Update: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 Settlement Claims Website Now Open
by Ryan Smith on September 12, 2016 9:30 AM EST
Update 09/12: Bringing this back up, over the weekend the website to submit settlement claims went up. Owners of GTX 970s who purchased the card between its launch and August 24th of this year can participate in the settlement in order to receive $30 per card. The settlement itself has not yet been approved by the courts, but is expected to be approved in December.
Interestingly, there is no damage cap in the settlement, so all participants will receive a fixed $30 per card regardless of the price paid or the number of claimants. Meanwhile the proposed attorney fees total $1.3 million.
Original: 07/29
Word comes from Top Class Actions (via The Tech Report) that NVIDIA will soon be settling a series of proposed class action lawsuits brought against the company regarding the GeForce GTX 970. Under the preliminary settlement, United States residents who purchased GeForce GTX 970 cards would be able to claim a $30 settlement in return for dropping further litigation against the company. With the GTX 970 having launched at $329, this amounts to a de facto 9% rebate on the card.
The class action suits in question were brought against the company almost immediately after NVIDIA made the important (and more than a bit painful) disclosure that the initially published specifications for the GTX 970 were wrong. Specifically, that the card had an unusual memory crossbar organization where one ROP/L2 partition was disabled, giving the card only 56 ROPs instead of 64. Furthermore, this meant that the last 512MB of the standard 4GB of VRAM could not be accessed in a contiguous manner, impacting how it could be used. To that end, as the Top Class Actions article notes, the $30 settlement “was calculated to represent a portion of the cost of the storage and performance capabilities the consumers thought they were obtaining in the purchase of the product.”
With that said, at this point the settlement itself has yet to be approved by the court, and signups are not yet available. Assuming it is approved, I’d expect that signups will be made available shortly thereafter.
Source: Top Class Actions (via The Tech Report)
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
105 Comments
View All Comments
xthetenth - Saturday, July 30, 2016 - link
It's a shame they don't ban nazis, you haven't added anything of value to date.powerarmour - Monday, September 12, 2016 - link
I'd put a claim in for your corrupt bias chip Michael.Nfarce - Friday, July 29, 2016 - link
Yes because blowing up a motherboard from a major voltage fail is a lot less an issue to users than .5GB not being directly accessible. You AMD fangirls are a laugh a minute.xthetenth - Saturday, July 30, 2016 - link
Funny thing with that, everyone who got lied to has or had a card that wasn't what they thought they were buying. The set of people who had their motherboards go pop is vastly smaller, although they should be getting a much better settlement per person.What's with pro-NV posters and not being able to make a proper comparison.
K_Space - Saturday, July 30, 2016 - link
I actually hasn't seen any! There was a comment by someone using a riser for their card for bitmining but his setup was very nusual if not nonsensical. Would be interesting if anyone can provide a creditable link.cmdrdredd - Sunday, July 31, 2016 - link
For my part I was buying a card based on it's performance numbers. It performed just as the reviews said it does and for the price I was willing to pay.tamalero - Thursday, August 4, 2016 - link
I still wonder, has there been ANY SINGLE motherboard killed by the 480 before the driver update?Lets remember that Nvidia had 2 series of drivers that actually burned A TON OF CARDS.
blahblahbob - Sunday, July 31, 2016 - link
All of you fan girls are hilarious. Fact is Nvidia engaged in dodgy business practices and got caught doing it. Amd are no different. Hilarious.tamalero - Thursday, August 4, 2016 - link
Nope.. NVIDIA outright lied, and has lied in the past.AMD in the other hand didnt put incorrect specifications that proven to be untrue.
CiccioB - Tuesday, September 13, 2016 - link
How not? They put a PCIe compliant stick on the box while the product inside is not.They are just selling junk with a industry recognized stick telling it is not.
They lied on the tests of conformity. Or they even didn't perform them at all.
Either way, it is a junk product.