Representative Lawsuits Against System Integrators (Japan)
A concise, English rendering of notable Japanese court cases where system integrators (SIers) were sued (or countersued). Figures are approximate and shown in Japanese yen.
| Case (Year of Judgment/Filing) | Cause of Dispute | SIer (Vendor) | Court Process & Outcome | Damages / Settlement | Lessons & Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Health Insurance Union System Development Case (Tokyo District Court, 2004) |
Non-performance in a core system build (delay / non-completion) | Developer “Y” (not publicly named) | The client terminated the contract and sought damages; the vendor counterclaimed citing the client’s cooperation breach. The court found both sides at fault and effectively denied exclusive breach on either side (“split responsibility”). | Partial return of paid fees; no large damages recognized in favor of either side. | Often cited for clearly articulating both the vendor’s project management duty and the client’s duty to cooperate in SI disputes. |
| Suruga Bank v. IBM Japan (Tokyo High Court, 2013; lower court 2012) |
Failure of large-scale core banking redevelopment (termination / impossibility) | IBM Japan | First instance ordered the vendor to pay; on appeal, liability remained but the amount was substantially reduced. | Approx. ¥4.2 billion payable by IBM (reduced from a ~¥7.4 billion first-instance amount). Vendor counterclaims rejected. | One of the largest IT disputes in Japan. Highlighted the vendor’s explanatory and PM duties even from the proposal stage; emphasized risk allocation clarity at contracting. |
| Asahikawa Medical University v. NTT East (Sapporo High Court, 2017; finalized later) |
Hospital information system renewal stalled (delays / termination) | NTT East | Lower court had mainly blamed the vendor; on appeal this was reversed and the client’s cooperation breaches (frequent late-stage requirement adds) were held decisive. | Client ordered to pay approx. ¥1.415 billion to the vendor. | Landmark for placing full responsibility on the client due to cooperation-duty breach. Warns against uncontrolled requirement changes after freeze. |
| Tokuyama v. TIS (Tokyo District Court, 2016) |
ERP introduction failure (internal resistance led to major spec changes / pause) | TIS Inc. | The court weighed both sides’ faults but stressed the client’s failure to secure internal alignment. Partial awards on both claim and counterclaim. | Vendor to pay ~¥500 million; client to pay ~¥200 million to vendor (net effect ≈ client gains ~¥300 million vs. original ¥1.8 billion claim). | Shows courts will scrutinize the client’s internal governance and cooperation duty; “both-sides win/lose” outcomes are possible. |
| Nippon Express (NX) v. Accenture (Filed 2023; ongoing) |
Core system renewal derailed by severe delays and quality defects; project aborted | Accenture Japan | Client sued seeking damages after repeated postponements and numerous defects; vendor contests liability. Proceedings ongoing. | Claimed: ~¥12.49 billion. (No judgment yet.) | High-profile, recent mega-dispute; will likely shape views on quality control, acceptance criteria, and scope clarity in large SI deals. |
| NHK v. IBM Japan (Filed 2025; ongoing) |
Public broadcaster’s core system refresh terminated after proposed methodology changes and anticipated 18-month delay | IBM Japan | Client seeks refund of amounts paid plus additional damages; vendor disputes fault, citing legacy complexity. Proceedings ongoing. | Claimed: ~¥5.47 billion in total (incl. refund of ~¥3.1 billion already paid). | Underscores the difficulty of legacy migration; outcome may influence contracting models and risk demarcation for public large-scale projects. |
| Benesse Personal-Data Leak Litigation (Key judgments 2018–2019) |
Massive customer data leak (contractor’s dispatched SE illegally exfiltrated data) | Benesse & group company (broad sense; not a classic SIer case but highly relevant) | Class actions by affected users resulted in low per-person damages orders; some rulings finalized after appeals. | Typical awards ranged from thousands of yen per person (e.g., ¥1,000–¥3,300), with other cases recognizing up to tens of thousands depending on harm. | Japan’s largest data-leak incident: confirms corporate liability for privacy breaches; illustrates that reputational damage can far exceed legal payouts. |
Common Takeaways
- Contract clarity: Define how change requests are handled, acceptance criteria, and risk allocation up front.
- Vendor duties: Professional care, including project management and risk/explanation duties, begins as early as the proposal phase.
- Client duties: Cooperation (timely decisions, stable requirements, internal alignment) is legally material; breaches can shift or even fully assign liability.
- Data protection: Even modest per-person awards in leaks can culminate in large totals and severe trust loss; prevention and swift remediation are critical.
Comments
Post a Comment