Customer sues Best Buy for breaking the law, gets banned

By on April 21, 2011, 7:47 PM
According to a story posted by The Consumerist, Best Buy has banned a shopper after being busted for violating consumer protections. In January, a Consumerist reader named Jed broke the digital audio-in port on his Sony receiver. He decided to have it repaired by Best Buy's Geek Squad, who charged him a $34.99 deposit and promised to call before making any costly repairs.

The job was supposed to be completed by February 1, but Jed never heard back. After leaving several messages, he finally spoke with a Geek Squad agent on February 6 and learned that his receiver was sent to Sony for repairs on January 26. Naturally, that ticked Jed off because he could have saved the non-refundable $34.99 deposit by sending the receiver to Sony himself.

On February 17, Jed returned to Best Buy in person and learned the repair would cost an additional $115 over the initial deposit -- again, that's for unauthorized work. After expressing his frustration, Best Buy's store manager tried to haggle, offering to lower the repair fee from $115 to $94.92. Jed protested further and eventually got his receiver back without paying for repairs.


Despite having the repair charges waived, Jed decided to sue Best Buy for allegedly violating three consumer protections. The court sided against Best Buy on two out of three counts and Jed won $3,000 for his troubles. When he received his check, the mega-retailer enclosed a letter informing him that he'd face trespassing charges if he stepped foot in another Best Buy store.

We left out some of the minor hassles Jed faced while recovering his receiver, but do you think his suit was justified? Would you have accepted the free repair as compensation? Is Best Buy just a sore loser for banning Jed? Although the suit may seem like overkill, some commenters make a valid argument in saying that companies should be held accountable for breaking the law.



User Comments: 105

Got something to say? Post a comment
Win7Dev said:

Lawyers are making this world really difficult to live in. If it ain't broke don't fix it, well bad saying for this story, but its true. If you got what you want don't go any further. The guy probably shouldn't have sued, but he was right to make a complaint. The ban does make sense because they don't want another law suit.

aspleme said:

He was well within his rights to sue them. Too often, companies mistreat customers and try to bully them into submission. Jed was clearly in the right, and $3,000 isn't exactly a huge settlement. Had Best Buy admitted their mistake immediately and returned the product and refunded the deposit, it would have been wrong to sue... but he was without his product for over 3 weeks, and they tried to force him to pay for unrequested services (I can't mow your lawn and demand you charge me.)

Best Buy deserves what they got... and should have been fined by the government for the violations even if Jed hadn't sued them. It was extremely poor taste to ban him (unless there were extenuating circumstances, i.e. he became violent, or the like). Now they will probably lose even more customers when the word spreads.

Lokalaskurar Lokalaskurar said:

Best Buy should have checked in with the customer - *before* sending in the device for costly repairs. They did not, turns out the consumer did not want them to, they did it anyway. Consumer gets pissed, sues Best Buy, wins.

Best Buy gets pissed, bans the customer.

No, Best Buy should not have banned Jed from the stores, (I personally think) it was their responsibility to check in with Jed before sending away the reciever. In fact, Best Buy's threat of banishment, might just be further ammunition for Jed's 'court-gun'...

Wendig0 Wendig0, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I wouldn't have sued, although they screwed up. Best Buy, however, is sending a very clear message to people, that by suing them for illegal practices, that you will get banned from setting foot in another Best Buy. To me that just sounds like bad PR, and it could come back to bite them in the ass.

mizkitty said:

If Jed donates his check to charity...then I'll side with him...until then Best Buy has every right to ban him.

It's not like Best Buy stores are public property...If he sued me I'd charge him with trespassing as well any time he set foot on my property.

Guest said:

In his place, I doubt that I would have sued after the fact. Unless he needed the receiver repaired for some time-sensitive use it's not as if he faced any real hardship because of its absence. That said,the free repair is not exactly compensation when he didn't agree to pay for it in the first place.

Is BestBuy a sore loser for banning him? I don't think so. They can choose to do business with him or not as they see fit. In their place I probably wouldn't want to do business with someone who has proven he'll sue if he gets upset enough either.

Perhaps a better solution for both would have been for BestBuy to waive the repair fee (since it wasn't authorized in the first place) and offer him a $500 gift card for his trouble. This accomplishes three things:

1. It would probably go a long way to mending the damaged relationship with their customer.

2. It saves money. Since a gift card is just store credit, in reality the cost to BestBuy would be less than $500. Specifically, it's BestBuy's actual cost of whatever he buys with the gift card so $500 minus the retail markup.

3. It keeps the customer in the habit of shopping at BestBuy. That way, his last experience at the store (spending his gift card) is a positive one. As it is, he can spend the $3000 award anywhere and absolutely WON'T spend it at BestBuy since he's not allowed to go there.

Wendig0 Wendig0, TechSpot Paladin, said:

mizkitty said:

If Jed donates his check to charity...then I'll side with him...until then Best Buy has every right to ban him.

It's not like Best Buy stores are public property...If he sued me I'd charge him with trespassing as well any time he set foot on my property.

Charity? Are you serious? Best Buy broke the law and they got called out on it. Are you saying that if you got caught violating the law as a proprietor, that you would try to punish the person that caught you? That's a bad move if you ever want customers again. A good protest and enough bad publicity could break your company. Word of mouth spreads fast.

Guest said:

No way I would sue them - they admitted their mistake and gave him the repairs for free. You got to understand that big businesses can sometimes make a mistake, but it's not anything intentional or personal (nor something that was very time sensitive for him or of business value). 1 in 50,000 repairs is going to be mixed up, you don't have to be a **** about it.

Guest said:

I'm siding with Jed here, mainly because i know from first hand experience that the geek squad department is run by the most inexperience idiotic people you can find, something similar happen to me years ago. I'm glad they got sue and hopefully makes them change their stance on hiring dumb people to pay them less and not provide the proper technical training.

As for the ban, we'll if it was me and had sued then I wouldn't care in this online retail age we live in. I haven't shopped in best buy over 7 years now and frankly if they go bankrupt....good riddance!

Guest said:

I couldn't agree with you more, aspleme.

Kibaruk Kibaruk, TechSpot Paladin, said:

First off, Geek Squad is a Rip-off they overcharge for the work and half the time they don't even do it.

I have an aunt that bought a notebook and paid almost $60 to have windows reinstalled on the language of her choosing, to find on arrival they did nothing (She went in a trip to the US, she found out when she arrived here back at Chile), and this is only 1 of the many I've heard not counting the overprice they charge. I also told her next time to ask me first, since that could've been done by me for free.

Every store on almost everywhere takes us consumers for granted and pretty much after they stuff you with whatever they sell you never hear from them again, even if you have to go there. I have to agree with Jed I would sue and they wouldn't even have to ban me from their stores since after a bad time such as this I would NEVER EVER go back.

Hell... after the earthquake here in Chile (Concepcion to be more acurate) I went to buy groseries to a store near my house and the guy there was a jerk even though I always went there, after that (and a couple of venting words from me =)) I never went back there just out of spite.

It's like Geohot being banned from Sony, I doubt out of principle he would ever again buy something from them =P

howzz1854 said:

1. he did nothing wrong, therefore suing bestbuy was the right thing to do for social justice.

2. he should keep the $3000.

3. never go to best buy again, their product is overpriced anyway,and service is terrible at best.

this happened to me with Fedex Kinko, i am actually surprised to find that this violates the consumer law. had i known is would've sued too. i went to Fedex Kinko to print out a large format artwork poster one time, and the guy at the counter waved my right to examine the artwork by checking off the box himself without consulting me. i come back two days later to pick-up the art work and found the color was completely over saturated with a heavy blue tint. i told them i couldn't possibly pay for something like that. the manager tried to make me pay for it and showed me the form where the box of waver was checked. i told him that his employee had checked that box without consulting me. it was good that i left without paying. but had i known that was a violation of consumer law, i probably would've took the action farther.

lack of training in these large corporate vendor these days is really hurting the consumers.

techfiend4 said:

the guy shouldn't of sue. i mean if it was a computer and he needed it for business and they did that i could see going as far as sueing MAYBE but then again i would never let geek squad touch my computer lol or anything else for that matter. ill do that myself!

yRaz yRaz said:

I'd take that $3000 and spend it at newegg

Prosercunus said:

Assuming I was dumb enough to use Geek Squad, I would of just taken the free repair, chalked it up to a lesson learned and never used Best Buy's services again.

That would of been the logical/normal thing to do.

ramonsterns said:

Best buy should be shut down just on the account of Geek Squad. Those guys do daylight robbery under the pretense of "work".

My mother sent her laptop to Geek Squad (sadly before consulting me) because of a virus and all they did was restore the computer to factory conditions and charged her $100 for it. I'd burn down the place on principle, but there's other stuff I wish to do with my life before being convicted for arson.

Cota Cota said:

lawl, go to Frys

Guest said:

I purchased a car alarm from Best buy recently on sale, it came with free installation. When I brought my car in fro the installation, they tried telling me it would be an additional $450 for this "free installation". After an argument, the manager said to go ahead and honor what I was told, and the guy installing the alarm broke all of my doors, so now 3 of them won't open from the outside at all... I HATE Best Buy. When I told the manager, he just shrugged his shoulders and walked away.

Guest said:

the picture looks like the Best Buy in San Rafael ;)

jonelsorel said:

Are some of you people brain dead and breathing? He was well within his rights to sue them. I expect an established company to which I pay a premium over an online store's price to manage customers accordingly. They COULD and SHOULD have informed him that the repair would require the receiver to be sent to sony for an extra charge.

It's not like suing starbucks for the coffee being too hot.. Or mcd for making you fat.

This is one of the cases in which one consumer actually sets a GOOD precedent by suing a company, and some of you still find ways to be against it.. That, for me, is proof of under 100 iq, to put in nicely.

Guest said:

Even though it will always look like the buyer is only after the money, its also a good thing that someone stands up to the wrong procedures these big companies do and keep them in line.

Guest said:

I Take this with a grain of salt. Seriously, How is Bestbuy going to enforce this? What do they have a picture of him sent out to every Bestbuy in the nation, Forcing the thousands of employees at each location to remember his name and face? And just think of the PR nightmare if he were to actually get arrested. Bestbuy would lose millions in business from people all over the internet. This is a completely empty threat.

Personally I am anti-Bestbuy, Way to many people I know that have been seriously ripped off in one way or another. This guy was absolutely in the right to sue them, Although I thing the reward may have been a touch high, Although None of us know exactly what happened, So it is difficult to truly judge.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

"The customer is always right", is an adage that is rife for abuse.

I actually come down on this as both sides of this dispute are within their rights. The "Geek Squad" is compiling quite a litany of stories about excess cost and incompetence.

With that said, I'm very glad that a business in this day and age, can enforce the sign behind the counter, "we reserve the right to deny service to anyone"!

I think it's a good sign that a business can still assert its freedom, civil rights, and independence.

I was in sales, and please take my word for this, there are plenty of people in this world whose money you don't want to take, under any circumstance.

Xclusiveitalian Xclusiveitalian said:

Im sure banning him won't be of any use since i'm sure he'll never go there anyway lol like they would be able in enforce this ....Gamer version: Best buy got caught hacking, and they went all %^$^&$%^$ BaNHaMmEr!

ramonsterns said:

captaincranky said:

I was in sales, and please take my word for this, there are plenty of people in this world whose money you don't want to take, under any circumstance.

There's a special place in hell for people in the sales department.

Guest said:

Well he's right though. There are people who think since they're customers, they can do whatever the hell they want and that includes treading on other peoples feeling including emplyees when employees are in fact people just like them. For example, my mother was an insurance agent for over 20 years and she still have people who would show up at her office at 10:00pm at night even when she clearly say that the office is closed at 6pm. She don't mind serving people after her closure time so she also say if it's really important at least give her a call but some people don't care and when ask why, they said they are clients so they don't need to do what she asks since she gets money from them. Those people later on get kicked away by her because they're not worth the trouble to get a benefit of 30 dollars more per month on her salary. Those clients always believed that she they write a check to her, she gets a lot of it which is just absurd. It's the company that gets the money not her.

"There's a special place in hell for people in the sales department." This is not adding anything to the discussion.

Staff
Julio Franco Julio Franco, TechSpot Editor, said:

yRaz said:

I'd take that $3000 and spend it at newegg

+1

Guest said:

I think what he was assuming is that the guy mainly sue not for customer's right but just for the money saying that he's doing it for justice. It's like suing a dry cleaner for messing up your pants for 1 million bucks and saying that you're doing it to prevent it happening to other people. So what he was saying that if he donates the money to charity, it clearly shows he's not in it for the money.

ramonsterns said:

Guest said:

Well he's right though. There are people who think since they're customers, they can do whatever the hell they want and that includes treading on other peoples feeling including emplyees when employees are in fact people just like them. For example, my mother was an insurance agent for over 20 years and she still have people who would show up at her office at 10:00pm at night even when she clearly say that the office is closed at 6pm. She don't mind serving people after her closure time so she also say if it's really important at least give her a call but some people don't care and when ask why, they said they are clients so they don't need to do what she asks since she gets money from them. Those people later on get kicked away by her because they're not worth the trouble to get a benefit of 30 dollars more per month on her salary. Those clients always believed that she they write a check to her, she gets a lot of it which is just absurd. It's the company that gets the money not her.

This is has nothing to do with the discussion.

There's a clear difference between the customer getting stepped on and the customer being an *******.

Scshadow said:

Stores needs to be punished. They abuse the incredible trust of consumers. Send into sony? I'd love to get paid $40 to send in equipment to the manufacturer for repair for other people. I'll give anybody the benefit of a doubt when it comes to motive of any action against best buy.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

I was in sales, and please take my word for this, there are plenty of people in this world whose money you don't want to take, under any circumstance.
There's a special place in hell for people in the sales department.

You're exactly the kind of "customer" I was talking about.

If you think about it, forums such as Techspot pander to incompetents, transients, and moochers, far more than their value as website traffic.

If you think about it, forums like Techspot function as the sales staff for Newegg. The noobs come hat in hand whining, "gee, I want to build a computer, and I've never done it before", and expect that the people at Techspot will bend over backwards pandering to their narcissism and lack of ability, for free, gratis, no charge. (Notice the capital "I" stuck in their throat)!

So then, we link to the parts at Newegg, effectively selling them for "the Egg".

The net result of this is Newegg doesn't have to hire salespeople, (who after all, have a special place in hell). And Techspot doesn't have to pay technicians either.

And who wins? He who comes begging. Sad and ironic really, if you think about it.

The nice thing about having been in sales, is I'm a great shopper by extension. Plus, I need no help from you whatsoever, in selecting parts, building a computer, or keeping it running. So, in my little "special" corner of hell, you're totally irrelevant. That said, keep your wallet in your pocket, along with your hopes, dreams, needs, and most of all, your problems.

Relic Relic, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Some facts people seem to be missing is that Jed sued in small claims court, and rightfully so according to his story imo. He caught Best Buy violating consumer rights (shocker I know), called them out on it and won two of three counts worth $3000. More people should stand up to major corporations who violate their rights rather then just accept defeat and take whatever scraps are thrown their way.

The ban however seems a bit juvenile to say the least or maybe it's a calculated move in an effort not to get caught again breaking the law by informed consumers.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Home Depot used to use "shrink wrap" to hold merchandise on the top of customer's cars. Some nitwit left it on the top of his car all day in hundred degree weather. The car's finish was ruined, so the customer sued and won. Yeah right, in spite of the fact that it was his own stupidity and laziness that caused the damage.

Home Depot stopped making this material available because of the law suit, and anything that they now provide, is more difficult to use, and less secure.

Myself, in this circumstance, I wish very much that they'd have kept the shrink wrap, and banned the customer.

For whatever a salesperson or tech is, (some would say mostly "isn't" , at BB, they're not lawyers. That said, it's difficult to imagine that they premeditatedly set out to commit the "instant offense". It seems like this customer was legally pretty savvy, and was able to capitalize on it.

As I stated earlier, I think both parties are within their rights, and also that they're acting out in an expected manner.

The ban however seems a bit juvenile to say the least or maybe it's a calculated move in an effort not to get caught again breaking the law by informed consumers.
This is a bit arbitrary, and the pronouns are a bit out of kilter. I would say that they didn't want to get caught again by THAT customer.

You can't exactly give a test on consumer law to every person that wanders through your store. If you see my point.

I might add that I sincerely don't believe that legal expertise in consumer law, (whether they have it or not), probably isn't in the forefront of a person's mind when they decide to shop, or not to shop at BB.

Arris Arris said:

$34.99 to send it to Sony for over $100 of repairs the client didn't sign off on. I'd be mad. But probably be calmed by offering to write off the repair cost. Which is the right thing to do since they didn't follow proper procedure. I used to work in a retail store selling Bicycles and doing repairs and would have never performed any repair to a bike that cost any amount of money without first getting the customers permission.

I personally wouldn't have taken it to court but then again this treatment of customers won't end if people don't take a stand against it. $34.99 non refundable deposit seems ok for the time of a trained professional to evaluate problems and costs of a repair to a device, but not for unskilled labour.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

I personally wouldn't have taken it to court but then again this treatment of customers won't end if people don't take a stand against it. $34.99 non refundable deposit seems ok for the time of a trained professional to evaluate problems and costs of a repair to a device, but not for unskilled labour.

Realistically you'd have to say that this isn't most of what the 35 dollar charge is about, skilled or unskilled labor. It's more about lights, heat, building leasing and maintenence. You know, the general pitfalls of a brick and mortar operation. At the end of the day you do need to show a profit to keep the place open. "Labor" is more or less all profit but, has to balance loss leader, low markup items, and expenses.

QuaZulu QuaZulu said:

Ha! Does Best Buy enjoy throwing its money away? I don't think the story is over yet. If the guy sued once I don't think he'll hesitate now over some type of discrimination. Let somebody like the ACLU get involved and I think $3000 is going to seem like peanuts. Jed might have won the lottery!

Arris Arris said:

captaincranky said:

Realistically you'd have to say that this isn't most of what the 35 dollar charge is about, skilled or unskilled labor. It's more about lights, heat, building leasing and maintenence. You know, the general pitfalls of a brick and mortar operation. At the end of the day you do need to show a profit to keep the place open. "Labor" is more or less all profit but, has to balance loss leader, low markup items, and expenses.

I'd say that's a given. I know that the 35 dollar wouldn't just be the cost of the "labour" (sorry, I'm British) and the associated costs to the retail outlet would be factored into that charge. I still find this pretty hefty price considering the stories that have been told about the lack of actual service. You could just take items in and give them back saying "Sorry, it is not something we can repair" and make a decent profit for nothing. This is perceived level of service this "geek squad" is providing. Not a good thing for Bestbuy.

Guest said:

First off Best Buy's Geek Squad is completely overpriced, 330 to format your computer and then purchase and install a copy of Windows 7, oh and extra fees like cleaning your computer's chassis, checking stability of the chassis? (and if not then you may have to purchase another case?)

OK anyways, onto the topic, Best Buy has no right to ban him because he sued the company, it was Best Buy's own negligence to do the repairs and send it off to Sony before asking him. IMO he should have won more money for his troubles. If the geek squad wasn't a bunch of high school kids or 40 year old drop outs from college they would have contacted Jed upon realizing they have to send the Receiver back to Sony.

Although i do agree with captain cranky on the fact that the consumer (jed) is partially at fault here. Why would you take a receiver best buy in the first place, unless he bought it there and it was under warranty? I would have contact the manufacturer directly.

All in all people are stupid and so are big consumer business. Capiche?

Benny26 Benny26, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Sounds just like the way the world should work....Cause and effect.

Best Buy make a boob - they get sued.

Jed sues - he gets banned.

LightHeart said:

Come listen to a story of a man named Jed

Poor guy who, like to surf the web

Bought a Sony from some old dude

It broke in parts, it was too crude

He took it back to Best Buy to get a repair

He paid a depost which was all fair

They made a fix, which he didn't want

Charged him too much, they wern't up front

He sued them as fast as can be

And got $3000 for his family

Best Buy banned him for eternity

And Best Buy loses some publicity

Guest said:

Awesome idea, Best Buy: ban someone from your store when everything you sell can be found online for less. Now you can't even try to swindle him with Monster Cable.

Guest said:

It doesnt matter if hes banned from best buy...they'll be out of business soon...online shopping and better deals with have their doors closing soon

Guest said:

Doesn't surprise me what happened at Best Buy. I hate Best Buy they couldn't fix a 2 prong jack without having to send it out. I have had issues with them them several times. They just outright can't fix things. When I had my own PC business I had to fix more Best Buy work than one can imagine. I am surprised Jed didn't sue them for more. Do I believe that Best Buy banned him because they were upset with the outcome? Most certainly they did. Should Jed have left it alone and accepted the free repairs as compensation? NO! Companies like BB need to know that we are tired of being dumped on by them. I wish more people had the balls to take on these large companies, they just might get the hint. I have not been in a BB in over 10 years and I plan to never go back and I surely will not let their **** Squat work on anything of mine, I am not that stupid.

Kibaruk Kibaruk, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Ok... I hope someone reads this.

Take the free repair? REALLY? After being ripped off? After having to go to justice? After months of not using what it was meant for you to use? After bad time and bad again?

You should be STUPID!

Guest said:

Yeah,

Best Buy will just do what the want when they want until someone calls them out. F Best Buy. Corporate bullies.

Auldian said:

Guest said:

No way I would sue them - they admitted their mistake and gave him the repairs for free. You got to understand that big businesses can sometimes make a mistake, but it's not anything intentional or personal (nor something that was very time sensitive for him or of business value). 1 in 50,000 repairs is going to be mixed up, you don't have to be a **** about it.

The store manager did pay Sony to fix it, paid the shipping to and from Sony. He made good on the customer's complaint. The customer probably had his product a whole lot faster because BestBuy is actually Sony's big customer in this case and probably has their turnaround down to a minimum.

Had the guy brought up lawsuit in my face at my store, I'd have kept his product until after the courts were done.

Mistakes happen. The crowd that feels someone always has to be punished for them (beyond the additional training that would've happened at BestBuy for their staff) are the reason there's a lot more wary and defensive business owners. Customers make mistakes too. Most business deal with a whole lot of "entitled" asses thanks to the years of lawyers and "there oughta be a law" attitude.

Banning him from the store is totally fine. If he frenzies like a shark when he smells a little blood, he can lurk some other retailer. He went out of his way to be vindictive here. I hope he gets a lot out of his share of the $3000.

steffinwolf said:

mizkitty said:

If Jed donates his check to charity...then I'll side with him...until then Best Buy has every right to ban him.

It's not like Best Buy stores are public property...If he sued me I'd charge him with trespassing as well any time he set foot on my property.

If BB was "Private Property" there would be "No Trespassers Violators Will Be Shot" signs plastered all over the front doors... aren't retail outlets afforded public access?

Your home is private, you have every right to keep the public off your property as you see fit, up to and including raising the barrel of a shotgun and sighting the intruder's face.

Bottom line is BB got what it asked for, and Jed got justice in the form of $3k.

Guest said:

The point Best Buy didn't contact the consumer, before handling it over to Sony and then try to charge the carryover bill was Best Buy wrong doing. That would enrage anyone.

Yes they waiver the fee, but the damage was done. So a law sue was justify. Consumer shouldn't be treat like a *****, some people are, but most are knowledgeable.

He was ban show Best Buy was wrong in court of law and they loss the battle with the consumer.

Best Buy will go Bankrupt in few years anyway.

Enjoy his $3000 check victory and justice for consumer was reinforced.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

If BB was "Private Property" there would be "No Trespassers Violators Will Be Shot" signs plastered all over the front doors... aren't retail outlets afforded public access?
Well no! Best Buy is private property that the public is routinely invited to visit.

Your home is private, you have every right to keep the public off your property as you see fit, up to and including raising the barrel of a shotgun and sighting the intruder's face.
Well, y'all jes better hope thet ol" Jeb doesn't want to come over fo' a visit. Cuz if y'all sticks yo gun in hiz face, he'll sue y'al, and likely win.

BTW, have you actually read "Steppenwolf" (Hermann Hesse), or do you just feel empowered by misspelling it? Hm, maybe there's a cartoon version for your iPhone.

DokkRokken said:

If they didn't ban him, they could easily have knocked down a couple prices on a nice 3DTV/Blu-Ray/Console deal and got him to spend that 3K check in the store. If he took it, BB would come out smelling of roses. If he didn't, BB could just shrug its shoulders, and say that they still took the time to right their wrongs. Both actions would have neutralized a lot of vitriol.

Nothing wrong with banning him, but that's a terrible PR move given today's retail climate.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.