The suit claims that the Xbox 360 was "negligently designed and manufactured" in that the video-game console's laser disc reading assembly contacts and scratches discs. "The scratches to the game discs render them unreadable or otherwise inoperable," the suit says. Brouwer said the Xbox 360 he bought in November 2006 destroyed the Gears of War and Madden NFL '0" video-game discs he bought for $50 each. Microsoft was not immediately available for comment.

The lawsuit was filed less than a week after Microsoft said it would set aside more than $1 billion to extend the warranty protection on the Xbox 360 to cover what the company called an "unacceptable" number of repairs to the consoles. The main problem was a defect that caused a general hardware failure. Microsoft said it would take a financial charge against pretax earnings of as much as $1.15 billion in the quarter ending June 30 to cover the cost of the extended warranty protection.

In his lawsuit, Brouwer claimed to have received thousands of complaints from U.S. Xbox users who have had game discs damaged. Microsoft has replaced some damaged disks at $20 each, provided the games were made by Microsoft, the suit said. "However, defendant has not replaced all of its titles that have been scratched and refused to replace or provide any compensation for any scratched game discs made by third-parties."

The suit alleges that the problem is not limited to the United States. A Dutch TV program, Kassa, received numerous complaints in February of disc-damaging Xbox consoles from customers in that country, the suit noted. Kassa investigated and later ran its own tests, which found that some Xbox 360s scratched game discs after five hours of playing.

Microsoft Netherlands, according to the suit, acknowledged that disc scratching was possible in some machines, and the company "would seek a solution for the Dutch customers with this problem."

The complaint also lists Microsoft's extended warranty plan as further proof of the Xbox's defective hardware. "At all times material to this complaint, the defendant had full knowledge that there are other numerous design defects with its Xbox 360 system and console, including the defective laser disc reading assembly," the complaint said.

In seeking damages, the suit alleges that Microsoft has breached its warranty to customers and is liable for damages caused by the consoles. The suit asks the court to order Microsoft to pay actual and consequential damages, including replacing damaged discs and repairing defective consoles. The Xbox costs as much a $479.

In December, the family of an Illinois infant who died in a house fire sued Microsoft, claiming the blaze was started by an Xbox that overheated.

A court of appeals had overruled the circuit court in December 2005, saying Tietsworth's case could be amended to include warranty and contract claims. The state Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the circuit court has no authority to reopen the amended case.

Harley-Davidson (nyse: HOG - news - people ) spokesman Bob Klein said the company would not comment until it had reviewed the decision. Tietsworth's lawyer, Ted Warshafsky, also declined to comment before reading the decision.

Harley-Davidson sent letters in January 2001 to Tietsworth and 140,000 other owners of 1999 and early 2000 models built with the Twin Cam 88 and Twin Cam 88B engines. The company told owners the rear cam bearing in some bikes had failed but would probably not cause engine failure. Harley extended its warranty for the part and made cam repair kits available for $495.

Tietsworth's complaint, which later involved four other owners, said the problem increased riders' safety risks and decreased the value of their Harleys. A circuit court judge threw out the original case, saying Tietsworth and others failed to show actual damages or economic loss, and its decision was eventually upheld by the state Supreme Court.

In 2004, Tietsworth asked a court to amend his original complaint to include contract and warranty claims. Thursday's Supreme Court decision ended that effort.

The move comes after concerns by the president of the Law Society and the Solicitors’ Association of Higher Court Advocates that they are treated as second-class citizens when it comes to court dress.

The 2,000 solicitor-advocates are not allowed to wear wigs and also wear different robes — a simple black gown.

Kevin Martin, president of the Law Society, says that for some years solicitor-advocates have argued for parity with barristers: either there are no wigs at all or both kinds of advocate wear the same costume.

In a letter to the Lord Chief Justice, he says: “The difference can lead to solicitoradvocates being seen as inferior to barristers. Jurors may form the impression that a non-wigged lawyer is less credible.”

The problem is heightened by differences in mode of address: barristers describe each other as “my learned friend” but solicitor-advocates as “my friend”. Solicitors are concerned that the rules could be a breach of competition law.

Mr Martin says: “There are instances of clients indicating that they do not mind who the advocate is, as long as they wear a wig.”

While there is backing for reform, the public — and many criminal barristers — support keeping wigs in criminal trials. Any move to scrap wigs might make an exception for criminal trials. Mark Clough, QC, chairman of the Solicitors’ Association of Higher Court Advocates and one of only a handful of solicitor Queen’s Counsel who anomalously wear the same robes as barristers, says: “We have always argued for parity — with or without wigs.”

Lord Phillips favours a simple black gown and faulard or collar. Stephen Hockman, QC, the chairman of the Bar, is also believed to favour reform.

The ACCC is also taking action against the Trading Post. Google says it will vigorously defend the claims that it has been deceptive and misleading.The company says the claims affect the whole Internet industry and will be defended.

The case will first be heard in the Federal Court in Sydney next month. The ACCC says it believes this is the first action of its kind against Google in the world.

Court TV is adjourning in favor of truTV.

The network on Wednesday announced its name would change, effective Jan. 1, 2008, to better reflect an emphasis on nonfiction programming.

TruTV will still offer court coverage from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. each day, and on its Web site. But the focus shifts at 3 p.m., when a new talk show with Star Jones as host airs.

Nonfiction series like "Forensic Files" and "Haunting Evidence" will continue, the network said. But the network is also developing series on female bounty hunters in Miami, con artists and life-or-death rescues.

Other series in the works include "Outlaw Chasers," about people who try to film tornados up close, and "Neighbors 911," which focuses on feuding families.

"In truTV, we now have the ideal name that fits both the programming and the target audience," said Marc Juris, the network's general manager.

Court TV is now a part of Turner Broadcasting, parent of TNT and TBS, and is owned by Time Warner (nyse: TWX - news - people ) Inc. Time Warner bought the network from Liberty Media (nasdaq: LCAPA - news - people ) last year.

A Chilean Supreme Court judge ruled Wednesday that former Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori should not be extradited to Peru to face charges of corruption and human rights abuses.

The decision was not final -- lawyers for Peru's government have already announced that they plan to file an appeal to a Supreme Court panel. But the announcement provoked strong reactions in Peru, where Fujimori's 1990-2000 presidency still arouses passions among critics and supporters alike.

Peru's government accuses Fujimori of embezzlement, kidnapping and numerous human rights violations during his government's fight against Shining Path rebels. According to the extradition request, Fujimori oversaw military death squads that killed 25 people in two mass murders. He has denied all the charges.

"I am very bitter," said Raida Condor, whose son was one of nine students killed in 1992 at the La Cantuta teacher's college in Lima. "I am no longer sure that there can ever be justice. All these years, 15 years of fighting, and they tell us that he is not coming back to stand trial."

After his government collapsed in scandal in 2000, Fujimori fled to Japan, the country of his parents' birth. The government there recognized him as a Japanese citizen and protected him from extradition.

Fujimori attempted to return to Peru in 2005 to run for president again, but he was arrested in Chile while en route. Peruvian officials formally requested his extradition two months later.

A University of Lima poll released Wednesday indicated that two-thirds of Peruvians "do not sympathize" with Fujimori. But those who do -- including legislators who call themselves the Fujimori caucus in Peru's Congress -- quietly celebrated the setback to an extradition attempt that they labeled "political persecution."

"I have spoken to the president [Fujimori], and we are very calm," said Rep. Alejandro Aguinaga, spokesman for the caucus and a health minister under Fujimori. "We are taking the process one day at a time, but this is certainly an important moment for us and for justice after years of persecution."

Fujimori, 68, who remains under house arrest in Chile, recently announced plans to run for a Senate seat in Japan. In an election scheduled for this month, he is listed as a candidate of the New People's Party, a small conservative opposition group.

Fujimori's critics have alleged that this candidacy is an attempt to avoid potential extradition by attaining parliamentary immunity in Japan. But Aguinaga said Fujimori decided to run only because he has been banned from political office in Peru until 2011.

Human rights groups quickly expressed disappointment with Wednesday's ruling but said they remain confident of a reversal.

Maria McFarland, a senior researcher for the New York-based advocacy group Human Rights Watch and author of a 2005 report that detailed Fujimori's alleged abuses, said the judge ignored key evidence. This, she said, included videotaped testimony that he approved the actions of the death squads and ordered the illegal payment of $15 million to ex-spy chief Vladimir Montesinos.

"I think that when this goes to the criminal chamber of the Supreme Court -- if they look at all the evidence -- they'll reach a completely different decision," McFarland said.