Seattle suit filed for "lost time" over controversial best-seller

The latest thump on the controversial best-seller "A Million Little Pieces" is a Seattle federal court lawsuit seeking damages on behalf of consumers for the "lost time" they spent reading the book.

Marketed as a redemptive tale in the form of a drug and alcohol memoir, the book by James Frey had sold more than 2 million copies as of last week, according to The New York Times. But it has also drawn fire after an investigative Web site, The Smoking Gun, reported this month that it was full of exaggerations and inaccuracies.

Frey subsequently said he made up some details about his life. TV talk-show host Oprah Winfrey, whose inclusion of the memoir in her book club led to a huge sales spike, stood by her endorsement, contending that "the underlying message of redemption ... still resonates with me."

Doubleday, a division of Random House, the book's publisher, issued a statement promising to issue refunds to readers who purchased directly from the publisher.

In a lawsuit filed Thursday, Seattle Attorney Mike Myers lists as plaintiffs two Seattle residents, Shera Paglinawan and Stuart Oswald, who each received or purchased the book "before news of the book's falsity was disseminated."

The suit, apparently the third of its kind to be filed across the nation, seeks class-action status against Frey and the publisher.

Myers distinguished his suit from actions filed in Illinois and California by saying only his seeks compensation on behalf of consumers for "the lost value of the readers' time."

Myers alleges several legal causes for the suit, including breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

A Random House spokesman said Tuesday the publisher had not yet been served with a copy of the Seattle complaint and would have no comment.

Meantime, a University of Washington law professor who reviewed the complaint said he thought its chances of success were "fairly slim."

Sean O'Connor, who teaches intellectual property and corporate securities law, said it appears that the plaintiffs were trying to force a "legal apology. ... They want Frey and Random House to say, 'This was wrong what we did.' "

O'Connor thought that angle "might get the most sympathy from a jury — if it gets in front of a jury."

But the professor was generally dismissive of other claims. For example, he maintained that the "unjust enrichment" claim would have problems since the publisher is willing to make refunds and in light of the fact that some booksellers also apparently have offered to do likewise.

O'Connor also foresaw difficulty calculating the "lost time" claim. He noted the value of time could differ widely among consumers, as well as the logistics of distinguishing between "slow versus fast readers."

O'Connor said that in some ways he was sympathetic toward the Seattle lawsuit's claims. "But when you roll it into a legal action like this, it's hard to see what the remedy is coming out the other end."

Peter Lewis: 206-464-2217 or plewis@seattletimes.com