555

I couldn't agree more. Maybe a Class Action suit will get their attention. They will not even reply to my "Priority Emails" through the Owners Circle anymore. They flat out just dont care. They over promised on this vehicle and that's a fact. The manual even mentions MP3 play-back and we know where that stands.

robg

Without commenting on whether American sue too much -

If the dealership, acting through its saleman/agent, made a misrepresentation, there could be an action for fraud in the inducment of the contract. Given my understanding of dealership / BMWNA realtions, I do not think that individual dealerships are acting as agents for BMWNA. For there to be liability at the BMWNA level, the plaintiffs would need to prove that BMWNA itslef committed fraud. Given BMWNA's printed materials, I do not think there is a case of fraud against BMWNA.

As for oral misrepresentations, they may or may not be actionable. I have not reviewed my contract for this, but most commercial contract contain a "four corners" provision, which states that no promises have been made other than those appearing within the four corners of thewritten contract. This make a law suit very difficult to win.

kscarrol

Yes, that is my point robq, any actions taken will likely be against individual dealers, not BMW NA. Obviously not making my point very clearly.

robg

And, if the suit is against individual dealers, the concept of a class action does not work (though I doubt it would work as a class action for many other reasons).

300TTto545

Wouldn't it be nice if BMW NA just allowed the new TCU to be put it at cost? Given the usual markup - this might be $800 (or less). Usual dealer markups are about 100% so that gets you down to $1000. I suspect the actual cost to BMW from the company that makes it is about $500 but I say $800 to be conservative.

Lets consider the potential for a class-action. Help me if my numbers are way off.

Pre-3/04 5 series sold in US - 30,000
Percentage told bluetooth was a feature - 20%
Percentage of those that care (and are informed of a suit) - 10%

Total class size - 600. Diminished value by omission of bluetooth - $1000 (tops)

Total settlement - $600,000.

Likelihood of reputable and decent law firm taking a marginal case for a mere $250,000 total return - ZERO.

dfndr

One flaw in your numbers is your assumption that the suit would represent only 10% of the purchasers because most wouldn't care or be informed. Class actions usually proceed on behalf of all persons described in the class complaint (ie purchasers of E60's that don't have BT compatibility) except those that take the initiative to opt out. Percentage of opt outs is usually low. Most people do nothing, so maybe you are talking about a $6 mil case if your production numbers are right. That is still pretty modestl given the amount of work that would have to be done. The bigger problem is that individual issues (what statements were made to each purchasers) can cause denial of class certification or decertification and individual lawsuits are not cost-effective.

Gizmo

Guys, I hate to say it again, but most of you are missing the point.

BMW is now famous for its disclaimers (from the backs of your brochures to your iDrive screens). I do not believe there will be a Bluetooth paper trail implicating the company in an E60 telecomunications cover-up.

However, there can be no doubt that BMW is providing substandard information and equipment to its customers. BMW Assist is BMW's attempt to provide an On-Star like product whereby they charge exorbitant fees for a service seldomly used by most. In their rush to maximize profits with this "service" they forgot about a technology that should be front and center in any discussion of vehicular safety: handsfree cellphone use.

It is a fact that the cellphone is ubiquitous, and its use during the innumerable hours people spend in their vehicles will continue. While other automobile manufacturers were providing Bluetooth technology to their customers in MY 2004, BMW concentrated on profiteering with Assist, choosing to provide its customers with outmoded and now unsupported technology with the CPT9000. Realizing their error, they have provided some Bluetooth functionalty for those owners of vehicles produced during the latter phase to the 2004 MY production cycle.

BMW should provide a cost effective means for the upgrading of their vehicles to allow Bluetooth functionality. The sooner they abandon the unsupported Motorola v60 platform, the better. Is BMW going to insure that those MY 2004 E60 owners with CPT9000 phones will have uninterrupted functionality of this system even though Motorola has itself abandoned it ???

The way BMW is turning their backs on its loyal customer base regarding this and other safety issues is a very SAD thing indeed.

dfndr

I agree. We should try to find a way to persuade BMW to rectify this.

cobradav

And while not directly on point, have you noticed that sometime in December the CPT9000 was removed from the BMWNA Configurator for at least the 5,6 and 7 series. Not sure if it is because of the length of time the v60 has been discontinued or that Bluetooth is now seemingly working in these series.

Gizmo

That is interesting. BMW will have a problem when individuals with CPT9000 experience cellphone issues requiring replacement. Heck, TDMA is even being phased out by the largest provider (ATT/Cingular).