Nvidia Hit with False Advertising Suit over GTX 970 Performance

[Black Octagon]

The EU wont do crap.

Many products make claims and never live up to them. Anti age creams and the like.

I agree with the rest of your post but this bit isn't a good argument in your favour.

Firstly, 'the EU' isn't an entity to whom regular citizens/consumers would normally appeal, at least not in the first instance. EU Member States apply EU consumer laws in their respective countries, so if you want to bring a grievance against a company for false advertising, you address the national competent authority, not 'the EU.' You'd only go to the EU (courts) in cases where you want to take action against your home EU country for not properly implementing or enforcing the relevant EU law, e.g., the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.

Secondly, while fluffy claims on anti-ageing creams have indeed been going on for quite some time, efforts in the EU have stepped up in recent years to address them. These creams are regulated as cosmetics, and the new EU Cosmetics Regulation (applicable since 2013) specifically requires all cosmetic product claims to be justified in a far more rigorous way than the previous law did. Criteria for these claims have also started to come out. So don't let an imperfect past keep you pessimistic about the future.

Finally, in the spirit of being productive, here is a good place to start if you are in the EU, bought a 970 there, and want to attempt top seek compensation for NV's false advertising: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/consume...ractices/is-it-fair/getting-help/index_en.htm

 

[Spanners]

The EU wont do crap.

Many products make claims and never live up to them. Anti age creams and the like.

Fact is that it doesnt matter what the fine print says or the specs say because the people who bought the 970 bought it because of the price and not because of its specs. Its cheaper than the 980 and performs like the 670 did vs the 680. People got exactly what they expected.

My SSD claims i can get 500mbps speeds and never gets close. Those are published claims too.

We are talking about a grey discrepancy which actually had zero effect on performance since the reviews showed the performance when they launched. The card does what the card has always done. It didnt change after review or launch. It performs the same now as ever.

I dont see what you can possibly sue for? Nvidia offered a refund didnt they?

How could you possibly know peoples purchasing motivations or expectations?

Your SSD will meet those claims under the conditions set out in the specifications.

There is nothing grey about it, 56 in not 64. Reviews only show current performance under the test conditions the reviewers set up. I would have expected (and was lead to believe) this card would perform, in terms of memory sub-system, the same as a 980 in future titles and it won't. Besides that since this came to light reviewers have found conditions in current titles that are affected by the segmentation.

Nvidia never offered a refund to my knowledge.

 

[ocre]

I see two major extremes in this thread,

A) that its open and shut case. That nvidia stands no chance and they are toast.

B) that there is absolutely no way and this lawsuit can't possibly win.

The evidence for both is lacking.

I support a class action suit, I support nvidia being held accountable.

But,

Clearly its not gonna be easy to win this. I can see that much. I think that the lawyers are hoping for a quick settlement.

I also don't see anything strange about it being based in California.......
Silicon Valley

Also, the first review that comes up In google is a review that comes up in google. That's not 64rops being advertised on their box, or nvidia website, nothing. It's a review site.

They might win this case but let's not act like its already won. Also, can't say for sure that it doesn't stand a chance.

We also can't say for sure that nvidia intentionally set out to lie about the 970 specs. We can say for sure that engineers knew and driver teams knew but that still doesn't mean that the review kit was purposefully intended to mislead. I mean, who was behind it?

People talk as if nvidia is a person, like one single person but this is a company of nearly ten thousand people. Do you really think that everyone of them are sleazy scumbags?

I can't say for sure how it all came to be but I can say that I am not happy with how it all played out. I can imagine that this mislabeled spec issue surely had come to the attention at some point but was brushed under the rug. I also thing had nvidia set out to lie, they would have never came out with the truth. But that is just what I imagine.

The truth is, I didn't like how nvidia handled this. They were already positioning themselves for a legal attack. Pulling down statements about a driver aimed to address the memory issue and just not showing much empathy. I know they were afraid to give off there was ever an issue, they wanted to avoid acknowledgement.

But that is why I am glad to see a class action suit. Not because I hate nvidia but because I expect more out of them. I hope it goes to trial and we get to hear more details on what really went on. But if nvidia feels threatened, I think they will settle out of court.

Lets just try to keep this thread civil and maybe we can keep each other updated on the progress. That would be good.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Also, the first review that comes up In google is a review that comes up in google. That's not 64rops being advertised on their box, or nvidia website, nothing. It's a review site.

Which got the info from Nvidia. And seeing the info is STILL wrong that makes Nvidia look bad.

They might win this case but let's not act like its already won.

If this does go to trial the only reason it won't win is if the jury doesn't understand the issue properly. What Nvidia did is not defensible.

We also can't say for sure that nvidia intentionally set out to lie about the 970 specs.

I don't see why it matters, the damage to the consumer is the same. We are not talking about a criminal trial here so intent is not nearly as important.

 

[DooKey]

I see lots of confirmation bias in this thread. The ADF is out in full force and the NDF is out as well. I suspect something might come of all of this, but it won't please either partisan side in the company loyalty game. AMD isn't going to win a thing here and their financial/market share won't budge because of this. NV partisans will still insist NV is pure as gold and NV market share/financial status won't budge because of this. Frankly it's amusing to watch both the ADF and NDF joust over this issue.

I suggest those who don't really have a dog in this hunt look at the posts of all jousting about this and it will be apparent where all of them stand.

 

[oobydoobydoo]

It will be easy to win if they can explain how the product is different to the jury well. If the prosecution fails to convey the difference between the 56ROP 1792kB L2 and 3.5GB GDDR5 and the stated specs then they might lose.

They deserve to lose, they are an unethical company. Generally... they are cheats and liars. Look at every single tegra product, and every other graphics card generation... and you get a scandal! How pathetic is that?



Nvidia is the poster boy for false advertising on Tegra alone lol.

 

[kevinsbane]

GTX 980 specs: http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-980/specifications
GTX 970 specs: http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-970/specifications

What's the difference in memory specifications here? Can you tell, from their own pages and specifications, that there is any difference in memory performance here? No? Neither can I.

But by Nvidia's own admission, there is a material difference. Although the two memory subsystems are specced the same, they do not perform the same. How is a consumer supposed to figure this out? I have no idea, because the most reliable source of information, the reviewers, were also duped. And by that time, it was too late - I bought the card already.

TLDR - Identical memory specs. Not identical memory performance. That's false advertising. (4GB vs 3.5 GB has no merit per se; it's when 4GB on the GTX 970 means 3.5 + 0.5 when the 4GB on the GTX 980 means 4GB that there's a problem.

 

[BFG10K]

So are they going to sue them for the GTX 660 Ti, GTX 660, GTX 560 SE, GTX 555, GTX 460 V2 and GTX 550 Ti as well? They've been doing this with memory allocation for some time.

Even if one completely forgets the memory issue, there's no way to excuse the false ROP count. That count was featured prominently in just about every review, and I'll bet the reviewers' guide has it as well.

Edit: I was right, here's a page from the official reviewers' guide. This is a document sent by nVidia for reviewers to use. Look at the ROPs and L2 cache:

The lawyers can completely ignore the memory if they like, all they have to do is show that document in court, and also demonstrate that review sites published the same specs which then buying customers used as part of their purchasing decision.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Edit: I was right, here's a page from the official reviewers' guide.

Nvidia continues to link to reviews that have the wrong specs. This actually really pisses me off, [redacted].

Profanity isn't allowed in the technical forums.
-- stahlhart

 

[Subyman]

Most cars do not hit their MPG or BHP figures as quoted in the spec.

Good luck suing you dont stand a chance.

Nvidia never actually claims any performance on their advertising. Reviewers do. The card has 4GB of DDR5 regardless of what parts of the GPU are limited.

The cards perform in line with the reviews and you got what you paid for. You didnt buy the 980 so dont expect to get one

You are looking at the wrong issue. MPG and BHP are performance, we are talking about the physical parts here. If its a V8, it better have 8 cylinders.

 

[Subyman]

It will be easy to win if they can explain how the product is different to the jury well. If the prosecution fails to convey the difference between the 56ROP 1792kB L2 and 3.5GB GDDR5 and the stated specs then they might lose.

They deserve to lose, they are an unethical company. Generally... they are cheats and liars. Look at every single tegra product, and every other graphics card generation... and you get a scandal! How pathetic is that?



Nvidia is the poster boy for false advertising on Tegra alone lol.

I think it may be easy. This number is lower than this number. Case closed.

 

[oobydoobydoo]

I think it may be easy. This number is lower than this number. Case closed.

You would think so, but the defense will undoubtedly argue that the ROPs, cache, and memory is "physically" on the chip... and therefore they are not false advertising. Juries are made up of just regular people... most will be easily confused. If you present enough contrary information to confuse the jury, you can win a case like this.

It's the Chewbacca Defense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense


I think nvidia will lose... the thing that really pisses me off is that nvidia has a long, long history of doing this type of thing. This goes back to the FX 5700 Ultra and all the BS surrounding that release... nvidia would try to cripple ATI cards with dirty tricks. When the 9700 pro was absolutely trashing nvidias cards in every single benchmark, nvidia decided instead of spending more money on R&D it would invest in paying off review sites to complain about ATI's use of 24bit Z-buffer.

And they get away with it almost every time, and even when they don't... they still go back to the same old tricks. Who makes these decisions? Who is responsible for the terrible ethics of this company? It just makes no sense why a company that appears to have decent technology needs to lie and cheat even when they are ahead.

 

[Enigmoid]

Even if one completely forgets the memory issue, there's no way to excuse the false ROP count. That count was featured prominently in just about every review, and I'll bet the reviewers' guide has it as well.

Edit: I was right, here's a page from the official reviewers' guide. This is a document sent by nVidia for reviewers to use. Look at the ROPs and L2 cache:

The lawyers can completely ignore the memory if they like, all they have to do is show that document in court, and also demonstrate that review sites published the same specs which then buying customers used as part of their purchasing decision.

And then of course Nvidia's lawyers will argue that people bought the cards based off the reviewed performance and nothing has changed there. Lets be honest, no one buys cards for ROP or L2 counts.

Its going to go something like this in court.

Nvidia: "So why did you buy the card."
Plaintiff: "It had 64 ROPs and 2 MB L2."
Nvidia: "Really? So that was the main reason why you bought the card?"
Plaintiff: "It was a major contributing factor."
Nvidia: "So you didn't buy the card off of the reviewed performance? That wasn't the primary source of evaluation?"
Plaintiff: "Well.....actually it was. But I thought 64 ROPs and 2 MB L2 were necessary for high end performance."
Nvidia: " Has performance changed since you bought the card?"
Plaintiff: "No. But your specs were wrong. You lied about that. I wanted a high end card with high end specs."
Nvidia: "You wanted a high end card but with the restriction that it had very high end specs?"
Plaintiff: "Yes."
Nvidia: "Why on earth did you buy what you thought was a 256 bit card? That's not high end. Why would you buy a card with so obvious a limitation?"
Plaintiff: "The reviews indicated that it didn't matter. It performed very well."
Nvidia: "So you bought the card for the reviewed performance, NOT raw specifications."
Plaintiff: (upset) "Yes."
Nvidia: "Has that changed...."

I'll bet this will be an argument used by Nvidia against anyone griping against the specs. Furthermore, the plaintiff will likely have to prove that they would not have bought the card if they were aware of the true specifications.

GTX 980 specs: http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-980/specifications
GTX 970 specs: http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop-gpus/geforce-gtx-970/specifications

What's the difference in memory specifications here? Can you tell, from their own pages and specifications, that there is any difference in memory performance here? No? Neither can I.

But by Nvidia's own admission, there is a material difference. Although the two memory subsystems are specced the same, they do not perform the same. How is a consumer supposed to figure this out? I have no idea, because the most reliable source of information, the reviewers, were also duped. And by that time, it was too late - I bought the card already.

TLDR - Identical memory specs. Not identical memory performance. That's false advertising. (4GB vs 3.5 GB has no merit per se; it's when 4GB on the GTX 970 means 3.5 + 0.5 when the 4GB on the GTX 980 means 4GB that there's a problem.

And here you fail again with regards to the legal system. It doesn't matter how the 4 GB is partitioned. 4 GB was on the package and 4 GB is what you get. 3.5 + 0.5 is still 4.

There is a difference between right and legal. Nvidia is not right. Unfortunately what they did is very likely going to be found to be legal. It doesn't matter if I substitute 10 Kg apples for oranges and sell it to you for the same price as long as, as per our agreement, I am selling you what is defined as 'fruit'.

They said 4 GB RAM. Is there 4 GB RAM? Yes there is. They do not need to say anything more than that. They do not need to distinguish it from the 980. The claim they made was 4 GB GDDR5 which is found on the card and is fully accessible is true.

Again, I do not like what Nvidia is doing. However, I will go out and say that it will be an uphill battle to prove this case against them. Do I support them? No. However, they are on the legal high ground (definitely not the moral high ground) and I expect the case to progress accordingly. That is america's legal system.

 

[Eymar]

It's a demand for a jury trial so unless the trial blocked anything can happen if case goes to jury trial, but I'm not a lawyer and only speaking from experience on a few juries in northern California. The plantiffs chose northern california I suspect as there is a clear divide here of have(highly paid tech\big corp employees) and have nots(everyone else). A jury comprised of have nots would be ready to pounce on any corporation especially when it comes to fraud.

 

[BFG10K]

And then of course Nvidia's lawyers will argue that people bought the cards based off the reviewed performance and nothing has changed there. Lets be honest, no one buys cards for ROP or L2 counts.

It doesn't matter if people don't buy it off specs. You still can't post fake specs. That's false advertising.

It's like a car manufacturer saying an engine is diesel when it's petrol and then turning around and claiming it's ok because people bought the car based on its road performance.

"Well it still performs the same, so what difference does it make what the engine is?"

I think not.

Furthermore, the plaintiff will likely have to prove that they would not have bought the card if they were aware of the true specifications.

This is very easily proven by the people who asked for refunds once they found out.

 

[oobydoobydoo]

And then of course Nvidia's lawyers will argue that people bought the cards based off the reviewed performance and nothing has changed there. Lets be honest, no one buys cards for ROP or L2 counts.

The reason people bought the cards, or the chief thing that drew people to them is totally irrelevant. False advertising is illegal in the US. This is a clear case of false advertising.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising

Nvidia made false claims about their cards. So, they get sued. Hopefully they lose.

 

[Black Octagon]

I agree that the issue is one of false advertising, but don't you usually need to have suffered some form of "damages" under the US system? If so, you would probably need to stick closely to the idea that you bought the card for the specs and not the performance. I'd only get into performance if I'd (misguidedly) bought multiple 970s for SLI and (very) high resolution gaming

Bumpgate also had a class action, and NV settled. But in that case you had clear damages in the form of hardware that no longer worked. I see this one as a trickier sell

 

[Railgun]

Discounting the memory issue for a sec, where in any direct consumer marketing does it list ROP and L2 specs? I'm not talking about any review sites. The lawsuit alleges false advertising, so where in any advertising material is that described?

 

[BFG10K]

Discounting the memory issue for a sec, where in any direct consumer marketing does it list ROP and L2 specs? I'm not talking about any review sites. The lawsuit alleges false advertising, so where in any advertising material is that described?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advertising

2.
to give information to the public about; announce publicly in a newspaper, on radio or television, etc.:
"to advertise a reward."

In the strictest sense, review sites advertise the products they review to the public. That's why nVidia sends them free hardware. Because they want the public to know about it.

nVidia provided product specs to be used in 970 reviews as part of their reviewers' guide.

But it would be meaningless to sue the likes of AT and Tom's, much like it would be meaningless to sue a TV station for airing a misleading ad.

 

[Railgun]

I didn't ask for a definition, and that's irrelevant. Is anandtech being sued? Nope.

They're being sued for false advertising. In the strictest sense, were the ROP and L2 cache specs advertised directly by Nvidia?

AT goes beyond consumer advertising. While I appreciate that the specs are incorrect, we're talking the normal public here.

Yes I'm playing devils advocate, and no one here is a lawyer and anyone that is isn't going to comment, officially, on this.

 

[kevinsbane]

And here you fail again with regards to the legal system. It doesn't matter how the 4 GB is partitioned. 4 GB was on the package and 4 GB is what you get. 3.5 + 0.5 is still 4.

There is a difference between right and legal. Nvidia is not right. Unfortunately what they did is very likely going to be found to be legal. It doesn't matter if I substitute 10 Kg apples for oranges and sell it to you for the same price as long as, as per our agreement, I am selling you what is defined as 'fruit'.

They said 4 GB RAM. Is there 4 GB RAM? Yes there is. They do not need to say anything more than that. They do not need to distinguish it from the 980. The claim they made was 4 GB GDDR5 which is found on the card and is fully accessible is true.

Again, I do not like what Nvidia is doing. However, I will go out and say that it will be an uphill battle to prove this case against them. Do I support them? No. However, they are on the legal high ground (definitely not the moral high ground) and I expect the case to progress accordingly. That is america's legal system.

You missed my legal argument. It was not about 4GB vs 3.5GB + 0.5 GB of ram per se; as you say, that argument isn't going to fly in the courts.

It was that the memory specs are identical between the GTX 980 and GTX 970. Size, speed, bus width - all the same. How do you tell the difference? You can't. A consumer can, very reasonably, expect that the memory subsystems are the same. Even the reviewers thought so. And that was where nvidia screwed up. They advertised a spec (4GB, 256 bit, 224GB/s) that any reasonable person would understand as meaning the two cards had the same memory performance. Of course, we know now they're not the same.

The argument is a consumer expectation argument. Nvidia posted something misleading, leading to a falsely inflated consumer expectation of the GTX 970's worth. The question is not "was Nvidia wrong in advertising 4gb", but rather, "were consumers given enough information to make an informed choice?" (no), and "Did consumers suffer harm because of the actions of nvidia?" (yes)

My province's consumer protection act has the following sections:

PART III
UNFAIR PRACTICES

False, misleading or deceptive representation
14. (1) It is an unfair practice for a person to make a false, misleading or deceptive representation. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, s. 14 (1).

Then right after, as examples...

Examples of false, misleading or deceptive representations
(2) Without limiting the generality of what constitutes a false, misleading or deceptive representation, the following are included as false, misleading or deceptive representations:

3. A representation that the goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, grade, style or model, if they are not.

14. A representation using exaggeration, innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact or failing to state a material fact if such use or failure deceives or tends to deceive.

In this case, I am asserting that the failure of nvidia to mention the peculiarities of the gtx 970's memory subsystem is a "failure to disclose a material fact that tends to deceive", given that the GTX 980 set the expectation of how the memory subsystem should perform.

 

[Subyman]

I agree that the issue is one of false advertising, but don't you usually need to have suffered some form of "damages" under the US system? If so, you would probably need to stick closely to the idea that you bought the card for the specs and not the performance. I'd only get into performance if I'd (misguidedly) bought multiple 970s for SLI and (very) high resolution gaming

Bumpgate also had a class action, and NV settled. But in that case you had clear damages in the form of hardware that no longer worked. I see this one as a trickier sell

That is a good point. What are the damages in this case? IMO, they'd have to move toward the slower memory of the last .5MB and show stuttering at near full utilization. That gets hairy and nvidia could begin to obfuscate the issue with their own charts. There are, of course, punitive damages, but that is hard to get without some form of real damages.

Like I said in a previous post, the worst thing for Nvidia in this case is keeping the issue in the headlines over the next year or so as the litigation continues.

 

[ocre]

That's why I support this lawsuit even if I am not sure it can win.

I also like money and would gladly take some if this forces nvidia to pay.
I am hardcore like that.

I think even nvidia fans should support this. Nvidia needs to be held accountable and we should all expect more from this company. They need to get it together.

Their talented engineers deserve better management and stuff like this is completely unacceptable

 

[formulav8]

I wish NVidia would get fried. I hate this no ethics, anything for money trash. I can't believe people are ok with them lying. NVidia knew exactly what they did.

 

[Eymar]

That is a good point. What are the damages in this case? IMO, they'd have to move toward the slower memory of the last .5MB and show stuttering at near full utilization. That gets hairy and nvidia could begin to obfuscate the issue with their own charts. There are, of course, punitive damages, but that is hard to get without some form of real damages.

Like I said in a previous post, the worst thing for Nvidia in this case is keeping the issue in the headlines over the next year or so as the litigation continues.

The damages would probably be argued within the financial losses category (ie. would you have bought the product at the correct specs)