Another Class Action Lawsuit for Apple iPod Nano

in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
edit: looks like this is a rehash of the lawsuit filed by "...Tomczak and class action members [that] are being represented by law firms Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and David P. Meyer & Associates...". In this case the plaintiff (dude that bought ipod nano that is starting the class action) is registered as JAMES M. WIMMER of Virginia... is this a two-pronged attack on Apple? bi-coastal style? wtf? or is this the "new" "proper" class action??

you read it here first, folks. or maybe not. i heard 'bout it from businessweek byte of the apple blog

extract of formal class action verbiage:

".......This consumer class action arises from Apple?s deceptive and unlawful conduct in designing, manufacturing, distributing and selling defectively designed portable, digital music players. Specifically, Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of a nationwide class of consumers who purchased Defendant?s defective iPod Nano (?Nano?) for consumer use. As a result of Defendant?s defectively designed product, these Nanos scratch excessively during normal usage, rendering the screen on the Nanos unreadable, and violating state consumer protection statutes, breaching express and implied warranties that accompanied the Nanos, and causing Plaintiff and proposed class members to incur loss of use and monetary damages associated with the repair and/or replacement caused by the defective design. Plaintiff and proposed class members would not have purchased Nanos and/or paid as much for them had they known the truth about the product.

5. Although Defendant knew that there were problems with the design of the Nano, Defendant did not recall the defectively designed Nanos that had been sold to class members nor the Nanos waiting for sale to other consumers. Instead, Defendant permitted propsed class members to purchase the defectively designed Nanos and passed the expense, hassle, and frustration of replacing the defectively designed Nanos along to class members.

6. On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff seeks relief, including:

(a) an order certifying the action to be maintained as a class action and ordering Plaintiff and his counsel to represent the class;

(b) restitution and/or disgorgement of profits;

(c) compensatory and consequential damages;

(d) punitive damages;

(e) attorneys? fees;

(f) costs of this suit;

(g) pre and post judgment interest; and

(h) such other and further relief as this Court may deem necessary or proper........"


  • Reply 1 of 1
    this is an interesting bit on the resin (franksargent this means you)

    ...14. The defect of the Nano lies within this resin. On previous versions of the iPod series of devices, the resin has been much thicker and stronger. The amount and durability of the resin applied as a protective coating during the Nano manufacturing process is clearly defective in that it is not sufficient to adequately protect the face of the Nano from extreme scratching and ultimately irreparable damage.

    15. Although it was clear that the Nano was defective, with fierce competition in the digital music industry, Apple decided not to delay the release of the defectively designed Nano, but to pass the cost of replacing the defective product along to class members. Moreover, rather than admit the design flaw when consumers began to express widespread complaints about the screen?s propensity to scratch easily and excessively (and rather than agreeing to replace them as Apple had done with respect to Nanos with cracked screens), Apple concealed the defect and advised class members that they would need to purchase additional equipment to prevent the screen from scratching excessively...

    my personal feeling is that because apple came out and mentioned the cracked screens, the lawyers refiled the class action under this james wimmer dude to cover specifically the "easily scratched screen"
Sign In or Register to comment.