1. He needn't definitively prove this was the cause; he need only convince the fact finder that the damage was more likely to be caused by the update than not, which is a much lower burden to meet. Not definitive.

2. That's dandy and all, but it's hardly binding. Can you use all your PS3's functions without updating? If not, I'd imagine that would probably nullify much of this clickware agreement, as the parties have radically different bargaining powers (more so than usual, that is). Even if you can, this isn't dispositive of anything, since such terms can rarely excuse a defendant from their own negligence (without assumption of the risk on the plaintiff's part, which doesn't apply here).

3. The first part would be helpful for Sony, assuming they don't support the plaintiff's claim, but the second means little as evidence: the plaintiff is asserting that this bit of firmware has caused a large increase in the failure rate. The fact that only 1/200 UK PS3s have failed up to this point is pretty irrelevant: we care about the effect of this firmware, not the lifetime performance of the hardware.

Yeah your right but anyway, lets say you are updating your firmware and in the meanwhile you run out of electricity or turn off the console by accident, then your PS3 is brick because the OS is corrupt. Sony doesnt have to pay even if its on warranty, and this is prolly what is happening right now. You could always try to sue your electricity company but certainly not Sony. You can be sure that a company as big as sony, would shut up and do the reparation for free if they would have any doubt about their firmware. Its clear to me that this guy called them, tried to have a free repair but instead of saying the PS3 was broken and would not open he said that it was brick when installing firmware. Since they know that it cannot brick by itself they dont wanna do it for free. If someone set your house on fire and the PS3 is burnt to ashes, will you call or sue sony for the warranty?

I wouldnt be surprise if that guy PS3 was already brick even before the firmware 3.0, but with all the commotion surrounding the firmware he is trying to have a free repair.

Between your right with your explanation of proof needed in that type of case. And maybe the guy can win if the judge give him the benefit of doubt. But if I were this guy I wouldnt loose my precious time with that lol.

No I agree, it's not a lawsuit I'd take, although there's an outside chance the guy will win. This isn't as petty as the folks who sued Microsoft for having Live go down for a day, but it's not the type of thing you rush to court over either.