[icebraining]

Giving refunds to anybody who wants one, regardless of whether they cared about the "Other OS" functionality at all, would be totally unreasonable.

Why? Maybe they didn't care at the time, but maybe they would later, or their kids would, or they would get a better deal when they resold it. Why should Sony get away with robbing their customers of advertised functionality with the excuse that they "didn't use it anyway"?

Maybe someday we'll see it with car manufacturers. "Your passenger door has been disabled. Please provide proof that you carry passengers with you to get a token reimbursement for the trouble."

[rayiner]

Because the purpose of a civil suit is to make consumers whole for actual damages. This isn't about punishing Sony for misleading advertising. You measure the difference between what people paid, and what they would've paid without the removed functionality, summed up over the whole class. That's the damages to the class. And because very few people who bought a PS3 wouldn't have done so at the same price without that advertised feature, it's not a big number.

[icebraining]

You're the lawyer, but how does Gore v. BMW of North America, Inc. fit into that? Even after the decision by the supreme courts, the plaintiff got $4k in actual damages and $50k in punitive damages, even after the SCOTUS found no evidence of bad faith. What makes this case different?

In fact, what's the point of punitive damages in general if not to punish the defendants in civil suits?