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
I have two 3rd Gen iPods and a 5th Gen iPod with video. I am equally careful with all – the old 3rd Gens still look like new and the new 5th Gen looks like shit. Apple can talk all they want about using the same plastic, but any fool, including me, can see the difference in construction and wear.
When I received a notice in the mail about the battery settlement I trashed it — if one comes along about THIS situation, I’ll be lined up at the Apple store for my replacement.
I don’t mind paying 400 bucks for a piece of shit – the price of education – but I refuse to pay for the pleasure of being insulted by Apple. Apple will lose this one – they can sell an easily scratched case but they can’t sell a case with a view screen that can become un-viewable before the warranty runs out and expect the buyers to accept it.
MW: “public” ha
Anybody who owns anything black knows how easily scratches show. A black car, a black guitar, etc, will be scratched by anything harder than the stuff it is made out of. There are alot of things harder than lexan or the acrylic polymer or whatever, living in your pocket. That’s why white is the best color for the iPod. Black is beautiful but man you have to treat it with kid gloves. You know that foaming brush they have at the car wash? Wash your black car with that just once and your paint is screwed. Now, somebody is going to come up with an iPod protectant, polish, or reconditioner, like they have for car finishes, and make a killing. Kind of like a Meguiar’s for iPods.
http://www.meguiars.com
Why is this story keep popping up. My 6 month nano is still perfect.
the other Mark says “This does not prevent meritous lawsuits from taking place at all. It just forces you to make sure you have a legitimate case.”
Again will you guarantee that all legitimate cases will 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.”
Take the Erin Brokovich example. What lawyer is going to bet the firm on a case when, at the beginning of the case, the incriminating memos, the expert testimony and the scope of the case is unclear? Even then, meritorious and legitimate cases have been known to fail.
I highly suspect those who favor “Loser Pays” are the same who’ll claim the American justice system is FUBAR.
Fed Up Lawyer says “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.”
If true, then how about adding another hearing where the merits of the case have to reach some level of reasonableness?
Changing the system to “Loser Pays” still leaves the “poor little guy” out of the system as he would have to bet his house, if he even has one, on the outcome of the case. The “poor little guy” doesn’t walk in the door with conclusive intestigative evidence, certified expert reports and researched legal precedents. Someone has to pay for this and be ready to pay the winner if the judge/jury/lawyers/witnesses have a bad day in a loser pays system.
In regards to Fed Up Lawyer’s comments you are on the right track when advocating the view that a losing litigant’s costs could be paid by the litigant themselves. We have this system in Australia and it works just fine.
However what is missing in-depth all encompassing legislation that forces an aggrieved party to first make a complaint to a government authority. The way this works is that the aggrieved party has to first make a complaint to say a department of consumers affairs. If this organisation finds in favour of the complainant then the authority has the power to order/fine/award damages/withdraw from sale the offending article.
If the complainant then wants to pursue the matter further they can then sue for personal damages in common law.
If the matter hasn’t first been forwarded to the aforementioned government authority then they have no legal ground to pursue the matter.
This approach does presuppose that two very important steps are undertaken:
1. That governments have to decide to govern; and that means passing legislation to establish this arm of government and to give the organisation the power to investigate AND prosecute and
2. That such legislation will curb the powers of lawyers.
By taking on a powerful interest group such as the American legal profession there would be a hell of a bun fight for any government wishing to go down this path. It can be done…and it was done in Australia. In the United States however there has been less government intervention and more (much more) reliance on the pursuit of individual claims.
However this approach works in most advanced economies and perhaps individual states in the United States should pursue a legislative course of action.
Apple needs to avoid selling their goods to retards
misanthrope — An appropriate name. I think you are one.
Mo is right. Anything black shows EVERYTHING more — the good, the bad, AND the ugly. Black is for suckers. Black should be an iPod color for sale to clumsy mental defectives only if it’s available in the same material that the iPod mini’s were. Nice, metallic enclosure. MUCH more impervious to scratches and damage of any kind.
But anyway, here we go again in America– some stupid motherf-cking assclown f-ckheads are too f-cking ignorant and irresponsible to take care of their high-priced ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY and the rest of us are going to have to pay for it. You want a motherf-cking iPod that doesn’t scratch asswipes? Then they’re gonna cost ALL OF US a helluva lot more money . . . because they’re gonna cost Apple a helluva lot more to produce! Dipshits.
Besides, the simple law of averages and basic reasoning tells you that this is bullsh!t. The nano’s are selling so goddamn well that if this were a real issue outside of the walking lobotomized dolts who don’t know how to care for things then there’d be so much bad word on the street that the product would’ve RIGHTLY been pulled. But it’s NOT being pulled, because only the mulletheads who date their sisters are having any problems.
F-cking amazing. Be given the ability to acquire wonderful new technology that frees up your time and allows you to enjoy your daily existence immensely more than before, and all some people can do is scream “It broke! It broke! I did nothing wrong! I’m gonna sue! Waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!” Why don’t you just bring it back and get a new one GRATIS from Apple, you buncha sh!tfaces, since that’s what they’re offering. I swear some people are too stupid to live.
This country never ceases to amaze me.
Its defective. Both the nano and the iPod video have screens that scratch if dust particles flow over them.
I am a big Apple fan, but this is going to turn into a disaster for Apple I am afraid.
I got rid of my beautiful iPod video before the scratches made it unsaleable.
d — It’s ‘unsalable’, jackass. And you probably meant ‘unsellable’.
Oh, and . . . I don’t believe you.
listen, I love everything apple, and I’m on my third iPod. But there are scratching issues beyond what any reasonable person would expect from a piece of hardware from apple.
I bought my 60 gig, 5th generation iPod the day after Christmas. When I got it home, I took it out of the box and put it directly into the sleeve that apple provided. Plugged it into the iMac and let iTunes do it’s thing and charge it up. I got up the next morning, took it out of the sleeve and guess what…. it was scratched. I hadn’t even played one song on it yet and it was scratched.
Checked the inside of the sleeve, no foreign objects.
I took it back to the apple store, showed it and my receipt to the manager, and he replaced it.
Seriously…. nothing touched the screen but the felt inside the sleeve, and it scratched. Some of these screens are defective, not all I think, because some people aren’t having any trouble whatsoever. My replacement iPod went directly into a hard shell case and is in pristine condition.
It’s deja vu all over again, What a waste of time, effort and resources that Apple could be dedicating to R&D!
A recent report stated that viruses cost business around 60 Billion per year, now that DOES warrant a lawsuit, so why hasn’t it happened? Not frivolous enough?
Business Week had a fascinating article about the lawsuit “problem” awhile back. Essentially the point was that, while other countries are far less litigious than the US, their businesses are also much more highly regulated. We have a culture of minimal regulation. Lawsuits, while annoying, are what take the place of regulation as the “enforcement mechanism” that keeps businesses in line.
If you push through “reform” that seeks to lessen the number of lawsuits, eventually, someone will get hurt and will be unable to take action. At that point, the consumers will demand either that they be allowed to sue, or that regulation is increased to lessen the chance of their getting hurt in the first place.
I don’t remember anything from Apple guaranteeing that an iPod cannot be scratched. Had there been, a lwasuit might be fine, but this one is in nobody’s interest.
Great discussion started by fed up lawyer. Nice one fella!
Bottom-line:
Apple used VERY SOFT PLASTIC on its iPod nano (and iPod video). Think about folks: DUST scratches the screen. It doesn’t have to be that way.
Also, remember that when Steve Jobs introduced the nano, he slid it out if the little pocket in his jeans. Can you imagine sliding it in and out of that pocket, say, even 10 times? It would look like shit.
I love Apple, and have a PowerBook, an iMac, and a PowerMac. And I have bought an iPod video — which I have to avoid touching and keep completely covered up (i.e. a clunky case, although one of the better ones out there, the Agent 18). But, the point remains:
Apple went for the CHEAP with the plastic used on this product. Their motives, if any, for doing this are not the issue. What is the issue is that customers are paying a lot of money for products that are looking like shit within a short amount of time.
This will haunt Apple. The next iPod is rumored to come in April and will be a full-front LCD screen (like a laptop screen) that avoids fingerprints and scratches. I suspect the iPod nano will be updated in the September timeframe to be something much better, to pent-up demand for the holiday season. At that point, people will look back on the 2005 nano and the 2005 iPod as the iPods that were so susceptible to fingerprints and scratches — i.e. the flawed iPods.
Mark my words.
I love Apple, too, but you folks need to stop looking at them with such rosy-colored glasses all of the time.
Apple never said there was a problem with scratching. They said there was a problem with screen breakage (on a small percentage of them) and have been replacing those iPods.
iPod scratchign they said was something else, and not something the nanos are any more prone to then other iPods, and you should get a case if you are worried abut it. It is so nice when these articles get their facts right . . .
Anyway, a few people bitchign online does not a defective product make. Until I see some statistics I don’t think there is an issue. If yu care that much about how it looks, get a case, because sooner or later it will scratch just liek all other iPods and every other product ever made.
I see that the Vice-President has decided to listen to his supporters on this site and has started reforming the American legal system
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />