Maybe an interesting story for Dave to participate in (Louis Rossman at the end of the video mentions Dave as a possibly interested party)
Short summary DCS (
Deep Cycle Systems from Australia) is suing a small youtuber for defamation after he made a video complaining about the batteries losing capacity too quickly, and DCS not honering its warranty. The capacity loss in one case was measured by muultiple independent parties, but when sending it in for warranty, DCS came to completely different numbers with a bad way of measuring (over discharging, then overcharging, and thus measuring the charge, not the discharge). To top it off, he was able to show that DCS stealth changed their warranty policy on their site (which is the only source of the warranty, they don't print it). (With louis also showing that for some reason on the internet archive suddenly all old version of that page have been purged after the video the small youtuber made... but there are other archives that show that it happened)
Louis already did his part to get the Streisand effect started, let's keep it going
Here is the original video by the youtuber regarding DCS issues:
There are also multiple updates regarding his legal issues with DCS on his channel (among which some actual defation by DCS... They stating they're not suing any truthful reviewers, and making claims about his relationship to DCS, and how he would pretend he bought DCS products rather than getting them for review...)
So it says 4 years warranty, 3 years under hood.
2500 cycles >80% capacity, 100% DOD.
Was that the original or updated warranty spec? Didn't watch the full video.
They should have just specified 80% DOD to get way higher cycle life.
They changed it to 70% under some conditions, and also have a dodgy way of measuring the capacity (discharging it beyond their own recommendations, and then charging it beyond their own recommendations...). There was also something about that the batteries should not be exposed to a temperature above 25°C, which is ridiculous for batteries marketed to be installed under the hood of a vehicle...
We are waiting for Dave to investigate the issue with teardown
They changed it to 70% under some conditions, and also have a dodgy way of measuring the capacity (discharging it beyond their own recommendations, and then charging it beyond their own recommendations...). There was also something about that the batteries should not be exposed to a temperature above 25°C, which is ridiculous for batteries marketed to be installed under the hood of a vehicle...
So dumb, why not just give the guy his warranty and then change their spec going forward.
Maybe they could try to insulate the battery from the engine heat a bit, though don't know how realistic that is.
That's probably part of why they're suing him, it's not just him, he's in contact with several other people who had the issue (or even worse issues, he had pictures of a battery that had exploded before the garage had the chance to install it, so far only one, so probably not widespread), but he's also clearly telling his audience to be very wary of these batteries, to capacity test them before you leave for vacation, and also before your warranty expires. And he's popular enough to have had many complaints from viewers about this brand, so he might be/become responsible for a significant increase in warranty requests... i get why they're afraid of him...
My understanding is that it's not possible for a business to sue an individual for "defamation" in Australia (if that is what their suit is about). Even if someone falsely claimed that a product was garbage/a lie/dangerous etc...
Will be keen to see more details about this supposed case.
You can call a CEO of a company a fuckwit that produces shit products and you'd be legally protected.
Just watched a vid from the alloffraods guy. Apparently they were due in court today (30th July) for some administrative matters regarding the case.
He said he would give an update but based on comments being disabled for legal reasons he may not be able to do so
Just watched a vid from the alloffraods guy. Apparently they were due in court today (30th July) for some administrative matters regarding the case.
He said he would give an update but based on comments being disabled for legal reasons he may not be able to do so
I smell a generous settlement along with a
Non
Disclosure
Agreement. I'm sure it would been cheaper for Fuckwit and Co to simply refunded alloffroads to begin with. But once that started trying to scare him with lawyers, it was
game on!
My understanding is that it's not possible for a business to sue an individual for "defamation" in Australia (if that is what their suit is about). Even if someone falsely claimed that a product was garbage/a lie/dangerous etc...
Will be keen to see more details about this supposed case.
You can call a CEO of a company a fuckwit that produces shit products and you'd be legally protected.
Unfortunately it is possible anyone, either a business or an individual to attemt to sue anyone for anything. Whether or not it's "possible", "legal", or completely baseless, a lot fo tiem and and money can be wasted with lawyers until a judge gets around to either letting the case proceed or tossing it out of court. By which time it can bankrupt you.
I don't think the company has a snow balls chance in hell of sucessfully suing for anything, let alone defamation, but that might not matter. DCS are a bunch of dicks.
We are waiting for Dave to investigate the issue with teardown
Unfortunately the only way to test this sort of thing is with long term testing, which takes a very long time, in this case, years.
My understanding is that it's not possible for a business to sue an individual for "defamation" in Australia (if that is what their suit is about). Even if someone falsely claimed that a product was garbage/a lie/dangerous etc...
Will be keen to see more details about this supposed case.
You can call a CEO of a company a fuckwit that produces shit products and you'd be legally protected.
Unfortunately it is possible anyone, either a business or an individual to attemt to sue anyone for anything. Whether or not it's "possible", "legal", or completely baseless, a lot fo tiem and and money can be wasted with lawyers until a judge gets around to either letting the case proceed or tossing it out of court. By which time it can bankrupt you.
I don't think the company has a snow balls chance in hell of sucessfully suing for anything, let alone defamation, but that might not matter. DCS are a bunch of dicks.
Apparently if the business has more than 10 employees, then they have no cause of action for defamation.
Still, regardless, I think their argument is baseless and would be laughed out of any court, particularly as the Australian Government itself has found that DCS's batteries are shit (I'm paraphrasing). Time will tell I suppose.
No matter what happens, DCS has lost a lot of future business because of this crap they are trying to pull. I hope they end up bust. Charlatans like DCS have no business here in Australia.
There is a GoFundMe page set up to help Stephen, should you wish to donate:
https://gofund.me/db05fa07
Apparently if the business has more than 10 employees, then they have no cause of action for defamation. Seems like DCS full under this threshold, so the suit has the potential to progress.
Stephan and his lawyers believe they do not fall under this catgeory, and the court will rule on this on Oct 14th. So it will either go ahead or the suit will be dismissed on that date.
There is a branch oh DCS in the USA. Do those employees count?
There is a GoFundMe page set up to help Stephen, should you wish to donate: https://gofund.me/db05fa07
I just looked and people have donated almost $82,000 for Stephen's defense fund. I think DCS is going to have a major legal problem very soon.
The internet archive has been scrubbed for before 2024
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1317828398/the-field-knife-set-professional-quality-camping-kThey are now the US distributor, their website (tiktaalik.com) is about as dead as it gets.
Also, their trademarks are now dead, but they still claim a "TM" and "(R)" on their LinkedIn profiles, website and so on. At least in Germany, that is false advertising and strictly prohibited (probably with fines up to tens of thousands of EURO).
At least, that gave me an (probaby outdated) address for their US distributor:
Tiktaalik Limited Liability Company
xxx SE Caruthers St.
97214 Portland, OR
Currently
xxx Nokomis Ct Lake Oswego, OR, 97035-7965
"DCS" is not a registered trademark in the US (by them).
(For that like respect of US privacy, the addresses have been crossed out).
Well, that is the american part of the business. May I say more show than go?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1317828398/the-field-knife-set-professional-quality-camping-k
They are now the US distributor, their website (tiktaalik.com) is about as dead as it gets.
Also, their trademarks are now dead, but they still claim a "TM" and "(R)" on their LinkedIn profiles, website and so on. At least in Germany, that is false advertising and strictly prohibited (probably with fines up to tens of thousands of EURO).
At least, that gave me an (probaby outdated) address for their US distributor:
Tiktaalik Limited Liability Company
xxx SE Caruthers St.
97214 Portland, OR
Currently
xxx Nokomis Ct Lake Oswego, OR, 97035-7965
"DCS" is not a registered trademark in the US (by them).
(For that like respect of US privacy, the addresses have been crossed out).
Well, that is the american part of the business. May I say more show than go?
A distributor would not be classified as an employee for reasons of the lawsuit in question.
Perfectly legal to put "TM" on stuff that isn't actually a registered trademark. In fact it is advised by Trademark attornies to imply publicly you are actively "trading" under that "mark".
Thanks; that seems to be different in Germany. Maybe due to very strict trade laws.
However, the use of "(R)" seems to require a *registered* trademark; the registration is expired - and they still use it. That is sketchy - if you are doing business, would you let your company branding slipping away? Not sure about legal consequences in the US or anywhere else.
Funny sidenote: The US distribution seems to have about zero stock of items. After checking a dozen of products, they are all on backorder.
(I goggled around for a bit, and found a nice essay on the trademark-usage:
https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2011/05/trademark-marking-in-europe-what-symbols-to-use-and-when - so it seems you might get into trouble when using (R) without active registration, even in US. On the plus side, it seems DCS does *not* use TM or (R) in the US, so that's fine.)
Video TLDR: just your average cheap chinese lifepo4 battery
- Doesn't have undertemp charging protection.
- Cell temperature was not on the cells.
- Some poor wiring layout
- False advertising claiming active balancing (which you don't want anyway)
- Good surge ability (1000A)
However, the use of "(R)" seems to require a *registered* trademark; the registration is expired - and they still use it. That is sketchy - if you are doing business, would you let your company branding slipping away? Not sure about legal consequences in the US or anywhere else.
Yes, R is only for Registered. I don't even know who or why someone would prosecute you for doing that without actually have the registration though, as it only really matters during trademark enforcement cases.
The internet archive has been scrubbed for before 2024
I didn't know that was even possible.
If that was a deliberate action by DCS, that could be viewed as "destroying or concealing evidence", although whether that also applies to civil proceedings, I'm not sure.
The internet archive has been scrubbed for before 2024
I didn't know that was even possible.
I'm of the understanding that you can request removal of your own site.
If that was a deliberate action by DCS, that could be viewed as "destroying or concealing evidence", although whether that also applies to civil proceedings, I'm not sure.
If it was done after you started the legal proceedings then it's certainly not going to look good.
