Apple prevails in appeal over iPod hearing loss
A class-action lawsuit claiming that Apple's iPod was responsible for hearing loss was rejected by a federal appeals court on Wednesday, mirroring an earlier decision made in district court in 2008.
A class-action lawsuit claiming that Apple's iPod music players cause hearing loss was rejected in appeals court on Wednesday. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiffs did not adequately show that use of the iPod "poses an unreasonable risk of noise-induced hearing loss," reported Reuters.
The suit claimed that the design of the iPod ear buds encouraged deep insertion into the ear canal, and therefore increase the risk of hearing damage.
"The plaintiffs do not allege the iPods failed to do anything they were designed to do nor do they allege that they, or any others, have suffered or are substantially certain to suffer inevitable hearing loss or other injury from iPod use. At most the plaintiffs plead a potential risk of hearing loss not to themselves, but to other unidentified iPod users." Senior Judge David Thompson wrote.
The plaintiffs, Bruce Waggoner and Joseph BIrdsong, were looking for monetary damages, redesigned headphones, and improved safety messages included with the product.
A class-action lawsuit claiming that Apple's iPod music players cause hearing loss was rejected in appeals court on Wednesday. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the plaintiffs did not adequately show that use of the iPod "poses an unreasonable risk of noise-induced hearing loss," reported Reuters.
The suit claimed that the design of the iPod ear buds encouraged deep insertion into the ear canal, and therefore increase the risk of hearing damage.
"The plaintiffs do not allege the iPods failed to do anything they were designed to do nor do they allege that they, or any others, have suffered or are substantially certain to suffer inevitable hearing loss or other injury from iPod use. At most the plaintiffs plead a potential risk of hearing loss not to themselves, but to other unidentified iPod users." Senior Judge David Thompson wrote.
The plaintiffs, Bruce Waggoner and Joseph BIrdsong, were looking for monetary damages, redesigned headphones, and improved safety messages included with the product.
Comments
didn't the earbuds used for ipods exist prior to the ipod itself?
as for the earbud comment, if you can insert them 'deeply into the ear canal' you got some seriously wide ears. or you are shoving them in way too hard.
so someone that had suffered no damage and knew no one that had suffered any damage was suing cause maybe some day someone might. no wonder it was tossed.
as for the earbud comment, if you can insert them 'deeply into the ear canal' you got some seriously wide ears. or you are shoving them in way too hard.
Agreed. They aren't exactly a nice fit. It's more like an oval peg into a round smaller hole
This is totally about people trying to profit off of a company for their own stupidity. Turn up an iPod that much and it's downright PAINFUL. It doesn't take a genius to figure out it's probably going to damage your ear drums.
At most the plaintiffs plead a potential risk of hearing loss not to themselves, but to other unidentified iPod users." Senior Judge David Thompson wrote.
The plaintiffs, Bruce Waggoner and Joseph BIrdsong, were looking for monetary damages, redesigned headphones, and improved safety messages included with the product.
What a load of crap. These two were wanting to capitalize on somebody's future act of idiocy, namely that of the judge and or jury that may have decided in their favor.
You purposely play your iPod too loud + you suffer hearing loss as a result = your problem.
How does Apple fit into this equation?
Heyyy, what's with all the rational and logical comments here?! This doesn't seem right for an AI comment forum.
Give it time.
What a jerkoff lawsuit to begin with. How are the iPod's earbuds different than the ones made by pretty much every other manufacturer? And where's this dumbass' acceptance of personal responsibility? Let's start suing every knife maker because they have sharp blades that can cut you.
100% right!!
Heyyy, what's with all the rational and logical comments here?! This doesn't seem right for an AI comment forum.
They have the computer room at the asylum locked up for the night.
Didn't Apple put a volume limiting function on the iPods before the Touch was even invented? You could set a max via software. This suit was always stupid. It's pretty easy to tell if something is too loud, it hurts your f...ing head and makes your ears ring. Do it enough and you go deaf.
My 5th generation iPod classic has the volume limiting feature you are referring to.
Didn't Apple put a volume limiting function on the iPods before the Touch was even invented? You could set a max via software. This suit was always stupid. It's pretty easy to tell if something is too loud, it hurts your f...ing head and makes your ears ring. Do it enough and you go deaf.
Mind you, I think this particular suit, being so vague, should have been rejected.
But at the same time, Apple could do much better, with a little extra effort. The limiter should be in decibels.
Sound exposure limits are in decibels. If you set the current limiter you don't really know what your exposure is, since it is expressed in an arbitrary scale.
Apple already has implemented volume matching with Sound Check. To measure in decibels they would simply need to measure the output of their headphones. You would select the model on your iPod, and newer iPods and headphones could be designed to identify the model automatically.
Apple could certify third party headphones and add them to it's database. The third party certification process could provide revenue to fund the effort.
A decibel limiter is the right thing to do. It would present a very high legal barrier to future lawsuits, and it would be the kind of high quality detail that belongs in an Apple product.
And make no mistake, the suits will come. Apple is a big target and a lot of people will suffer hearing loss, but they will only realize this when they hit their late 30's or 40's, since the damage is cumulative and slow at first.
You purposely play your iPod too loud + you suffer hearing loss as a result = your problem.
How does Apple fit into this equation?
Apple fits into the equation because people don't really know what too loud is. The ear has automatic gain adjustment, so the perception of loudness is relative to the environment you are in.
This is why you can trick yourself into a volume that is too high when you are in a noisy environment.
Apple fits into the equation because people don't really know what too loud is. The ear has automatic gain adjustment, so the perception of loudness is relative to the environment you are in.
This is why you can trick yourself into a volume that is too high when you are in a noisy environment.
Of course they do. If your ears are ringing, the audio is too loud. Anyone who's ever been to a concert can tell you this. If the sound is painful, it's too loud. Car Stereo's don't have this limit. Neither do audio tuners, televisions, etc.
This isn't rocket science.
Of course they do. If your ears are ringing, the audio is too loud. Anyone who's ever been to a concert can tell you this. If the sound is painful, it's too loud. Car Stereo's don't have this limit. Neither do audio tuners, televisions, etc.
This isn't rocket science.
It's not rocket science, but what you say is not true.
Sure, if you feel pain then the volume is too loud. That's obvious.
But the volume can also be too loud and produce long term hearing loss through repeated exposure, well below the immediate pain threshold. If your ears are ringing, the volume is too loud. But if they are not, it does NOT mean that the volume is OK.
It's like eating fatty foods. You don't feel pain in your heart when you eat, but you do the damage. So we have labeling now.
What isn't rocket science is limiting the decibel level. It's actually quite easy, just some coding and measuring. Nothing Apple can't handle with a coder and a sound engineer assigned part time. The lawyers are probably more expensive than that.
Mind you, I think this particular suit, being so vague, should have been rejected.
But at the same time, Apple could do much better, with a little extra effort. The limiter should be in decibels.
Sound exposure limits are in decibels. If you set the current limiter you don't really know what your exposure is, since it is expressed in an arbitrary scale.
Apple already has implemented volume matching with Sound Check. To measure in decibels they would simply need to measure the output of their headphones. You would select the model on your iPod, and newer iPods and headphones could be designed to identify the model automatically.
Apple could certify third party headphones and add them to it's database. The third party certification process could provide revenue to fund the effort.
A decibel limiter is the right thing to do. It would present a very high legal barrier to future lawsuits, and it would be the kind of high quality detail that belongs in an Apple product.
And make no mistake, the suits will come. Apple is a big target and a lot of people will suffer hearing loss, but they will only realize this when they hit their late 30's or 40's, since the damage is cumulative and slow at first.
If it were possible to characterize a given headphone model, rely upon manufacturing tolerances to meet the same specs on every unit produced, and account for variations in how those 'phones fit peoples' ears, then the only remaining problems would be how to identify those headphones when plugged in. Every single manufacturer of headphones would have to include some sort of unambiguous identification method, such as a 1-Wire EEPROM or similar, because using measurable characteristics like impedance, inductance, etc. are going to fail due to manufacturing tolerances and ambiguation (most headphones are similar in impedance, and more similar than the acceptable tolerance in many cases). So now that you've solved the manufacturing and usage problems, all you have to do is convince Sony, Bose, AKG, JVC, etc. that they have to add hardware (and cost!) to their iPod compatible products so that Apple won't be served with frivolous lawsuits. Good luck with that.
While I'm sure it's meant well, the technical hurdles with your solution are significant, and the marketing/competitive hurdles are even greater.
It's not rocket science, but what you say is not true.
Sure, if you feel pain then the volume is too loud. That's obvious.
But the volume can also be too loud and produce long term hearing loss through repeated exposure, well below the immediate pain threshold. If your ears are ringing, the volume is too loud. But if they are not, it does NOT mean that the volume is OK.
It's like eating fatty foods. You don't feel pain in your heart when you eat, but you do the damage. So we have labeling now.
What isn't rocket science is limiting the decibel level. It's actually quite easy, just some coding and measuring. Nothing Apple can't handle with a coder and a sound engineer assigned part time. The lawyers are probably more expensive than that.
Let me ask you this. Did you find it uncomfortable to stare at the sun? Did someone have to tell you not to? The same is true for listening to your music too loud. You'd have to be a little slow to not know when something is 'loud' and when it's not. I hear this all the time. You're sitting next to someone with ear buds in and you can actually hear the music from their ear buds. If they happen to be too stupid to realize that loud continuous noise will make them go deaf, then they have parents to step in. Our society has gotten off on blaming poor choices on someone else. It's about time people started being held responsible for their own actions.
I consider this natural selection. It's a shame we don't have any natural Urban predators to take them out once they go deaf from stupidity.
And, people should take personal responsibility on their daily life including but not limited to fatty food, music loudness, exercise, etc. Too much of even a good thing will harm you.
Let me ask you this. Did you find it uncomfortable to stare at the sun? Did someone have to tell you not to? The same is true for listening to your music too loud...
No, it's not!
You insist on missing the point. Please read up on long-term hearing loss. Loudness that can cause damage is not always obvious.
Also, why do you find it such a tough requirement for Apple to put their volume limiting control in decibels? Is this really so difficultfor Apple? No.
By the way, I already said this particular suit was stupid. I'm just saying Apple could do things better, as it is supposed to, according to itself.