Every once in a while a technology lawsuit comes along which is not in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and does not involve major customers, but nevertheless encapsulates the unfortunate experiences that many medium-sized enterprises have with software implementations. The case of Samuels & Son Seafood Co., Inc., v. Infor (US), Inc., is exactly that lawsuit. It again evidences the importance of customers engaging in a robust procurement for the selection of both the ERP software licensor and the implementer; the perils of customers agreeing to inappropriately standard and time-banded limited warranties in ERP implementations; where an ERP failure has occurred, the challenge of suing only the licensor and not the implementer; and finally, the strong headwinds customers will face in endeavoring to compensate for contracts which fail to reflect pre-contractual promises of software functionality, by vainly trying to rely on implied warranties of fitness and merchantability.
The article first provides an overview of the failure of the project (I.) and reviews the lawsuit from the perspective of the customer (Samuels & Son Seafood Co., Inc.) and then the vendor (Infor (US), Inc.); (II.). Then the examination of the key issues leads to five lessons learned from the lawsuit (III.) and two general observations (IV.).

After a brief introduction (I.), the article summarises the reasoning of the Dutch Data Protection Authority (II.) and examines the challenges of enforcing GDPR against companies outside the EU (III.) as well as the potential future impact of the upcoming European Union Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act on such cases (IV.). A particular emphasis is placed on how the AI Act’s provisions may influence future regulatory decisions and enforcement actions involving AI technologies such as facial recognition, biometric data processing, and surveillance.

The article begins by providing an overview of the failure of the project, from the perspective of the customer (The Hertz Corporation) and then the vendor (Accenture LLP) as well as briefly reviews the key project documents (I.); examines the key issues and lessons learned from the lawsuit (II.); and then concludes with an assessment of how while Accenture may have won the battle, it likely lost the war (III.).