GM sued over OnStar change

[Flybrian]

GM sued over OnStar change
Sharon Terlep | Link to Original Article @ The Detroit News

A disgruntled Cadillac owner, whose OnStar service will go dead next year as a result of upgrades to General Motors Corp.'s peace-of-mind roadside assistance feature, filed a class-action lawsuit Wednesday against the automaker.

Robert Weaver of Virginia bought a new Cadillac El Dorado in 2002 equipped with GM's OnStar, a much-advertised communication system that links motorists with live operators who can offer driving directions and emergency help.

Weaver is among 1.5 million owners who will be affected when OnStar completes its switch from an analog system to a more current digital network.

While newer GM vehicles are equipped with digital receivers, many older models are not, meaning they will lose OnStar when the analog service shuts down starting next year. Some vehicles made between 2002 and 2004 can be upgraded, but all pre-2002 models will become obsolete.

GM says about 500,000 vehicles have analog systems that can't be upgraded and 1 million have digital-capable systems. A small number of Acura, Audi, Subaru and Volkswagen models are affected.

The switch is a result of a 2002 Federal Communications Commission decision to let cell phone companies shutter their analog networks starting in February. OnStar is carried by Verizon Wireless.

GM has heavily promoted OnStar with commercials featuring dramatic real-life calls between motorists and operators, such as one from a child phoning for help after a car accident.

In the lawsuit, Weaver charges that GM knew it was switching to an all-digital network but continued to sell analog-only systems and failed to inform customers they were to be phased out.

He calls for GM to reimburse all affected customers the $199 cost of the OnStar system along with subscription fees. The suit also seeks to block GM from shutting off service or from charging customers the $15 cost of an upgrade.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of Weaver and any affected OnStar customers. Weaver's attorney could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

GM, in a statement, said switching to digital was the only way it could maintain comprehensive coverage in the United States and Canada as cell phone companies cancel their analog service. Nearly 90 percent of OnStar subscribers have vehicles that either have the digital system or can be upgraded, according to GM. For those who don't, GM will provide a year of free OnStar service on any new vehicle leased or purchased by the end of the year.

The company said it has sent letters advising affected customers of their options. In addition, by charging only $15 for the upgrades, GM is covering most the cost, said Bill Ball, OnStar vice president of public policy.

"It's a very frustrating situation for subscribers and for us," he said. "The engineers have done their best to try and provide a solution for as many folks as we're capable of doing."

[FAPTurbo]

F*cking knew it...

[Delta Force79]

I'm on the fence about this, in a way I agree with the owner of the Eldo, but then again its also a sign of the fact his Eldo is getting older and "it's" features and technology will be improved and/or changed in the future. Now I may be talking out of my ass here, but when 8 track players were replaced by regular cassette tapes, did owners sue car companies because they spent money on 8 track tapes? It's the same principle. Or even perhaps a better example is when radio stations for the most part moved to FM radio, but older cars only had AM radios, they're radios became obsolete as well in a way. So I guess he could buy a newer Cadillac and keep the Eldo. I do feel however that for people that have come to expect service when they push that blue button, they should be compensated in some way, and I'm sure for most people it is a security blanket in a way.

[Robert Hall]

I'm on the fence about this, in a way I agree with the owner of the Eldo, but then again its also a sign of the fact his Eldo is getting older and "it's" features and technology will be improved and/or changed in the future. Now I may be talking out of my ass here, but when 8 track players were replaced by regular cassette tapes, did owners sue car companies because they spent money on 8 track tapes? It's the same principle. Or even perhaps a better example is when radio stations for the most part moved to FM radio, but older cars only had AM radios, they're radios became obsolete as well in a way. So I guess he could buy a newer Cadillac and keep the Eldo. I do feel however that for people that have come to expect service when they push that blue button, they should be compensated in some way, and I'm sure for most people it is a security blanket in a way.

Yes, but those AM radios still work, the 8 track players still work, etc. The problem in this scenario is GM is breaking backward compatibility of a service without providing an upgrade path.

Edited May 10, 2007 by moltar

[Delta Force79]

I agree with you and with the Eldo owner...which is why I'm on the fence, I do feel that GM should make it right for owners of older vehicles with Onstar.

[Intrepidation]

Who didn't see this coming?

[balthazar]

Just like insurance companies operate: OnStar worked for this guy from '02 thru '08... that subscription money is gone- it paid for the service. Damn greedy people.

I could see a partial reimbursment for the option price had the service cut-off in -say- a year or 2... but 6 ?? It would be a nice jesture, but even half the option price x the 500K incompatable owners... that's $50,000,000!

Are the owners of affected acura, audi, subaru and vws class-actioning their respective makes, too?

As far as blocking GM from discontinuing analog broadcast? The FCC allows it and Verizon carries the signal- make sure you sue-happys go bang on their doors, too.

Sh!t, GM gets banged for old tech and gets banged for new tech- never a frickin' break.

[Flybrian]

I think there's a reasonable feeling of "WTF?" in cases of certain model years where the digital technology existed and was integrated into newer models but not retroactively installed in older ones. Such is the case with my father's Bonneville; while his is a 2000 and has no chance of being upgraded, 2004 models (I believe) were still being fitted with analog equipment even while other, newer 2004 models recieved the digital service.

Frankly, I don't care because we had OnStar once, haven't had it for years, and never will again for reasons beyond this issue. It would take a lot more than a month of free service to convince me OnStar is worth the extra money again.

[KillFort]

I was just counting the days until this happened...

[Drew Dowdell]

I think there's a reasonable feeling of "WTF?" in cases of certain model years where the digital technology existed and was integrated into newer models but not retroactively installed in older ones. Such is the case with my father's Bonneville; while his is a 2000 and has no chance of being upgraded, 2004 models (I believe) were still being fitted with analog equipment even while other, newer 2004 models recieved the digital service.

Frankly, I don't care because we had OnStar once, haven't had it for years, and never will again for reasons beyond this issue. It would take a lot more than a month of free service to convince me OnStar is worth the extra money again.

Part of the problem here was that GM/Onstar didn't know who they were going to switch do. Do they go Verizon? Do they go GSM? Do they go nextel? Yes they were a bit slow making the decision......

but what happens when CDs are no longer produced and you can only get your Nav system map upgrades on Blu-Ray.... what then? What happens when there is a replacement for Bluetooth in 10 years and all the new cell phones come out with "greentooth" and aren't compatible with your 2007 STS? What happens when XM and Sirrius eventually merge and require an "upgrade" in order to continue using the service.

Think of the precedent that this case sets up for technology in cars....... and what sense does it make to sue GM over this when GM doesn't control the Cellular Network/Bluetooth standard/CD manufacturing/XM Radio system?

[Oracle of Delphi]

GM is not the one shutting down the service. It's actually an FCC ruling that has allowed the analog cell phone companies to shut down those analog frequencies and have them reassigned for other uses starting in 2008.

Edited May 11, 2007 by Pontiac Custom-S

[loki]

nothing is future proof.....i bet a digital to analog converter could be made by a 3rd party.... like nearly everything else people "need" when original "services" can't be continued.... like when NOS parts run out. hehe

[daves87rs]

I'm feeling no pity for these people-tough poop.

Times change.Life moves on.

If you can't, oh well. We live in a tech savvy world. This is the price you pay to play.

There will be a time when all these cars with Nav will be useless, one way or another.

If GM could offer a portable system for the older cars-that could help.

It's just like people who had tape players....you upgrade to a CD player.

You move on.

Onstar is no different.

If you think this is interesting, I can't wait to see how the Mygig thing goes in the new Focus...

Edited May 11, 2007 by daves87rs

[Windy-57]

This shouldn't be an issue of whether GM is obligated to provide some sort fix for these OnStar clients, they should take care of it anyway. The lawsuit is proof enough that you're pissing off a bunch of people who buy GM and highly regard the OnStar feature. This should have been viewed as a great way to appease those customers and solidify their return business. And for the people who don't feel GM is obligated, this is a great opportunity to really impress the notion that GM goes above and beyond thus not only ensuring their return business but also making them into GM advocates...something GM doesn't have too many of these days. Thinking long term, how much would it have really cost to retro fit vehicles with the equipment necessary to carry the new OnStar service? Not to mention that OnStar would gladly shoulder some of that cost as it is in their best interest to keep subscription figures up.

[knightfan26917]

I can understand the guy's frustration....

BUT ... mostly ... this just seems to be another example of how people are "trigger happy" when it comes to lawsuits.....

It'll be interestig to see how this develops/progresses.

Cort:33swm."Mr Monte Carlo.Mr Road Trip".pig valve.pacemaker

PICS:lego.HO.model.MCinfo.RT.CHD = http://www.chevyasylum.com/cort

"You don't know until you begin" ... Van Halen ... 'Jump'

[Mr.Krinkle]

Damned if you do damned if you dont. This is a good time to examine an OnStar contract.

Personally, I think its a frivolous BS lawsuit that will eventually be thrown out.

The service was provided, no reason you should recoup that spent money.

If that was the case every dropped cell phone call would equal money in the bank. Every cassette or 45 purchased should be traded in for an i-pod at Apples expense. Your digital phone should have been no charge when it had to be upgraded. That vhs or dvd that wore out...those bastards. A free blu-ray and an HD just to make up for it.

This pissed me off the first time around. Sad part is GM is going to pay some big bucks to the lawyers to crack this nut anyway. f@#kin shame. I would have sent a letter saying "We regret to tell you the FCC has decided to ban Analog service and basically told us all tough tits deal with it. While we dont think this is fair you can reach the FCC at 1888xxx-xxxx to find out more. In the meantime we here at GM will try to make the transition as pleasant as possible."

What a fken joke.

[enzl]

Man, its too easy being right.

I think the fact OnStar was/is promoted as a safety device is the big issue. I thought it would be a roadside death in an analog On Star auto....I guess the class-action attorneys got there first.

Yet another PR debacle for the RenCen....

[Flybrian]

Man, its too easy being modest.

Apparently not...

[enzl]

Apparently not...

Cute.

Point made---but if you go back to the original posts on this topic months ago...I was nearly alone in my opinion that this thing would become a legal and PR nightmare.

At least a periodic, begrudging acknowledgment, Fly?---oh, BTW, still no Saturn events in my area...nor a billboard for the Outlook or Aura...and they've still got the old Saturn dealer down the street boarded up....pure genius.

[Flybrian]

Point made---but if you go back to the original posts on this topic months ago...I was nearly alone in my opinion that this thing would become a legal and PR nightmare.

At least a periodic, begrudging acknowledgment, Fly?

Actually, you were hardly alone; many people figured this would result in some sort of legal entanglement, but the debate was over whether there was any legal basis for it. You virulently argued that, yes, there was for a variety of reasons. We'll see if the courts prove you're opinion correct or not.

---oh, BTW, still no Saturn events in my area...nor a billboard for the Outlook or Aura...and they've still got the old Saturn dealer down the street boarded up....pure genius.

Similarly cute. Our local Saturn dealership is remodeling to the new look and also kicked Mitsubishi out of its air conditioned double-wide so it could expand its operation. I guess I shouldn't mention the Toyota lot that recently lost some of its unused lot space to WalMart. Anecdotes mean alot, especially when they're relevent to the OnStar topic.

[Camino LS6]

Actually, you were hardly alone; many people figured this would result in some sort of legal entanglement, but the debate was over whether there was any legal basis for it. You virulently argued that, yes, there was for a variety of reasons. We'll see if the courts prove you're opinion correct or not.

Exactly.

It really isn't a surprise in a nation that will sue over a hangnail and award millions for a hot coffee spill.

[enzl]

Actually, you were hardly alone; many people figured this would result in some sort of legal entanglement, but the debate was over whether there was any legal basis for it. You virulently argued that, yes, there was for a variety of reasons. We'll see if the courts prove you're opinion correct or not.

Similarly cute. Our local Saturn dealership is remodeling to the new look and also kicked Mitsubishi out of its air conditioned double-wide so it could expand its operation. I guess I shouldn't mention the Toyota lot that recently lost some of its unused lot space to WalMart. Anecdotes mean alot, especially when they're relevent to the OnStar topic.

If a class action is a 'legal entanglement', then clearly, you have no idea how invasive, expensive and time consuming a class action can be.

Right or not, GM will end up paying in legal fees, PR points and another unneeded association with a decision that leaves loyal customers high & dry.

[Intrepidation]

So if the some OnStar equipped vehicles had analog and digital why can't these analog ones be retrofitted with digital? I'm not sure how it works...

[Flybrian]

If a class action is a 'legal entanglement', then clearly, you have no idea how invasive, expensive and time consuming a class action can be.

Right or not, GM will end up paying in legal fees, PR points and another unneeded association with a decision that leaves loyal customers high & dry.

Again, the debate was on the legality of such a claim.

I don't know what the result of any phase of this lawsuit will be. Likely, no one will, especially if it goes into arbitration and is settled for a pittance all around. Unless some court rules that General Motors is legally responsible for either retrofitting affected cars with digital systems or paying restitution, I doubt you'll see this covered in any new article and I highly doubt any court would make such a ruling.

Let's look at the lawsuit again:

He calls for GM to reimburse all affected customers the $199 cost of the OnStar system along with subscription fees. The suit also seeks to block GM from shutting off service or from charging customers the $15 cost of an upgrade.

1) $199 cost of OnStar - This is arguable, but only for those that purchased OnStar as an option as opposed to a bundled package. One could argue that GM sold owners of 2002-2004 analog vehicles a bill of goods in that they knew such systems wouldn't function after the switch and continued selling them anyway. However, such a claim could be countered by the fact that GM didn't know for a fact that Verizon would leave them completely in the dark. That itself could be countered by suggesting that for the average person, this is true, but with GM's knowledge and agreements, it would be neglegent in not seeing this coming.

So, a refund of the purchase price for original customers who bought analog OnStar as a non-bundled option and desire to continue using it in their current vehicle but cannot is contestable and may be a good end-point for a settlement.

2) Subscription fees - If I interpret this as to mean a refund of past subscriptions fees paid by analog OnStar subscribers, completely irrational. I pay you for a year's service. You give me a year's service. Our contract is over. This is literally asking to have the cake and eat it, too, and has absolutely no legs to stand on. For those who are still subscribers, GM is no longer accepting money from them as they will not be able to provide service. As far as I know, OnStar hasn't issued any lifetime service agreements either.

3) Block GM from shutting off service - Again, not rational. GM is not shutting off service; Verizon is. GM provides the equipment, the operators, and the support while Verizon provides the wireless network. Sue them or sue the FCC for allowing them to shut down analog equipment. Its a shot in the dark, but a better shot than suing GM for something they do not control.

4) $15 upgrade - We all know the actual cost in labor and equipment is much more than $15. GM is eating the vast majority of the cost, rendering this a frivilous request.

What basis do I have for arriving at those conclusions? Besides watching Law & Order, none...just my common sense. I think common sense will win out in this argument, too. My personal belief is that GM owes original owners of 2002-2004 non-upgradable analog OnStar vehicles something because I think GM should have installed the new dual-mode equipment across all car lines at once rather than by model (which is what it seems like they did).

[gm4life]

I really think its a who cares thing. My 2005 Bonneville is digital tho.

[Intrepidation]

The moral of the story is: Verizon. Sucks. Ass. Period.

Edited May 12, 2007 by Dodgefan

[daves87rs]

The moral of the story is: Verizon. Sucks. Ass. Period.

Yes!

[cletus8269]

"What happens when XM and Sirrius eventually merge and require an "upgrade" in order to continue using the service."

thank you, i see that as a bigger issue because isnt xm radio about to become a standard deal in most of gm's cars on certain trim levels? As for Eldo guy, freakin come on you old fart onstar only cuts out one step of the process... you ever thought of AAA and a cell phone hot shot? both have been around for a while. stop tying up the judiciary system stupid crap like this... bout as dumb as gettin $10 mil for spilling coffee on yourself.

[Camino LS6]

... And, no service has even been shut off yet- period. This guy is suing based on what MIGHT happen in '08 at the earliest.

Idiotic and unimportant.

[Dragon]

... And, no service has even been shut off yet- period. This guy is suing based on what MIGHT happen in '08 at the earliest.

Idiotic and unimportant.

in theory, if the suit gets the analog shutdown pushed back a few years, then it isn't idiotic

[enzl]

Again, the debate was on the legality of such a claim.

I don't know what the result of any phase of this lawsuit will be. Likely, no one will, especially if it goes into arbitration and is settled for a pittance all around. Unless some court rules that General Motors is legally responsible for either retrofitting affected cars with digital systems or paying restitution, I doubt you'll see this covered in any new article and I highly doubt any court would make such a ruling.

Let's look at the lawsuit again:

1) $199 cost of OnStar - This is arguable, but only for those that purchased OnStar as an option as opposed to a bundled package. One could argue that GM sold owners of 2002-2004 analog vehicles a bill of goods in that they knew such systems wouldn't function after the switch and continued selling them anyway. However, such a claim could be countered by the fact that GM didn't know for a fact that Verizon would leave them completely in the dark. That itself could be countered by suggesting that for the average person, this is true, but with GM's knowledge and agreements, it would be neglegent in not seeing this coming.

So, a refund of the purchase price for original customers who bought analog OnStar as a non-bundled option and desire to continue using it in their current vehicle but cannot is contestable and may be a good end-point for a settlement.

2) Subscription fees - If I interpret this as to mean a refund of past subscriptions fees paid by analog OnStar subscribers, completely irrational. I pay you for a year's service. You give me a year's service. Our contract is over. This is literally asking to have the cake and eat it, too, and has absolutely no legs to stand on. For those who are still subscribers, GM is no longer accepting money from them as they will not be able to provide service. As far as I know, OnStar hasn't issued any lifetime service agreements either.

3) Block GM from shutting off service - Again, not rational. GM is not shutting off service; Verizon is. GM provides the equipment, the operators, and the support while Verizon provides the wireless network. Sue them or sue the FCC for allowing them to shut down analog equipment. Its a shot in the dark, but a better shot than suing GM for something they do not control.

4) $15 upgrade - We all know the actual cost in labor and equipment is much more than $15. GM is eating the vast majority of the cost, rendering this a frivilous request.

What basis do I have for arriving at those conclusions? Besides watching Law & Order, none...just my common sense. I think common sense will win out in this argument, too. My personal belief is that GM owes original owners of 2002-2004 non-upgradable analog OnStar vehicles something because I think GM should have installed the new dual-mode equipment across all car lines at once rather than by model (which is what it seems like they did).

I haven't read the text of the claim, however, with Class Actions, its almost immaterial what the claim is, as the phase which sets a class and defines the harm takes years, hundreds of lawyers billable hours and can be a PR debacle, which, at the end of the day, is really the harm to GM itself.

It's another sign of the tin ear GM regularly displays.

[dlight]

I work for a Saturn Facility, and let me say that Onstar has changed even since the very beginning of my career here in 2005. We no longer are offering a simple system. The vehicles we offer now can intelli-sense the G-Forces of an impact regardless of airbag deployment, and notify paramedics to send helicopters, instead of ambulances. The systems can monitor your tire pressures, fluid levels, rollovers, etc...

I understand the gentleman is upset that his 7 year old eldorado doesn't have the same onstar it always has, but I don't think he realizes that there has to be upgrades based on FCC regulations, digital communications, and opportunity to improve, to improve the safety, and quality of every vehicle on the road, not just the 2000's or2002's.

This is a feature that is not offered on 90% of the competitive field, and was/is a competitive advantage. If GM didin't continue trying to move forward, his entire vehicle may become obsolete. See also Oldsmobile.

SCENARIO: MAN SUES GM... GM LOSES 50,000,000 DOLLARS... STOCK GOES DOWN AS INVESTORS AREN'T HAPPY... BUSINESS LOSES INVESTMENT MONEY... GETS BAD PUBLICITY, SO MUST CUT CORNERS TO KEEP INVESTORS HAPPY... (TWO POSSIBLE PATHS, CARS BECOME CHEAPER, OR WE CREATE LESS OF THEM) CADILLAC LOSES IT'S PLACE IN GM LINEUP, MORE STOCK LOST... HIS TRADE VALUE GOES DOWN, AND COST TO FIX GOES UP... ALL FOR A $199 DOLLAR OPTION, THAT HE WAS UPSET ABOUT, PROBABLY RARELY USES, AND WON'T WORK IN HIGHLY SECURE AREA'S LIKE FORT KNOX KY, BECAUSE OF THE OLD TECHNOLOGY.

NOW HE'S UPSET BECAUSE HE FEELS LIKE GM SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN, SWEARS OFF GM, AND BUYS A HONDA WHICH DOESN'T HAVE ONSTAR ANYWAY.

IT COULD HAPPEN: JUST NOT LIKELY TO! :AH-HA_wink:

[Mr.Krinkle]

in theory, if the suit gets the analog shutdown pushed back a few years, then it isn't idiotic

If thats the case they are suing the wrong party. GM has no control over the network or infrastructure. They even demonstrated good faith by installing redundant systems after a certain point.

What they should do is get the cell phone users and other services affected by the switch involved and take it to where it belongs.

[redsilverado]

It looks to me like there should be an expected time that the technology is good for. Any special technology will eventually need an upgrade to keep up with the current times. Besides OnStar consider a navigation system, roads change with new construction so without an update to it the maps and directions wouldn't be right. If a one way road went north now goes south and the navigation said to go north would it be the drivers responibility or the navigation system at fault.

So to keep up with the technology the owners need to do what is necessary to upgrade at some point. With the modern technologies added to cars now a days should the OnStar or a navigation system be thought of in the same light as getting new tires, brakes and other routine maintenance?

[Mr.Krinkle]

So to keep up with the technology the owners need to do what is necessary to upgrade at some point. With the modern technologies added to cars now a days should the OnStar or a navigation system be thought of in the same light as getting new tires, brakes and other routine maintenance?

Brakes arent modern and I still had to pay to replace them. This seems open and shut to me.

[silverss/sc]

"What happens when XM and Sirrius eventually merge and require an "upgrade" in order to continue using the service."

XM has stated that current subscribers will not have to do anything . The new format should be completely phased in by June/July and all u have to do is nothing . Cant get easier than that

I would hope this guy suing GM gets no where . In theory , it would open the door for the day the analog TV no longer works . Are we gonna sue the electronics companies when that day comes too ?

[Drew Dowdell]

I would hope this guy suing GM gets no where . In theory , it would open the door for the day the analog TV no longer works . Are we gonna sue the electronics companies when that day comes too ?

The difference being, you *can* buy a converter box for your 1983 Zenith.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Just like insurance companies operate: OnStar worked for this guy from '02 thru '08... that subscription money is gone- it paid for the service. Damn greedy people.

I could see a partial reimbursment for the option price had the service cut-off in -say- a year or 2... but 6 ?? It would be a nice jesture, but even half the option price x the 500K incompatable owners... that's $50,000,000!

Are the owners of affected acura, audi, subaru and vws class-actioning their respective makes, too?

As far as blocking GM from discontinuing analog broadcast? The FCC allows it and Verizon carries the signal- make sure you sue-happys go bang on their doors, too.

Sh!t, GM gets banged for old tech and gets banged for new tech- never a frickin' break.

+1

GM is screwed regardless.... And they'll probably have to pay this asshole and all the other assholes one way or the other... Funny how no one has sued the FCC, Verizon or the OTHER automakers yet... This guys just wants $$$. Personally, I'd rather see GM blow the $$$ on lawyers for the principle of the matter.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Just like insurance companies operate: OnStar worked for this guy from '02 thru '08... that subscription money is gone- it paid for the service. Damn greedy people.

I could see a partial reimbursment for the option price had the service cut-off in -say- a year or 2... but 6 ?? It would be a nice jesture, but even half the option price x the 500K incompatable owners... that's $50,000,000!

Are the owners of affected acura, audi, subaru and vws class-actioning their respective makes, too?

As far as blocking GM from discontinuing analog broadcast? The FCC allows it and Verizon carries the signal- make sure you sue-happys go bang on their doors, too.

Sh!t, GM gets banged for old tech and gets banged for new tech- never a frickin' break.

+1

GM is screwed regardless.... And they'll probably have to pay this asshole and all the other assholes one way or the other... Funny how no one has sued the FCC, Verizon or the OTHER automakers yet... This guys just wants $$$. Personally, I'd rather see GM blow the $$$ on lawyers for the principle of the matter.

[lanky9172]

This guy is an asshole and isn't entitled to anything. His car is getting on in its years and you can't expect technology, especially in this day in age, to last that long. I wish someone out there would sue the assholes like this guy and the coffee bitch just for wasting our judiciary system's time. Instead of addressing truly important matters like whether or not Pain Killer Jane or Fondeling Freddy get out of jail, the system is bogged down in crap like this...although that is a broad generalization and not a very good one at that, it still upsets me that the time taken on retarded cases like this could be used for much more important matters...I hope this guy gets a flat in a ditch and can't use his outdated OnStar and then dies...that would be ironic, especially if he won the suit and bought a Toyohondasan which was sitting in the garage because he wanted to take a nostalgic joy ride in the El.

[69lt1bird]

The wiring architecture is the biggest issue, for Onstar to communicate the way it currently does in an older model vehicle the wiring in the entire car would have to be upgraded. The old Eldorado the suer owns has wiring from 1996, a lot has changed in the 11 years since that vehicle was designed.

[toesuf94]

I am starting a class-action lawsuit in the spirit of this guys thinking - who wants in? It will be against Microsoft/HP/Best Buy - They sold me a computer knowing full well that it would be made obsolete nearly immediately upon purchase. I think I will ask for $100 Trillion Billion dollars.

Further, I will also begining litigation against Mr. Marty McFly and Dr. Emmet Brown for the Future invention of flying cars, flux capacitors, and an alternative energy source known as a "Mr. Fusion" device that I will have to fit to all of the vehicles in my fleet in order for them to operate in the year 2015. I am seeking free installation or upgrades to each of my cars, as thier invention and use will make my cars obsolete. While it cannot be proven that they did invent such cars, they did advertise and popularaize thier use in a movie that could only be called a thin viel of an advertisement for the future.

I am stating these two examples as reference to how stupid it is for a guy with a 16 year old car to expect it to run forever or for the technology in it to not 'expire'. Should all the people still driving cars with a carb be allowed to sue the manufacturers for an upgrade to fuel injection? At what point is the manufacturer no longer responsible for 'progress'?

Edited May 14, 2007 by toesuf94

[redsilverado]

I am starting a class-action lawsuit in the spirit of this guys thinking - who wants in? It will be against Microsoft/HP/Best Buy - They sold me a computer knowing full well that it would be made obsolete nearly immediately upon purchase. I think I will ask for $100 Trillion Billion dollars.

Further, I will also begining litigation against Mr. Marty McFly and Dr. Emmet Brown for the Future invention of flying cars, flux capacitors, and an alternative energy source known as a "Mr. Fusion" device that I will have to fit to all of the vehicles in my fleet in order for them to operate in the year 2015. I am seeking free installation or upgrades to each of my cars, as thier invention and use will make my cars obsolete. While it cannot be proven that they did invent such cars, they did advertise and popularaize thier use in a movie that could only be called a thin viel of an advertisement for the future.

I am stating these two examples as reference to how stupid it is for a guy with a 16 year old car to expect it to run forever or for the technology in it to not 'expire'. Should all the people still driving cars with a carb be allowed to sue the manufacturers for an upgrade to fuel injection? At what point is the manufacturer no longer responsible for 'progress'?

Does this mean we all have to drive Deloreans for the new energy source?

[toesuf94]

Yup! Go find one now before the rush!

[aaaantoine]

If thats the case they are suing the wrong party. GM has no control over the network or infrastructure. They even demonstrated good faith by installing redundant systems after a certain point.

What they should do is get the cell phone users and other services affected by the switch involved and take it to where it belongs.

+1, Quoted for truth, , What he said, and so on and so forth.

[epertschuk]

As an owner of a 2003 GMC Envoy (I have upgraded, since I what my family to have piece of mind) and future owner of a 2008 CTS, when I first heard about this last year, I was taken back.....how could GM, after all of their advertising of the Onstar system. How could they just cut people off? What if: a person (housewife), never got the notification that Onstar was doing what they are doing, and she has a problem, (ex-kids, accident, whatever...), the problem goes from bad to worse and they can't get an ambulance (as an example). Wouldn't it be prudent for GM to BEFORE January to contact each current customer to ensure that they either want to upgrade to not, or KEEP the analog system... just from a legal point of view.

What they should do, bite the bullet and either upgrade for free or keep the old system.

[toesuf94]

They cannot keep the old system unless Verizon keeps the ANALOG system on line - which they will not do. The old analog system is being shut off. GM has no control of this short of buying out Verizon wireless.

I agree with the 'what ifs' that you posted, but the truth of the matter is: GM has no control over the carrier shutting down the analog system that carries the signal for the older, NON-UPGRADEABLE systems. The big point here is the guys car is 12+ years old. The technology passed it by. Now he needs to go buy a cell phone and leave the automaker who is not at fault (other than being a tad shortsighted) alone!

[El Scorcho]

Just a quick point to those who are saying the car is 12+ years old: The article states he bought his car new in 2002.

Robert Weaver of Virginia bought a new Cadillac El Dorado in 2002 equipped with GM's OnStar...

[Kevin]

? What if: a person (housewife), never got the notification that Onstar was doing what they are doing,

Since OnStar sent letters to all their subscribers, if someone doesn't know the cutoff is happening, it's their own fault.

And since once the shutoff happens, they will no longer be billed by OnStar, I'd hope they'd notice.

What ever happened to personal responsibility in this country????

Edited May 31, 2007 by Kevin