Who "accepted" the settlement with Mitsubishi?
by cnet4me - 3/31/12 10:16 AM
In Reply to: mitsubishi tv by shelldean99
How did this suit settle with NO relief beyond bulb replacement for owners of Diamond Series DLPs?
"...Other than as provided above [bulb replacement], there will be no other reimbursement
for repair or replacement expenses made to Settlement Class members relating to
the V33 and V34 chassis televisions."
The V33 and V34 chassis include what were supposed to be Mitsubishi's top-of-line, Diamond Series DLPs, including the WD-57831, WD-65831, and WD-73831. I bought the WD-57831 when it came out and it's on its 3rd faulty light engine. Mitsubishi helped with the first replacement but has refused to help since then.
Why was this settlement accepted with such obvious short-shrifting of those of us who bought what were the most expensive DLPs? Yes, bulbs are a problem with all of Mitsubishi's DLP models BUT bulbs can be had nowadays for $99. The much bigger issue has been, and remains, the faulty light engines.
Why was Mitsubishi allowed to get away with such inequity across its model lines?
What is the rationale for accepting "settlement" terms and language that specifically omit consideration for the second most frequent (after bulbs) and most expensive defect, faulty light engines? A bad bulb does not cause the constellations of "white spots" on the screen. This is a light engine problem, not a bulb problem. Similarly, faulty light engine operation as also been cited as the cause of many bulb failures. So, how did Mitsubishi manage to avoid all consideration of this most costly and visible defect in their top-of-line Diamond Series?
Is anyone else confused about the way Diamond DLPs are treated in the settlement which, I believe, should not have been accepted.
Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)