Will iPod nano scratches lawsuit hurt Apple?

“Word around the Web is that Jason Tomczak filed a lawsuit alleging that the music players ‘scratch excessively during normal usage, rendering the screens on the Nanos unreadable,'” Alyce Lomax writes for The Motley Fool. “…Debate rages on the subject of the nano’s tendency to scratch or not — after all, some have subjected the nano to strenuous torture tests, with the guys at Ars Technica dropping one at various speeds and running it over with cars — but I can’t help thinking that continued buzz about the nano’s propensity for scratched or otherwise damaged screens just can’t be good for Apple.”

“After all, Apple has always been known for its elegant products, and the very idea that is being bandied about — that the company knew the nano had a design flaw and released it anyway — is just not good PR,” Lomax writes. “Will this hurt Apple? …I can’t help wondering whether all of this bad press might frighten some shoppers away from the iPod nano and give the Apple brand a few scratches as well.”

Full article here.

[UPDATE: 3:30pm ET: Revised headline to drop “class-action.”]

Advertisement: Apple iPod nano. 1,000 songs. Impossibly small. From $199. Free shipping.

Related articles:
Class-action lawsuit filed against Apple over iPod nano scratches – October 21, 2005
PC Mag’s Ulanoff on iPod nano scratches: ‘I could see a jealous competitor planting the story’ – October 06, 2005
Mossberg: Apple iPod nano scratches easily, get a case to protect it – October 06, 2005
Apple iPods have always been far too scratchable, protective cases required to keep iPods pristine – September 30, 2005
invisibleSHIELD offers rugged, clear protection for Apple iPod nano and other iPod models – September 30, 2005
Got some nano scratches? Restore your iPod nano to new condition with a $4 can of Brasso – September 29, 2005
The Motley Fool: Apple did the right thing in quickly addressing cracked iPod nano screens – September 28, 2005
iPod nano ‘screen issues’ really just FUD? – September 26, 2005
Apple responds to iPod nano screen issues – September 27, 2005


  1. The only reason this is a story…..is because there is nothing else to talk about.

    Even MDN buys into this b.s.

    Anyone can sue in this country….what makes it a hot news story ?

    (btw…i own 2 nano’s….with no scratching problems)

  2. Jason Tomczak scratched his first nano all to hell. Apple gave him a new one. Tomczak is such a stupid polack that he scratched that one all to hell, too. Then he files a lawsuit that details his idiocy for all to see.

    He may be retarded.

    Tomczak: Get a case and shut your face.™

  3. “that the music players scratch excessively during normal usage”

    Sounds painful. Look into FRONTLINE Plus. If you rub the click wheel real fast will one of the earbuds shake like crazy?

  4. I also own two 4GB nanos… and not a scratch between them. Dammit, I paid $249 for the devices – and you know, I want to look after them.

    If my case had scratched and my replacement had scratched – then I just might have asked for my money back instead. Disappointing, but not worthy of a lawsuit – claiming damages, and I hear, a share of the profits[!!]. What is the true motivation of the claimant I wonder.

    I believe the easy litigious nature of the US is the problem here.

  5. I’ve had my black nano for about three weeks, I don’t really care what my devices look like so long as they work, so I keep it in my pocket all day, no case, no nothing. These people are on crack. Sure it isn’t pristine, but it’s no more scuffed up than any of my other ipods.

    Perceptions. Make that misperceptions.

    Tomczak wishes for his nano to amount to jewlery. That being the case, he should have handled his nano as if it were that piece of silver or gold.

    Could it be argued that the iPods has become a piece of jewlery, an adornment (as a bracelet or ring or necklace) made of precious metals and set with gems (or imitation gems)?

    Ask the fashion world about this matter. The equation may be balanced here but I’m not sure Apple had that extreme of glorification in mind when they designed the product. In the future, however…

    Me thinks Tomczak lusts for more than jewelry. He should be spanked hard and sent to his corner.

  7. MDN needs to change their title.

    The lawsuit has yet to be granted class-action status and may never be granted that status. Until it is granted such status MDN needs to just call it what it is: a lawsuit by one person against Apple.

  8. A class-action case like this would be just stupid. Class action suits should revolve around whether a company knowingly jeopardize the health or financial well-being of its customers– i.e. dumping plutonium in drinking water. For an iPod, if you hate the scratching, don’t buy it or just return it. No jeopardy. The marketplace, not the courts, is where companies like Apple should be punished, by consumers not buying defective products. I just ate a McDonald’s apple pie that wasn’t as tasty as advertised. Perhaps I should file a class-action suit.

  9. Slimes like this are encouraged by porcine lawyers and all too often both are encouraged by judges who should know better.

    Maybe Nano owners who haven’t had any probs (the huge majority by all accounts) should get a class-action together and sue him plus his lawyers for defamation of a fine product. ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool mad” style=”border:0;” />

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.