Consumers Sue Over Defective iPod Nano

25 October 2005

On Wednesday, October 19, consumers filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit against Apple Computer, Inc., claiming the world's largest manufacture of portable music players knowingly manufactured, marketed and distributed defective iPod Nanos.

The suit alleges the company's new iPod Nano is defectively designed, allowing the screen to quickly become scratched with normal use. According to the complaint, Apple advertised and marketed the Nano as being impossibly small and durable; however, in an effort to make the device as small as possible Apple compromised the quality of the Nano.

Named plaintiff, Jason Tomczak, purchased a Nano and used it in a manner that was consistent with Apple's advertising. Within a few days the Nano became so scratched he was unable to view the screen. After receiving a new Nano due to a battery problem with the first, Tomczak went to great lengths to protect the screen but in the end decided to return the device after lightly rubbing a corner with a paper towel and found significant scratches. Apple did allow the return, but not without charging a $25 return fee.

According to Steve Berman, lead attorney for the proposed class, Apple chose to disregard the design problem with the Nano before its release and has not taken any steps to correct it since then. "We intend to prove that in an effort to rush the iPod Nano to the market, Apple ignored obvious defects in the design and later tried to cover up negative responses received from consumers," said Berman. "We seek to recover money lost in purchasing this product as well as the $25 fee Apple has chosen to impose on those who have returned their product after it became unusable."

Previous versions of the iPod separated the screen and controls from the case and was covered with a thick film of resin. In designing the Nano, Apple reconstructed the housing into a seamless front where the screen and controls reside directly under a much less durable film of resin allowing irreparable damage to occur.

The suit claims Apple knew the Nano was defective, but chose to go forward with the release and pass the cost of replacing the defective device on to class members. The suit also claims that instead of admitting to the flaw after widespread complaint, Apple concealed the defect and advised class members to purchase additional equipment to prevent the screen from scratching excessively.

For more information, please visit www.hbsslaw.com

About Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro is a law firm with offices in Seattle, Cambridge, Los Angeles, and Phoenix. The firm has developed a nationally recognized practice in class-action litigation. The firm is co-lead counsel in litigation to recover losses from Enron employees' retirement funds and represented Washington and 12 other states in lawsuits against the tobacco industry that resulted in the largest settlement in the history of litigation. The firm also served as counsel in several other high-profile cases including the Washington Public Power Supply litigation, which resulted in a settlement of more than $850 million, and the $92.5 million settlement of The Boeing Company litigation. Other notable cases include litigation involving the Exxon Valdez oil spill; Louisiana Pacific Siding; Morrison Knudsen; Piper Jaffray; Nordstrom; Boston Chicken; Noah's Bagels; TAP Pharmaceutical's Lupron litigation; and SmithKline Beecham's Paxil Litigation.

Contact:
Mark Firmani
Firmani + Associates
206-443-9357
mark@firmani.com