Apple Computer’s iPod Nano music player, marketed for its sleek beauty, cannot withstand normal use without becoming severely scratched, often to the point where its screen is unreadable, a consumer group said today in a lawsuit filed in San Mateo Superior Court. Moreover, Apple is refusing to give refunds to purchasers who bought the defective product, while forcing others to pay a $25 fee to get a replacement that is supposed to be ‘free’ under Apple’s warranty.
The suit, brought against Apple Computer, Inc. under the state’s consumer protection laws on behalf of California purchasers of the recently-introduced Nano, demands that Apple recall and repair the defect, without charge, or refund the purchase price to dissatisfied customers. The lawyers in the case are the Burlingame, California-based law firm of Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy, and attorneys of the non-profit, Los Angeles-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR).
Reports of problems with the Nano became apparent within a few weeks of its introduction last fall, with many consumers complaining on the Internet. Apple has acknowledged there is a problem, at first urging customers to buy a third party cover. Apple now supplies a ‘sleeve’ to cover the Nano.
“Selling ‘cool’ stuff isn’t ‘cool’ if the stuff doesn’t work as advertised and Apple fails to comply with its obligations under its warranty and California laws,” said consumer advocate Harvey Rosenfield, a lawyer for FTCR in a statement. “Like every other industry, Apple must fix products that are defective for free, and refund the costs incurred by its customers.”
“We sent Apple a letter asking that they acknowledge and remedy the problem,” said Bruce Simon, co-lead counsel and partner in the Cotchett firm in a statement. “They chose to not even respond and left us no choice but to bring this case.”
The lawsuit notes that many Nano users pay substantial additional money purchasing music and videos on Apple’s iTunes web site. The iPods, including the Nano, are the only portable devices on which iTunes downloads can be played.
FTCR is a citizen advocacy organization that works in the legislative and judicial arenas. In recent years it has sued cell phone companies, automobile insurers and HMOs for illegal practices. In a previous case against Apple, resolved last year, the Cotchett firm forced the company to offer replacement batteries, or a replacement iPod, for customers whose iPod batteries had failed after only a few years of use, and to issue refunds for certain charges.
More info in the complaint (.pdf) here.
Advertisements:
• MacBook Pro. The first Mac notebook built upon Intel Core Duo with iLife ’06, Front Row and built-in iSight. Starting at $1999. Free shipping.
• iMac. Twice as amazing — Intel Core Duo, iLife ’06, Front Row media experience, Apple Remote, built-in iSight. Starting at $1299. Free shipping.
• iMac and MacBook Pro owners: Apple USB Modem. Easily connect to the Internet using dial-up service. Only $49.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
Related articles:
iPod nano ‘scratches’ lawsuit really only benefits attorneys – October 26, 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
Oops! that “Can I obtain your services or products for free?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />” comment was FROM me regarding zelfort’s comments – got the Name field mixed up. Sorry zelfort.
Ipods scratch much too easily. Hopefully this will spur Apple to introduce a better product.
I bought a PC running “ruim dous” and it is suposto run without virus but we know what happens so it really is defective
Some people think iPods are toys. They are in fact technology. Don’t let the size fool you.
Fed Up Lawyer, since you are “in fact, a lawyer.” Tell me, don’t judges have the power to throw out unmeritorious cases?
I’m aware there are some jurisdictions that will let just about any case proceed. Wouldn’t it make more sense to tighten up the judges and laws in those jurisdictions than force a “poor little guy” to bet his house on a meritorious case that a jury/judge just happens to get wrong?
Or maybe you can garauntee that all meritorious cases will win.
The article itself seems written by a disgruntled person…”Apple is refusing to give refunds to purchasers who bought the defective product, while forcing others to pay a $25 fee to get a replacement that is supposed to be ‘free’ under Apple’s warranty.” Uhmmmm…seems to me that someone scratching their iPod doesn’t mean the iPod is defective…if it scratches itself…uhmmmm…all by itself…then maybe it’s defective. Plus, until the court says it’s defective, it isn’t, so stop writing articles that make it sound so. Darnit.
Ge whiz, you put your Nano – a premium consumer product – in your pants or backpack pocket, with all the minute crud that accumulates over the years, exert tensile forces outside its specifications and shock horror, it scratches.
My God, sue Apple for not providing a free force field to protect it from my own ignorance and stupidity.
Wankers.
This issue shouldn’t be around by now. C’mon Apple, make the iPod with some harder plastic.
Fed Up Lawyer – Agree completely with what you wrote. In addition to personal responsibility, I believe personal civility should be added to your list.
Another area that needs reform in the U.S. is the “Low Cost” Winner approach to government contracts. You do get what you pay for. Europe has a much better approach. My understanding to their approach is, simply put, upon receiving all the bids, they throw out the highest and the lowest and find the average of the remaining bids. The bidder with the closest bid to the average wins the contract. Not a perfect approach but at least contractors do not have to use the cheapest material they can find.
I, for one, wouldn’t mind driving on a road that doesn’t need a major repair / overhall every couple of years.
Peace.
ziggybop,
The system works pretty well in Europe and other places, though it is not perfect as you describe (no system is). Also, judges will not throw out an unmeritorious claim – they will only “throw out” a claim that does not, or cannot, meet the elements of the claim asserted. This is a very low threshold.
Why doesn’t Apple just make this easy on themselves and do something similar to what Colorware does? It wouldn’t cost Apple much at all to do this at the factory, and it would eliminate these stupid assed lawsuits.
http://www.colorwarepc.com/content.aspx?id=57
Fed Up Lawyer, can we all Mac users file a class action law suit against Harvey Rosenfield, the lawyer for FTCR for he is a defective law student and a defective lawyer to our society?
BTY, DCX executive Tom Lasoda just reveled today that “lawsuits are responsible for an extra $500 in costs for every car and truck sold in the United States.” Damn those lawyer crooks in this country!!!!
This would be a non-issue if the iPod was still a niche product. If only OCD audiophiles carried them like they were solid gold, there would be no complaints. Unfortunately, idiots can buy iPods, abuse them, and say they (the iPods) are defective. You don’t take your desktop computer out and drop it from 15 times its height or carry it loose in your trunk with 200 lb. (90.7kg) of gravel and then file a suit against the manufacturer for not making the computer well enough.
To Fed Up Lawyer,
I agree with you. No consequence actions are a problem whether they be lawsuits or anything else (see his point #2). There must be consequences for our actions.
To Those Who Think otherwise,
A “loser pay” system does not necessarily forbid the underdog from filing suit. Many of you ask “fed up lawyer” for free legal services. Contingency based lawyers ARE providing free legal services to you. They only get paid when you win. In a “loser pay” system, contingency-paid lawyers will still be free. The crux is that now either you, or the lawyer, will need to pay legal costs if you lose. This does not prevent meritous lawsuits from taking place at all. It just forces you to make sure you have a legitimate case.
MW: schools: Where I wish they taught this stuff. :-\
Kord Robin said
“Lawsuits are just something corporations deal with on a day-to-day basis.”
And we wonder why the windows users of the world are in complete disbelief that macs are virus free and just work.
“Viruses, lost productivity, downtime, malware, adware, spyware, wipe and re-load are just something users deal with on a day to day basis”
Windows defects bleeding over into our real world attitudes about eveything else?
I’ve got a strong friendship with many of the people at the local Apple store here where I live (as I did work there for a long time) and I can tell you these Nano scratch claims are ridiculous.
How do I know this?
The staff at this particular Apple store, in a bold attempt to satisfy people’s response to this FUD about the delicate nature of the Nano, regularly and repeatedly throw, toss, scrape and perform whatever abusive behavior they can to this Nano to PROVE what a bunch of nonsense these claims are. I’ve seen this Nano in question. While it certainly doesn’t look new, even I was amazed at the condition of the device. While having some scratches and surface blemishes, it is FAR from being unusable or the screen from being unreadable.
This is a true story. This is why I’m so fed up with these Nano lawsuits. They are baseless and probably sponsored by competitors.
thelonius Mac, you comment is about as stupid as this lawsuit is.
Pepole put their keychain, wallet and cell phone in their pocket. The cel phone are bounded to be scratched. Should those crooks suit the mobile phone companies?
You dolts who are minimizing the scratching problem with the Nano are nothing but ignorant TOOLS!
THERE IS A PROBLEM!
The Nano scratches from just contact with the CLOTH of a shirt pocket!
This is one lawsuit I totally support!
Glad I bought a Mini instead when I saw three day old Nano’s at the Apple store that looked like they had been slid across a parking lot.
A friend of mine owns one that is almost opaque and could hardly be used to watch a video.
Apple apologists are worse than any other! Especially the morons who obviously don’t even have any experience with the topic at hand.
Well, the back does scratch remarkably easy..even in this nice case I got for it, the fabric managed to cause minor scratches.
As for the screen, its in perfect condition.
Did you personally see that screen “Mr. Rolleyes”? Because that would be a neat trick… watching a video on a Nano
The merits of this particular class action lawsuit notwithstanding, I find it amazing that groups of all kinds have come at Apple over the years for all sorts of dubious issues (iPod battery life, anyone?), yet, to my knowledge, not one single consumer watchdog group or business consortium has ever brought a class action against Microsoft for its absolutely insecure OS. The losses a person might endure from a scratched iPod case pale in significance to the verifiable costs associated with Windows security issues. When you factor in the innumerable hours spent by individuals and IT departments either protecting or repairing the OS on their PCs or Windows servers, it staggers the imagination that no aggrieved party would seek redress. Really, MS gets of far too easy on this issue.
A product can only be defective if it fails to perform the function that the manufacturer states it will perform. I have never seen in any of the documents that came with my Nano that part of its performance was an indestructible surface. It is only promised to download and play audio and images, as long as it keeps doing that how can it be defective. Apple never promised a scratch proof surface. They did not promise that my Nano could communicate with martians either so I would not have a leg to stand on if I tried to sue Apple because my Nano could not call Mars.
Macromancer — I agree with you that the nano is much toughter than these fools are claiming it to be, and that many people now buying the nano are much stupider than they should be permitted to be.
But as to your second comment above, theloniusMac is correct . . . that Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights website absolutely reeks of unabashed and inflammatory left-wing, uber-liberal, anti-business, socialist, Democratic bullsh!t.
Steve Jobs’ penchant for ill-advised liberal leanings aside, I hope Apple absolutely CRUSHES these motherf-ckers. And I hope they do it in a big, PUBLIC way.
Macromancer, you are wrong about this “Taxpayer” group. theloniusMac‘s comments were dead-on.