Suit filed over Nano scratches


Recommended Posts

Claiming that the iPod Nano has a widespread propensity for scratching easily, lawyers this week filed a class action suit against Apple Computer on behalf of those who have purchased the diminutive music player.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday on behalf of all those who have bought a Nano, alleges that Apple violated state consumer protection statutes, as well as express and implied warranties. The complaint charges that Apple knew that there were design problems with the Nano.

"These Nanos scratch excessively during normal usage, rendering the screen on the Nanos unreadable," according to the complaint, which was filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., by attorneys with Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro in Seattle and Columbus, Ohio-based David P. Meyer & Associates. The suit seeks to have the complaint certified as a class action claim and asks for "damages in the amount of monies paid for Nanos," as well as unspecified actual, statutory and punitive damages.

An Apple representative declined to comment on the suit, but Apple has stated that the Nano is made of the same polycarbonate material that's found in previous iPods and maintained that the scratching problem does not appear to be widespread.

The lawsuit charges, however, that the Nano contains a thinner coating of resin than on previous iPod models.

"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," the lawsuit says.

Questions about whether the Nano scratches more easily have been bubbling around Apple message boards since shortly after the product was announced in September.

Apple has confirmed a separate problem affecting less than 1 percent of Nanos, in which devices were shipped with a faulty LCD screen that was prone to cracking.

In its earnings conference call last week, Apple said it sold a million Nanos during the first 17 days the product was on the market and that it has seen significantly more demand than it has been able to meet.

News Source: CNET News.com

If you'd like to make a claim, you can contact either Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro or David P. Meyer & Associates.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/388146-suit-filed-over-nano-scratches/
Share on other sites

I thought that Apple was going to replace Nanos that scratched easily?

586705485[/snapback]

No, they were going to replace the ones that had a problem cracking so easily (which was 1/10 of 1% that was sold). Apple won't even admit that they have a problem with the Nano scratching easily.

Now all you who think this lawsuit is stupid, worthless and for those who think the iPod nano is made exactly the same as previous iPods, you're wrong. I suggest to those who believe this to read the filing that these two law firms filed. It suggests that Apple knowingly made these iPods with thinner materials, making them easier to scratch, to lower manufacturing cost. This is why this lawsuit is not stupid or "bull". A company who makes a bad product knowingly should be held accountable!

I have five iPods; iPod mini, a 20GB iPod, an iPod shuffle, an iPod U2 Edition, & iPod nano. All of them have gone into my hoodie pocket that contains nothing else (no keys, no pens, paper, etc.). All of them are scratch free except the iPod nano. I bought the iPod nano September 15, 2005 at Best Buy and took it home where I laid the box on my desk. It stayed there until Monday morning where I took it out of the box (for the first time) and loaded all the music I wanted onto it. I was leaving for vacation that day by the way. I put the Nano in my hoodie pocket, with nothing else in there, and left for the bus. A few moments into my trip and I took the Nano out of my soft cotton made hoodie pocket and it was scratched badly enough already that it is hard to see what is on the screen.

I feel I, and everyone else who has a scratched iPod nano, am entitled to a new iPod nano from Apple, however, all I really want Apple to do is admit that they have a bad product out there and I want them to fix it for future iPod nanos (which I have no doubt they've already done). Maybe before you commit on a case such as this, you should get off your lazy ass and actually do some reading and research. Not all lawsuits are frivolous!

If you don't understand why this is happening, then you haven't owned a nano.

1) You shouldn't be forced to keep it in a case

2) You shouldn't be afraid to keep your music player in your pocket

It *DOES* get scratched up from everyday use, and not light surface scratches like the larger ones. I own a 20GB and used to own a nano and it really doesn't compare. If you haven't owned one, you don't know what you are talking about, it's that simple.

dumb...

it doesn't matter how easy it scratches, it still does what it was made to do...

thats like going after a car company because when you drive down the road you get rock chips on your car...

it's just what happens...

586705616[/snapback]

Dumb comment... these are two different items we're talking about. Cars are going to get scratches because they're outside in the elements. If you were talking about the inside of a car I could go along with that. But this is an item that shouldn't get scratched just by touching it :crazy: If you car seat started tears in just from sitting on it, you would want it fixed wouldn't you? Of course you would, but would you want to dish out the money? Most logical people wouldn't :rolleyes:

dumb...

it doesn't matter how easy it scratches, it still does what it was made to do...

thats like going after a car company because when you drive down the road you get rock chips on your car...

it's just what happens...

586705616[/snapback]

What if you bought a Mercedes and the paint faded out after a year of owning it? Would that be ok? Cause it still drives right? I don't think the owners of the car would be too happy though. It's not as simple as "it works" you are paying money for a nice looking device and when it doesn't look nice anymore through no fault of your own it's something that needs to be addressed.

scratches come from normal wear and tear, thats how ipods have always been. you can't show me one used ipod that doesn't have scratches on it. even when you put them in cases they still get scratched.

586705728[/snapback]

Yes they do come from normal wear and tear, but the intensity of the scratching can be controlled by the type and amount/thickness of material used in manufacturing. A nano gets scratched more easily and more noticeably than a regular iPod thats what it comes down to. The screen can actually become difficult to read. You are right that all iPods get scratched, I don't argue that but what I am saying is Apple dropped the ball with the nano by making it too delicate. I don't know what it is but it could be that the layer of plastic they used isn't hard enough or isn't applied properly, but either way, this is something that should be fixed/

Dumb comment... these are two different items we're talking about. Cars are going to get scratches because they're outside in the elements. If you were talking about the inside of a car I could go along with that. But this is an item that shouldn't get scratched just by touching it mad.gif If you car seat started tears in just from sitting on it, you would want it fixed wouldn't you? Of course you would, but would you want to dish out the money? Most logical people wouldn't rolleyes.gif

ipods are going to get scratches because you are sliding them in and out of things that aren't made of micro fiber cloth. you can't expect something made out of shiny plastic and chrome to stay mint while handling it all the time, it just doesn't work like that.

What if you bought a Mercedes and the paint faded out after a year of owning it? Would that be ok? Cause it still drives right? I don't think the owners of the car would be too happy though. It's not as simple as "it works" you are paying money for a nice looking device and when it doesn't look nice anymore through no fault of your own it's something that needs to be addressed.

paint fading and chips are two different things...

chips come from normal wear and tear. fading is something that would happen when there is a defect in the material...

scratches come from normal wear and tear, that?s how ipods have always been. you can't show me one used ipod that doesn't have scratches on it. even when you put them in cases they still get scratched.

ahfunk have you ever seen or touched a nano? I have a hard time believe it.

Apple confirms problems with nano:

http://news.designtechnica.com/article8407.html

586705743[/snapback]

they are only confirming problems with the screens. not the scratches.

and its dated 28th sept.

Yes they do come from normal wear and tear, but the intensity of the scratching can be controlled by the type and amount/thickness of material used in manufacturing. A nano gets scratched more easily and more noticeably than a regular iPod thats what it comes down to. The screen can actually become difficult to read. You are right that all iPods get scratched, I don't argue that but what I am saying is Apple dropped the ball with the nano by making it too delicate. I don't know what it is but it could be that the layer of plastic they used isn't hard enough or isn't applied properly, but either way, this is something that should be fixed/

586705749[/snapback]

I agree they do scratch a lot, but I don't think thats something that people should sue over...

I agree they do scratch a lot, but I don't think thats something that people should sue over...

586705962[/snapback]

How else are we going to get it across to Apple that we don't like being screwed? I mean, I see your point, so don't get me wrong. But it seems the only way to get companies to take their heads out of their own asses is to sue them.

the nano has a different surface material compared to the 4th gen and previous models etc. the plastic used gives a better coating but it scratches very easily- on macrumors.com forums someone has a friend who packs/designs the ipods - and even they've said its impossible to get rid of the scratches using special plastic liquids.

the new 5th gen ipod videos seem to be manufactured from the exact same plastic material as the nano !! but i havent heard reports from people who have got these with the same rediculous scratch problems..

What are they expecting Apple to do?

The iPod is working perfectly fine, it's their own fault for now protecting it with a case.

586705441[/snapback]

The point is you shouldnt have to protect it. It shouldn't scratch. Its completly unacceptable of how bad it is. I purposly dropped in on my bed as a joke and said to my friend, ahaha watch this is scratch it. Guess what, it did.

it happens after the fact, and would not happen if it is protected....that is not a manufacturer's defect.

the warranty doesn't cover cosmetics...deal with it.

In the advertising of the iPod Nano, where does it say it has a anti-scratch coating?

it happens after the fact, and would not happen if it is protected....that is not a manufacturer's defect.

the warranty doesn't cover cosmetics...deal with it.

In the advertising of the iPod Nano, where does it say it has a anti-scratch coating?

586706071[/snapback]

Quote from the filed lawsuit (Section II Subsection 4):

"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 class members to incur loss of use and monetary damages associated with the repair and/or replacement caused by the defective design. Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased Nanos and/or paid as much for them had they known the truth about the product."

If this one just one or two people having a problem with scratches, you would make a valid point, however, this involves a lot of people so it has to be Apple's product and not the consumer. Also, their warranties do cover cosmetics in case you weren't aware.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • GitHub removes manual model selection from Copilot free and student plans by Karthik Mudaliar GitHub is removing the ability to manually select an AI model from its Copilot Free and Student plans, making its automatic routing system the default and only way to choose a model. This means users on these tiers will no longer be able to deliberately select a particular OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or Microsoft model for a task. In its announcement, GitHub said Copilot Auto will dynamically choose what it considers the best model for each request. Free and Student accounts will retain access to models from multiple families, although the available selection will continue to depend on the restrictions attached to each plan. GitHub did not identify a fixed pool of models that Auto will always use, and its documentation warns that model availability can change over time. GitHub describes Auto as more than a random fallback system. On supported surfaces, its task-optimization technology evaluates the complexity of a request alongside real-time information about model health and availability. Straightforward prompts can be routed to faster and less expensive models, while more demanding coding tasks may be sent to higher-cost reasoning models. The company says this approach should reduce rate limiting, latency, and failed requests. Auto generally selects one model along natural prompt-caching boundaries rather than repeatedly switching models during a session, as GitHub found that mid-session changes increased costs without producing sufficient improvements in output quality. Users can still check which model generated a response. In Copilot Chat, the information appears when hovering over an answer, while Copilot CLI and the Copilot cloud agent display the selected model alongside their output. Auto is available in Copilot Chat, Copilot CLI, and the cloud agent, with the exact implementation and release status varying between supported development environments. The latest restriction follows several months of adjustments to Copilot’s individual plans. GitHub temporarily halted new Pro, Pro+, and Student subscriptions in April as it sought to manage demand and service reliability. It later introduced token-based billing and began gradually reopening individual-plan registrations on June 17. Alongside the picker change, GitHub is retiring the “Preview” label from Microsoft-developed models. It argues that the label is no longer necessary because Auto handles model routing and models are continuously updated behind the scenes.
    • Look up 'inflation' kid. Ask an AI for the numbers between both games.
    • Google reportedly set to lose two key Gemini and DeepMind researchers to Anthropic by Karthik Mudaliar Google is reportedly preparing to lose two more prominent artificial intelligence researchers, with Gemini contributors Jonas Adler and Alexander Pritzel planning to join rival AI developer Anthropic. According to a report from Bloomberg, both researchers are viewed internally as important contributors to Google’s flagship Gemini model family. Adler worked on Google’s AI coding efforts, while Pritzel was involved in the process used to train AI systems. Neither company has publicly confirmed the moves. The report also does not say when the researchers will formally leave Google or what positions they will hold at Anthropic. Training a large AI model requires decisions covering its architecture, data preparation, distributed computing infrastructure, and post-training methods that shape how the finished system behaves. Researchers with experience operating at the scale of Gemini are consequently difficult to replace quickly. Both Adler and Pritzel have previously contributed to Google DeepMind’s scientific research as well. They are listed among the authors of the company’s work on expanding AlphaFold protein-structure predictions across entire proteomes, alongside AlphaFold researchers including John Jumper. The reported departures arrive shortly after another important change within Google’s Gemini organization. Gemini co-lead Noam Shazeer is leaving Google for OpenAI, after returning to the search company in 2024 through its deal with Character.AI. Shazeer is particularly well known as one of the authors of the Transformer paper, whose architecture became the foundation for most modern large language models. Anthropic, meanwhile, has been recruiting recognizable figures from other leading laboratories. OpenAI co-founder and former Tesla AI director Andrej Karpathy joined Anthropic’s pre-training team in May. His move, followed by the reported recruitment of several Google researchers, suggests Anthropic is strengthening the research teams responsible for the core capabilities of future Claude models rather than concentrating solely on product and enterprise sales. The competition is complicated by the companies’ extensive commercial relationships. Anthropic competes directly with Google’s Gemini models, but it also relies on Google as an infrastructure partner. In April, Anthropic announced an expanded agreement with Google and Broadcom covering multiple gigawatts of next-generation Tensor Processing Unit capacity. TPUs are Google-designed accelerators used to train and run large AI models. via Bloomberg
    • This article makes my head hurt. Lots of confusing words
    • Google adds built-in computer control to Gemini 3.5 flash by Karthik Mudaliar Google has added Computer Use as a built-in tool in Gemini 3.5 Flash, giving developers a single model that can reason about a task and operate graphical interfaces across browsers, mobile devices, and desktop environments. The feature is available through the Gemini API and Google’s Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, although it remains a preview feature for now. Computer Use enables an AI agent to examine screenshots and return actions such as mouse clicks, scrolling, and keyboard input. A developer’s application must execute those actions, capture the resulting screen, and send it back to Gemini, creating a continuous loop until the task is completed. Google says the integration can be used for activities including repetitive form filling, application testing, research across multiple websites, and longer enterprise workflows. Gemini 3.5 Flash can work with browser, mobile, and desktop environments, whereas Google’s earlier standalone Computer Use model was primarily positioned around browser interaction. The main change is consolidation. Computer control was previously offered through the separate Gemini 2.5 Computer Use preview model. As Neowin reported when that model was introduced, it was designed to interpret a visual interface and generate actions without requiring a website-specific API. Google later brought Computer Use to preview versions of Gemini 3 Pro and Gemini 3 Flash in January 2026. The latest release now incorporates the tool into the stable Gemini 3.5 Flash model rather than requiring developers to select a specialized model solely for interface automation. Gemini 3.5 Flash itself was announced in May as Google’s latest fast model for coding and multi-step agent workflows. It supports a one-million-token input context window and up to 65,000 output tokens, along with adjustable thinking levels that let developers trade additional reasoning for lower latency and cost. Google also added that Gemini 3.5 Flash received targeted adversarial training for computer-use scenarios. The company is also offering safeguards that can require user confirmation before sensitive or irreversible actions and automatically stop a workflow when suspected prompt injection is detected. Its developer documentation describes configurable protections for areas such as financial transactions and changes to sensitive records. Google isn't the first to bring Computer Use to its platform. Anthropic has made computer control available through Claude, while OpenAI has continued improving computer-use performance in its recent models. Microsoft has also applied the concept to business workflows, including a Computer Use capability for the Researcher agent in Microsoft 365 Copilot.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
    • One Year In
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      463
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!