OK first off I think lawsuits in the US are ridiculous (I live in the US) and don't support the frivlous, tax dollar wasting lawsuits that essentially are get rich quick schemes for some rather morally questionable people....
But when posts like this comes up it really does beg commenting...
QUOTE(BigSteel @ Jan 5 2008, 03:14 AM)

As a Canadian, I just can't understand how Americans think that they can sue for pretty much anything. The stranger part is that they do sue and quite often win. This seems like one of the more ridiculous ones that I have heard of. How is not having Xbox Live for a few weeks worth $1.7M?
Edit: I am not is any way insinuating that all Americans are like this.
First off... 1.7mill? You do understand how class action works right? They are not splitting $5mill between them... they are suing on behalf of all live users who had problems connecting and any settlement would need to be split between all the plaintiffs.
Second, how much is 2 weeks of Live worth? I don't know... how much revenue does Live take in a year? At $50 a year with 1 million users it would be $50 million a year... Now I do not have the exact numbers (and feel free to correct my assumption) but I am pretty sure there are more than 1 million Live users in the US, so how much is Live worth? I don't know but it's sure not chicken scratch.
Remember lawsuits are often for punative value as well as compensatory value... the point may not be to compensate us for our loss as much as it is to remind MS this is not acceptable behavior and they shouldn't be expecting to get away with it.
Think about it, you are 30 minutes late getting home for curfew and you get grounded for 2 weeks... wait... it was only 30 minutes, shouldn't you only be grounded for 30 minutes? No... it's not about making up the difference, it's about teaching a lesson.
And to those who are pointing out MS covering their butt in the TOS, I agree they did a great job with their lawyers but as much as we hate frivolous lawsuits, we also hate abusive TOS agreements... the courts sometimes rule in favor of a lawsuit to send a message more than to do whats right.
How fair is it to charge for a service you control entirely and yet claim no responsibility for failure of said system? I don't know...
But fine print has often had a hard time holding up against the obvious right in court cases and if MS wants to play dirty with a 100 page TOS then users may fight back dirty as well...
MS may not be responsible for failures or outages of the system, but they are responsible for how they conduct their business... and this could be viewed not as a failure of the system, but a failure of the company to run themselves (that's where the negligence claim comes from).
If I was a doctor I might say I am not responsible if the nitrogen I use to burn off your wart causes a scar, but if I then pour 2 cups of it on you scaring your whole arm, I am still negligent even though I had covered my butt...
Remember... fair is fair whether you like it or not so do give these seemingly stupid actions a fair shake when condeming them.
And because it always happens, if someone is going to post that scaring someones arm is far worse than being without Live for 2 weeks, please don't bother. You totally miss the point.... go look up "analogy" and see if you can figure out the point I am making....