T Nation

IPOD Lawsuit, Frivolity At Its Best!


#1

OMG, TALK ABOUT NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONE'S OWN SIMPLE ACTIONS!! WHY NOT JUST TURN IT DOWN, INSTEAD OF FILING A LAWSUIT? THIS GUY SHOULD BE SUED BY ALL OF US FOR EXPOSING THE WORLD TO SUCH A LUDICROUS AMOUNT OF STUPIDITY AND WASTING TIME, ENERGY AND RESOUCES.

Lawsuit: iPods may cause ... eh?

Man claims decibel levels, earphones contribute to hearing loss

Thursday, February 2, 2006; Posted: 2:26 p.m. EST (19:26 GMT), CNN.com

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A Louisiana man claims in a lawsuit that Apple's iPod music player can cause hearing loss in people who use it.

Apple has sold more than 42 million of the devices since they went on sale in 2001, including 14 million in the fourth quarter last year. The devices can produce sounds of more than 115 decibels, a volume that can damage the hearing of a person exposed to the sound for more than 28 seconds per day, according to the complaint.

The iPod players are "inherently defective in design and are not sufficiently adorned with adequate warnings regarding the likelihood of hearing loss," according to the complaint, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California, on behalf of John Kiel Patterson, of Louisiana.

The suit, which Patterson wants certified as a class-action, seeks compensation for unspecified damages and upgrades that will make iPods safer. Patterson's suit said he bought an iPod last year, but does not specify whether he suffered hearing loss from the device.

Patterson does not know if the device has damaged his hearing, said his attorney, Steve W. Berman, of Seattle. But that's beside the point of the lawsuit, which takes issue with the potential the iPod has to cause irreparable hearing loss, Berman said.

"He's bought a product which is not safe to use as currently sold on the market," Berman said. "He's paying for a product that's defective, and the law is pretty clear that if someone sold you a defective product they have a duty to repair it."

An Apple Computer Inc. spokeswoman, Kristin Huguet, declined to comment.

Although the iPod is more popular than other types of portable music players, its ability to cause noise-induced hearing problems isn't any higher, experts said.

"We have numerous products in the marketplace that have the potential to damage hearing," said Deanna Meinke, an audiology professor at the University of Northern Colorado. "The risk is there, but the risk lies with the user and where they set the volume."

The Cupertino, California-based company ships a warning with each iPod that cautions "permanent hearing loss may occur if earphones or headphones are used at high volume."

Apple was forced to pull the iPod from store shelves in France and upgrade software on the device to limit sound to 100 decibels, but has not followed suit in the United States, according to the complaint.

The headphones commonly referred to as ear buds, which ship with the iPod, also contribute to noise-induced hearing loss because they do not dilute the sound entering the ear and are closer to the ear canal than other sound sources, the complaint states.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


#2

That's about as ignorant as the ladies in Maryland that are sueing Wal-Mart for not carrying the morning after pill. What a bunch of bullshit, they state that Wal Mart has to carry the pill becasue in thier mission statement they make a reference to supplying the community with what it needs in regards to prescription medicines.

Bullpup


#3

Wal-Mart Sued Over Morning-After Pill
Last Update: 2/3/2006 7:30:10 AM

United Press International

A Massachusetts lawsuit aims to force Wal-Mart to carry the morning-after pill at its stores in the state.

The company says it carries the pill, also known as Plan B, only in Illinois, where state law requires it. In other states, Wal-Mart claims, demand is too low. Most of the other major drug chains carry the medication at all stores.

Massachusetts law requires pharmacies to stock all commonly needed medication, but leaves the specific choice up to the stores.

The three plaintiffs tried to purchase the emergency contraceptive in Wal-Mart stores, knowing that they were unlikely to find it, the Boston Daily Free Press reported.

"This is the commonly prescribed medication to fill in what is a missing piece in the contraception picture," said the lawyer for the plaintiffs, Sam Perkins. "All women should have it as backup. Every single other chain complies with state laws."

The emergency contraceptive is controversial because users take it after having sex and it prevents implantation, not conception.

The suit is backed by Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice groups.

This is bullshit, what happened to business's having the right to refuse service? Ifit's a product they do not sell regularly you cannot expect them to keep it on the shelves.

Bullpup


#4

OMG, that IS BS! Talk about Frivolous lawsuits. This needs to change. What a waste of time and resources.