was prepared and it is likely that there are many more consumers who have been
adversely affected by respondents' practices who have not made complaints to the Attorney
General's Office. Furthermore, to the extent that the petition alleges unlawful conduct, it would
appear that only a very small number of incidents would be sufficient to warrant relief. It is therefore
determined that respondents' generalized objections fail to raise a triable issue of fact with respect
to any viable defense to the proceeding.
Respondents have also submitted affidavits addressing the individual affidavits and
complaints submitted by petitioner. The affidavit of Sergio Maldonado contains conclusory
assertions that all customers have at all times been advised whether they were approved for financing
either with or without the promotional benefits. For the most part, the affidavit relies upon "standard
procedures," and claims that complainants "would have been" read scripts or "would have been" told
the actual terms of the credit being extended. In short, there is no admissible proof in evidentiary
detail by a person with knowledge of the facts indicating that the complaining customers were
actually apprised of the terms of the credit and the fact that they had not been approved for
Page 19
promotional financing.
With 'respect to the complaints about collections and credit reporting activities, Mr.
Maldonado's affidavit is similarly conclusory. For the most part, the affidavit fails to offer any
excuse for the significant delays in correcting credit reports and fails to address the fact that
significant collections efforts were undertaken when charges were not even authorized by a
consumer, where there was documentary evidence that the charges were improper, or where the
consumer had submitted a written billing dispute. The affidavit of Adina Villareal is similarly
deficient.
Respondent Dell Financial Services has also submitted an affidavit from Stephen Sippel
alleging that respondent never initiates multiple phone calls in any one day unless there is no answer
or no message is left. As above, the affidavit merely refers to standard procedures and fails to
specifically address the numerous affidavits submitted by petitioner. Moreover, it does not address
the actions undertaken by collections agencies on its behalf other than to claim that they were under
contract not to violate any applicable laws. Mr. Sippel's conclusory assertions that all collection
activity is suspended whenever a customer alleges the existence of some dispute fails to overcome
the numerous specific affidavits alleging repeated attempts to have collection efforts halted based
upon valid disputes.
It is therefore determined that respondents' conclusory submissions fail to raise a triable issue
of fact as to whether respondents engaged in misleading and deceptive practices in the sale of
computer equipment and offering of financing for such sales, and whether they engaged in unlawful
activity in attempting to collect alleged debts.
Respondent Dell has submitted an affidavit from Amy Stringfellow addressed to claims of
Page 20
failure to provide warranty service and rebates. The affidavit is supported by excerpts of Dell's
records concerning specific customers. In many instances, Dell attempts to portray customers as
difficult and rude or as refusing to cooperate in troubleshooting. However, neither the affidavit nor
the records submitted address the claims that at such times, the customers had already been subjected
to being on hold for hours, being transferred back and forth, or being required to engage in extensive,
repetitive and ineffective troubleshooting for days, weeks or even months. Respondent's own
submissions show that a customer was denied warranty service for a monitor on the ground that one
year had passed, notwithstanding the fact that the monitor carried a three year warranty. The monitor
was apparently replaced "in the interest of customer service" rather than under the warranty.
For the most part, the Stringfellow affidavit merely alleges that in most instances, customers
eventually received warranty repairs. It does not deny that in one instance, such repairs were not
provided until after the New York customer brought a lawsuit in Texas. It does not deny that many
of such repairs were not effected until months after the initial complaint, that Dell claimed issues
were software related when in fact they involved defective hardware, that software support, which
incurred additional customer charges, was ineffective at repairing problems, that customers were told
that they would have to continue ineffective troubleshooting to finally determine the defective part
before on site service would be provided, or that warranty service was denied because of Dell's own
billing errors.
With respect to rebates, the affidavit contends that the records show a timely rebate, when
the customer had submitted two rebate requests and received only one of them in a timely manner.
It is further argued that the fact that a customer requested a copy of his packing slip after the time
for submission of a rebate request establishes that the customer's submissions were untimely.
Page 21
However, the affidavit entirely fails to address the customer's allegation that he sent in the rebate
submissions the same day he received the computer and was told the submissions were lost,
requiring re-submission of all documentation. No explanation is given as to why rebate checks were
sent for only a fraction of what was due or why claims of incomplete submissions were allegedly
fabricated. There is no documentation of the numerous rebate checks which were allegedly sent and
lost in the mail. While the affidavit does provide explanations for a small number of delays, there
is no satisfactory explanation for the significant numbers of rebates which required complaints to
the Attorney General's Office and many months to be received. Respondent Dell has therefore failed
to raise any triable issue of fact with respect to whether it improperly and repeatedly failed to provide
warranty service and timely rebates.
It is therefore determined that respondent Dell has engaged in repeated misleading, deceptive
and unlawful business conduct, including false and deceptive advertising of financing promotions
and the terms of warranties, fraudulent, misleading and deceptive practices in credit financing and
failure to provide warranty service and rebates. Respondent Dell Financial Services has engaged in
repeated misleading, deceptive and unlawful business conduct, including false and deceptive
advertising of financing promotions, fraudulent, misleading and deceptive practices in credit
financing and improper debt collection practices.
While petitioner has shown that many customers are entitled to restitution, the record is not
sufficient to allow the Court to determine the amount of such relief. Specific financial information
with respect to the costs of third-party repairs which should have been performed under warranty,
q , . . .
the interest rates available to specific consumers, and the rental value of computers deprived by
failure to provide timely service has not been submitted. Moreover, it appears likely that there are
Page 22
many more New York consumers who are entitled to restitution who are not included in the
complaints submitted herein. Similarly, there is no evidence of the amount of improper profits
earned by respondents which would be subject to disgorgement. While petitioner has not shown that
a formal accounting is warranted (see Matter ofpeople v. Condor Pontiac, Cadillac. Buick and GMC
Trucks, Inc., 2003 NY Slip Op 5 1082[U] [Sup Ct, New York County2003]), it has shown that much
of the information needed to determine these issues is in the possession, custody or control of the
respondents. As such, leave to conduct discovery within this special proceeding is appropriate.
Petitioner is granted leave to serve within twenty (20) days notices for discovery and inspection of
specified categories of documents andlor computer records. Full responses shall be provided within
thirty (30) days of receipt of the demands. Such discovery shall be completed within four months
of the date hereof.
If depositions are necessary, an application must be made to the Court following the
discovery disputelissue protocol below.
In the event of any discovery dispute, discovery issue or issue of any type, counsel shall
immediately phone chambers to schedule a conference within seven (7) days of the dispute or issue
arising. Before the conference, each party shall deliver to the Court a two (2) page statement of
contentions. At the conference, each party shall be heard and the Court shall issue a decision,
reserve decision or require a formal motion be filed.
Petitioner shall then make further submissions on or before December 1,2008 setting forth
the identity of each consumer, the amount of restitution to which they are allegedly entitled and the
basis for such claim, as well as the amount of disgorgement sought, together with the factual basis
for such claim. Respondents shall have until February 2,2009 to respond to such submissions.
Page 23
Thomas K. Murphy, Esq., 4 Atrium Drive, Albany, New York 12205 is hereby appointed referee
to hear and determine the issue of the amount of restitution and disgorgement. The referee shall also
determine the number of instances of misleading, deceptive and unlawful conduct to assist the Court
in determining the amount of the penalties to be imposed. The fees of the referee are set at
$225/Hour plus disbursements and shall be paid by the petitioner. People v. Introductions, Inc., 252
AD2d 63 1 (31d Dept., 1998). This is because the referee will be required to thoroughly examine
extensive complaint forms and documentation of innumerable records and take testimony from a
multitude of citizens.
Petitioner is also entitled to injunctive relief to prevent any recurrence of the misleading,
deceptive and unlawful conduct. However, in order to be effective, the terms of the injunction must
be clear and unequivocal. Some of the issues involved herein deQ a bright line test, such as how
long a customer may be placed on hold or how many times a customer must attempt troubleshooting
before obtaining warranty service. Accordingly, respondents shall be enjoined from advertising
financing promotions without disclosing the approximate relative numbers of persons who are likely
to qualify for such financing. They shall also be enjoined from failing to disclose in at least as
prominent a fashion as the approval, the interest rate and presence or absence of promotional terms
of any credit offer. In the event promotional financing is denied, such denial shall be communicated
to the customer before the customer is informed that he or she has been approved for other financing.
Respondent Dell shall be required to describe what constitutes "telephone based troubleshooting"
if it continues to require the consumer to engage in such actions before receiving on site service, and
shall no longer use the terms "next day service" or similar, unless service is provided within such
time from the initial request for service in the majority of cases. Respondent Dell Financial Services
Page 24
. and its agents shall be enjoined from violating the provisions of General Business Law 5 601,
including reporting any customers as late in payment where the customer has alleged and offered
documentation of the invalidity of any debt.
All papers, including this Decision and Order, are being returned to the Attorney General.
The signing of this Decision and Order shall not constitute entry or filing under CPLR 2220.
Counsel are not relieved from the applicable provisions of that section respecting filing, entry and
notice of entry.
SO ORDERED!
Dated: ~ a,2008~ a
Albany, New York t
PAPERS CONSIDERED:
w
Notice of Petition dated May 14,2007; Petition verified May 14,2007; Affirmation of Amy
Schallop, Esq. dated May 14,2008 with Exhibits A-1 - A-13, B-1 - B-24, C-1 - C-47, D-1 -
D-45 and E- 1 - E-38;
Notice of Cross-Motion dated September 12, 2007; Statement of Material Facts dated
September 12, 2007; Affidavit of Downs Deering sworn to September 10, 2007 with
Exhibits A-L annexed; Affidavit of Thomas Casey sworn to September 7,2007 with Exhibit
A annexed; "Declaration" of Roger Dunbar, undated, with Exhibits A-C annexed; Affidavit
of Raymond Ciccocella sworn to September 10,2007 with Exhibit A annexed; Affidavit of
Todd Bartee sworn to September 5,2007; Affidavit of Carlo Savino sworn to September 10,
2007 with Exhibit A annexed;
Answer of Respondent Dell verified September 12,2007;
Affidavit of Amy Stringfellow sworn to September 11, 2007 with Exhibit Volumes I-IV
annexed;
Notice of Cross-Motion dated September 12,2007;
Answer of Respondent Dell Financial Services verified September 1 1,2007;
Statement of Material Facts dated September 12,2007;
Affidavit of Sergio Maldonado sworn to September 11,2007 with Exhibits annexed;
Affidavit of Scott Schram sworn to September 11,2007 with Exhibits A-T annexed;
Affidavit of Adina Villareal sworn to September 10,2007 with Exhibit A annexed;
Affidavit of Stephen J. Sippel sworn to September 11,2007 with Exhibit A annexed;
Page 25
T 12. Affirmation of Amy Schallop, Esq. dated January 11,2008 with Exhibits A-C annexed;
13. Affidavit of Mary Pape sworn to February 19,2008 with Exhibits A and B annexed.

[AngelusDaemonicus]

DellMgmt, You're just not amusing anymore. I thought you said you were leaving and never coming back. You should go do that.

That having been said, let's cut the Rah-Rah crap about DELL being pure and innocent. It's a big corporation that has been caught lying on numerous occasions to employees and customers. Evidence is only a "Google" away. Anything DELL is accused of doing is DELL's own fault... not a few "bad-apples" as you've said in an earlier post. DELL's illegal and immoral policies can be found in DSN. DELL's "customer experience" is legendary, to the point where it's even parodied by a cartoon squirrel. (Smell Computers? A cartoon XPS Notebook? Duh.) DELL should be sued, prosecuted, fined... boycotted. Whatever it takes to punish a corporation.
Their time will come, but sadly... they'll do more damage first.

Now, on to you. Evidently, you have some issues. You're either some creep that's employed by DELL to deliberately muck up this forum and rat out anyone he can, or you've taken it upon yourself to do so... which is sad and pathetic on so many levels. This place is for legitimate postings, from employees and ex-employees, as well as customers. I worry what kind of damage that your postings will do. Will you trick someone into actually emailing you personal info and then use it for you're own purposes? Your writing style is very similar to a "Nigerian-Scammer's" writing style, and the more I think of it, the more I believe that you are exactly that. Several times, you've asked for personal contact info. Obviously, so you can use this in your scheme. I should mention that I have personal experience taking down one such scammer before... to the point were INTERPOL and RCMP were involved... would you like to be next?

I think it's time you move on and leave this forum be. This place is not your personal meal-ticket. People like you sicken me. I only wish we were face to face, so I could arrest you myself.

Don't bother responding. I'm not interested in reading more of your lies. Just go away and rethink your choices in life.
_________________
"One man's garbage is another man's DELL."

[jt325i]

Dell has been doing this for years. It was just a matter of time till their deceptive financing, bait and switch, crappy customer support and warranty service caught up with them. No question this company is going down the tubes. I look forward to Dell closing their doors for good.

[campagnollo]

Guys,

Get out of Dell Tech support while you can. Its not worth it. I got out in 2003 and now have CCNA and Juniper Network Certs. And the real nice thing about this job is that its IMPOSSIBLE to script for TS, meaning more money for you. BTW, I saw in an article today that Network businesses is going up and PC businesses are going down.

[rustyboots]

Is DellMgmt a new logon name for Michael Dell? Who else could write such sludge and call it the truth? This company has been lying or misleading people for years. It is the corporate way and Dell has perfected it. Dell seems to think it is better to pull the wool over some eyes and run with the money than to be upfront, honest, and back up what they say; and make more money as customers realize they are dealing with a reputable company that backs up what it says. If you spend some money on customer service, you will reap money in customer loyalty. But loyalty, along with honesty, were thrown out by Dell years ago.
DellMgmt, you can polish that resume all you want. If, or when you are let go, maybe we won't see you droll blessings about Dell on here. You will be too busy trying to find employment!!
_________________
rustyboots (i use to slave at dell)

[05TigerWong]

I've always wanted to post on this board. So I finally did it today. Before, I had slight fears because I was still slaving for them. I am glad the media finally caught up, my experience as an employee and a customer have been horrible. What I consider questionable HR practices, misrepresentation and what boils to down to pretty much just a horrible company. The only thing positive that I got from everything is really just the realization that I am a Mac person (Not trying to start a debate, I still own my PC)


Ne ways, thank you for having me and I