Apple iPod nano class action expanded; seeking to include purchasers worldwide

On Friday, November 04, consumers from the United Kingdom and Mexico filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple Computer, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, claiming the new iPod Nano is defectively designed allowing the screen to quickly become scratched with normal use.

According to the complaint the world’s largest manufacturer of portable music players knew of the iPod Nano’s design flaw but chose to ignore them in an effort to speed the product to market.

According to the suit, the defect is a result of a much thinner layer of resin used in designing the Nano that does not provide adequate protection from scratching.

This suit follows a similar class-action case filed on October 19, 2005 against Apple Computers on behalf of iPod Nano users in the United States.

Steve Berman, lead attorney on both cases, attributes the second suit to the large number of international requests to be included in the class-action. “Apple’s iPod Nano has sold in record numbers around the world, just as it did in the US,” said Berman in a press release, “It seems that wherever the Nano is sold, problems with the defective design soon follow.” According to Berman, “The far-reaching response also reveals that this is not just a small problem or a bad batch of Nano’s, but a defect in the overall design that should have been rectified prior to the release.”

MacDailyNews Note: See related article regarding Steve Berman: Pro-Microsoft attorney involved in anti-Apple iPod nano lawsuit – October 25, 2005

Named plaintiff, Ben Jennings of the United Kingdom, purchased a Nano in September and was extremely cautious with the screen. Despite his efforts to protect the Nano, within a week the screen was so marred with scratches it became hard to read. “If I had known the truth about the problem, I never would have purchased a Nano,” said Jennings in a press release.

According to Berman, residents outside the US are able to ask the court for help since Apple is headquartered in the United States

The suit seeks to represent and recover money lost for all those who live outside of the United States who purchased an iPod Nano.

Advertisement: Apple iPod nano. 1,000 songs. Impossibly small. From $199. Free shipping.
The perfect gift for music lovers in your life – iTunes gift certificates
What’s the difference between a lawyer and a bucket of shit? The bucket. (Yes, it’s an old one, but its age doesn’t make it untrue.)

“Lawyers should not marry other lawyers. This is called inbreeding, from which comes idiot children and other lawyers.” – David Wayne in the film “Adam’s Rib,” 1949, Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin writers.

Related articles:
iPod nano ‘scratches’ lawsuit really only benefits attorneys – October 27, 2005
Pro-Microsoft attorney involved in anti-Apple iPod nano lawsuit – October 25, 2005
Report: Apple relaxes 5G iPod return policy; to include protective cases with future iPod nano units – October 26, 2005
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. i love ipod nanos. i hate b*tches. these losers should stop being so greedy, and realize that they have the second best mp3 player out there (second to the full sized ipod with video, of course).

  2. I liked Adam’s Rib. Good movie. ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cheese” style=”border:0;” />

    I wonder if one of these plaintiffs is named Gill Bates? Or perhaps Gob “Krispy Kreme” Rlaser.

  3. funny i have a nano…… have no case but keep it in a soft pouch that can with someones cheap watch, have taken it out used it in the gym countless times, dropped it on tread mill twice and it still looks almost perfect.

    i have 4 ipods now inc the orginal and generally buy cases, have to say cases are often the problem is a tight fitting one is bound to scratch if taken on and off.

    so all this nano scratch stuff leaves me perplexed, of course they will but any easier than anything else??? i dont think so.

  4. i LOVE my white 4gig nano. you couldn’t tear it from my cold dead hands (cliche i know) but it is the best electronic device besides a cell phone i’ve ever owned.

    HAVING SAID THAT – there is a scratch on my screen. don’t know when i got it. doesn’t prevent me from reading the music (i didn’t put any photos on it), but it is an eyesore.

    HAVING SAID THAT – it’s not worth a lawsuit.

    HAVING SAID THAT – they should have used a better material that doesn’t scratch.

  5. don’t people have the same exact problem with cell phones that have the screen on the outside. but that’s why they sell little clear plastic screen stickers right next to the things at the store. common sense folks.

    MW: protection!

  6. You Macdailynews readers are a bunch of whiners. especially whoever posts the stories. you bitch and complain about every flaw whether it is minor or major in every microsoft product, but when it comes to apple, there is never any wrong doing. it’s the lawyers’ fault. because, of course, apple is your god. The comment by MacConvert is the most asinine comment I have ever read. I’m not sure if his brain was even functioning when writing that, or if his fingers have little idiotic brains of their own.

    the truth of the matter is, none of you have any idea regarding the merits of this case. yes, it could be frivilous, but it also could be true that apple did in fact know about the design flaw. until there’s an investigation, there is no way to know.

    and another important point: without pissed off customers, there is no law suit.

  7. Scum-sucking lawyers, possibly motivated by anti-Apple bias. What a combination. Anyone remember the AOL Airport litigation? Anyone here a member of “the class”? Did you get your worthless coupon while the lawyers collected millions in fees? This will be the same. Except dumber. No consumers will win here, only the parasitic lawyers.

Reader Feedback

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