Apple sued over iPod Nano scratching

Discussion in 'News and Article Comments' started by pelvis_3, Oct 24, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pelvis_3

    pelvis_3 HWF Member For Life

    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    A CLASS ACTION started against Apple on the 19th October in a San Jose district court, alleging that the firm released iPod Nanos which easily scratch.

    An article in Betanews noticed the action started a few days ago and we have tracked down the filing.

    Jason Tomczak kicked off the class action and alleges that because the iPod Nano was defectively designed, the screen on the machines was unreadable and breached state consumer protection statutes.

    The plaintiff alleges that although Apple knew there were problems with the design of the Nano, it did not recall the machines but allowed members to buy them and "passed the expense, hassle and frustration of replacing the defectively designed Nanos along to class members".

    The filing alleges that Steve Jobs appeared in a TV ad shown removing an iPod nano from his pocket and the plaintiff alleges that means Apple led consumers to believe the machine was durable. But, claims the filing, the Nano screen scratches even when used in its normal manner.

    The filing alleges that when Apple designed the Nano, the resin used was not as thick and strong as in previous iPods. The plaintiff alleges that even though Apple knew this before release, "fierce competition on the digital music industry" caused it to release the product anyway.

    The filing quotes a number of articles in both The Wall Street Journal and Macworld to substantiate its allegations.

    The filing concludes by demanding damages from Apple.

    * APPLE is also being sued by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The case was filed 30 September 2005. But the judge in the case, John F. Walker, signed an order last week demanding that Apple had to reply to a subpoena served no later than 24th of October after it failed to respond to the original subpoena.

    Source - The Inquirer
     

    Attached Files:

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page