“The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco affirmed a 2008 district court ruling that the plaintiffs failed to show that use of the iPod poses an unreasonable risk of noise-induced hearing loss,” Stempel reports. “It also found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to allege a violation of California’s unfair competition law.”
Stempel reports, “Cupertino, California-based Apple has sold more than 220 million iPods since their 2001 launch. It provides a warning with each iPod that urges users to avoid hearing damage by setting the volume at safe levels.”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Brawndo Drinker” for the heads up.]
I’m sure the plaintiffs will be sorry to hear this news. What? Oh. Sorry that may have been in poor taste.
WOW, THAT’S GREAT!
eh ?
Pardon me?
@ HMCIV,
” Sorry that may have been in poor taste.”
No, that would be the lawsuit over the people who licked their fruity iMacs. I’m in that class-action lawsuit.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue rolleye” style=”border:0;” />
REMEMBER THOSE DAYS WE USED TO CARRY BOOMBOXES NEXT TO OUR EARS, WASN’T THAT GREAT!
Apple did change the settings of the iPod for the European market via software upgrade through iTunes. Don’t recall if it was done because of a lawsuit or some regulation.
I should sue gm because they made my car capable of high speeds. My speeding tickets are clearly not my fault.
Some common sense… things are looking up.
Very silly case. After all, there was certainly some kind of hearing before the court reached its decision.
Ah, “Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.” Clearly far from Texas. Thanks go to a judge with sense.
I don’t know of an iPod without a VOLUME control!!
I applaud the court’s decision. In these litigious times, people believe others should bear responsibility for the results of their own decision, actions, and behavior. In this case, “IF” a consumer’s hearing were damages by litening to music at high volumes… Why wouldn’t they instead choose to turn the volume down? Are people truly lacking in basic intelligence?
I hope the court assessed heavy costs against plaintiffs and counsel, for bringing a frivolous law suit!
This is just a rehashing of the old Sony Walkman law suits. Believe it or not there are some dishonest lawyers out there who try to revive old failed lawsuits to try to make that big score…why should anyone have to work for their millions? Just like there are dishonest people who play in the financial markets and expect the government to pay for any losses they incur…these people usually carry AIG and/or Goldman Sachs employee ID cards.
just my $0.02
I am not on Apple side. but if you take a look at ipod during opening, there are some warning on label. even you can set sound check on ipod. so people, who simply ignore that warning or options, are just ended up with loss in court. it is obvious. I think people are stupid.
edward said ” I think people are stupid.”
Learn to capitalize the first word in a sentence edward. Then we will work on the grammar a bit maybe. THEN you can call others stupid! Or were you already including yourself?
@IMOR
Are people truly lacking in basic intelligence? Sadly, many people are either somewhat lacking in mental capability or the willingness to put forth the effort to develop it.
But I submit that this is more an issue of character than intelligence. The lawyers that press these cases, the people that support them by serving as class representatives, and the people who sign on as members of the class action group all bear some blame with the blood-sucking lawyers generally receiving the majority of any meaningful settlement. The class representatives get $10,000 or so and the rest of the class group get a coupon or discount that is seldom worth redeeming.
Many years ago I made the decision to stay away from these lawsuits. Only if there is a legitimate gripe against an entity that has willfully done great harm will I support a class action suit in the future.
The lawyers debate on the letter of the law and decision hinge on technicalities. Guilt or innocence is often not the primary issue, and the intent of the law is lost. There are too many laws and variations – no one can possibly know them all and, yet, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Only a small fraction of those laws are actively enforced, and often sporadically, at that. And those with political or economic power have the ability to secure private settlements that admit no wrongdoing and prevent anyone from revealing the truth.
Laws should be simple and easily understood by everyone. There should be no laws that are not enforced. And there should be no laws that directly or indirectly undermine the concepts of personal responsibility and integrity. Some people rely on governmental safety nets to compensate for poor judgement, greed, and corruption. Others rely on entitlements rather than forging their own way. This is dragging us down collectively as a country and as a species.