Honestly, if this father sues over something his daughter would have inevitably been exposed to it's just another example of how the American public will sue over just about anything. Somehow, I've got the feeling that the ten-year-old was non-plussed over the incident and the father smelled dollars. Tears? Over pornography and rap music? That would require a mind old enough to process the incoming data. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is the money-grubbing father. I can't help but think we wouldn't be hearing about this if this story originated somewhere other than the bible belt.

that was so intentional from who ever returned it lol.

I'm a fairly liberal guy, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. If I go to purchase something for my young child, and its not supposed to have material I don't want that child to see, I'm going to be pretty pissed if it does. Essentially, Wal-Mart was negligent in selling a product that contained material that many people would find offensive. I think the father has a right to be pissed. And just b/c the girl will probably be exposed to it at some point doesn't mean its okay. Your kid is probably going to start drinking when they get to college or in high school, but that doesn't mean you want a waiter bringing your 10 year old a screwdriver when they order orange juice, does it?

Ok, yes. The guy who returned it *probably* left the porn on there intentionally figuring someone would get a laugh (or shock) out of it. Or maybe something didn't work right and he couldn't remove it (i.e. the cable or plug failed and wouldn't connect to the PC). Either way, it's a standard assumption (and often a visible, documented disclaimer) that any data left on a device when returned is considered lost and not recoverable by the previous owner.

As for walmart being responsible... They were not negligent unless they had reasonable belief that something inappropriate was loaded on the device. Doubtful, but possible. Nearly impossible to prove.

The other problem: Walmart took a return and then resold it as new. THAT is where the problem is. Even if it's returned in 'like new' condition, it's still a used item with all the potential pot-holes that come with buying used. Had they sold the item as 'clearance as-is' or 'used' and the guy bought it thus labeled - the responsibility is his and his alone.

Walmart should get hit with the stupid stick over this but they - most likely - did nothing intentional to provide the porn.


Oh, and yeah. I doubt a 10 year old cried over explicity lyrics or pron unless conditioned to do so by her parents which would mean previous (and repeated) exposure. I'd say she was confused and showed Daddy who started screaming and yelling. Of course she cried then.

Dude, are you freaking retarded. Showing pornography to a 10 year old a CRIMINAL OFFENSE. Wal-Mart could potentially face criminal charges over what happened. I pray to god you never have kids.

Insulting America is just ignorant. Maybe exposing children to hardcore porn is ok where you come from, but in this country we try to protect children. There is no mention of a lawsuit so just get off your high horse and find somewhere else to do your America-bashing. This is one case where the guy would actually have a legitimate reason.

dady is the one that loaded the porn to the device thinking that it's for himself.
when wife found out he bought the device, he said it's for the daughter and go on to package it...
forgot about the loaded content.
Now that daughter and wife found out the porn,
he go on and blame wal-mart.
:)