Apple sued over iPod hearing risks
By Marc Perton 
posted February 2nd 2006 9:19AM
posted February 2nd 2006 9:19AM
Just when you thought
disgruntled iPod customers couldn't find anything else to complain
about, a Louisiana man has filed a lawsuit against Apple, complaining that the iPod can cause hearing loss. According to
the suit, the iPod can be pumped up to over 115 decibels, a level that can damage hearing, and the audio players are
"inherently defective in design and are not sufficiently adorned with adequate warnings." A lawyer for the
plaintiff said he didn't know if his client had suffered hearing loss, but said that's irrelevant. "He's bought a
product which is not safe to use as currently sold on the market," the lawyer said. Given that iPods already
include warnings that state that "permanent hearing loss may occur if earphones or headphones are used at high
volume," we don't expect this one to go very far. In the meantime, we're sure someone out there is planning a
lawsuit over the iPod with video, claiming that
it's an unsafe device because you could be hurt if you watch videos while walking or driving.
#44 - Yeah I'm serious. Look, if lasers were unregulated, and you went to a concert where the lasers kept hitting you in the eye, and most of the audience got eye damage from it, would that be OK?
Check out http://www.dangerousdecibels.org/ for more information.
In France Apple has volume reduction devices installed in the iPods to reduce the output. So it seems that there might be an isue with the amount of volume that comes out of these. I know whith the earbuds that come stock on the iPods, you have to crank the volume way up to hear anyhting because they lose so much noise to the ambient world around you. Also, if you look at the suit, they want better headphones and the noise reduction software standard with all new iPods. I didn't see anything about actual monetary damages.
God bless America. Will he win? Probably not.
Come on, it's just like that moron that sued mcdonalds for making him fat.
Apple had even already put warnings about the volume level. And this bastard tries to sue because he doesn't read?
I hope he loses. I can't express my extreme anger about this.
Aaron G. (#40) -
"An audio device that could damage your hearing should have a warning label cautioning you as to that possibility."
iPods ... do ... have ... a ... warning ... label.
Damn, if he wins im getting in on this suit. I ran for over a year and lost 80 pounds. In the process, I fear I lost my hearing in the right ear. Im only 17, and the hearing loss is not that bad but its noticeble. I can still hear, but not as well as my left. I wish I hadnt of listened to my Ipod so much.
41:/Nate,
When you criticize people for being "ignorant" and come off as an elitist, contemptuous little prick, you open yourself to same argument of ignorance.
While I don't necessarily agree with this lawsuit, there are good public policy reasons for an open litigation system like ours, and there are good reasons for the government management of certain public concerns.
For example, the average person like you or me are notoriously poor at understanding probability and risk. Numerous pyschology and human factors research has shown this. Why do you think the lottery is so popular? Given that, there are clear societal benefits for an entity that can deal with reducing the risk on a macro level--like the government or companies. This is why we have something like government mandated seatbelt laws--because people at large don't grasp the huge increased risk of driving without a seat belt.
Companies have a responsibility to make their products safe. If not because of a moral duty to the customers, then because of the economic effiency of forcing a company to absorb the "externalities" of their product and the ability to spread out the costs of "insurance" among all the users of the product.
Someone needs to take their own medicine before screaming out a broad notion like "personal freedom reigns over all"
There's something good to come from all this discussion on the potential of hearing loss by iPODs. It has gotten the attention of the world and now people are more aware of the harm if mis-used. I bought one recently and saw the warnings but brushed it off (probably because there are too many disclaimers out there for everything) and hell! - I just wanted to plug it in and start listening. But now that the media has gotten hold of this, I'm now telling my 10 year old son to limit his listening to his favorite music - rock n roll and keep the volume reasonable. I don't want him to end up like me - with hearing loss from years of playing in a rock band when I was young. But about the lawsuit - I hope the guy loses - but want to thank him, on the other hand, for his stupidity has brought more insight to us all.
OKAY maybe I'm the only person that has actually worried about brushing the volume control the wrong way and blasting my eardrums.
A simple solution that would keep EVERYONE HAPPY: Have a setting on the iPod where you can *customize the maximum dB*. Simple determine how loud you'd want it to go given the impedence of your particular headphones, and set that as the max. I would pay money for this feature on my iPod.
C'mon people, this is getting way out of hand. Everyone seems to be suing somebody for something... oftenly for extremely stupid reasons that the plaintiff could prevent from happening. Lets all sue the internet because it brings us viruses and spyware why-dont-we. People need to stop trying to grab a piece of others' successes...
And why sue Apple in particular, I'm sure every other digital music player gets just as loud. That's what a disclaimer is for, and Apple has one in regular-sized font right in the manual.
All I know is that my momma taught me NOT TO PLACE AN OPENED CUP OF BOILING WATER ON MY CROTCH!!
Common. Fricking. Sense.
Like it or not, he has a case (so long as he can prove at least some hearing loss). The fact that the Ipod has a volume setting as high as 115 decibels would fall under the strict product liability laws that Apple is subject to. Apple could have provided warning labels or reduced volume levels, but did not. Essentially, all he has to prove is that he suffered hearing loss, and that this loss was caused directly or by proximate use of his Ipod.
Gordon, take a look at the iPod manual... it's right in there.
#57 (Gordon):
The person filing the suit has no hearing loss. Read the article. Apple does provide warnings in the package. Read the comments in the thread. Summary: you are an idiot.
TUAW reports that the lawyer who is taking this frivolous lawsuit to court is (surprise surprise) on retainer for Microsoft.
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/02/02/microsoft-lawyer-handling-latest-ipod-lawsuit/
Nice going Bill.
Has anybody been reading and unserstanding all the coments here? So far the little old coffee lady is "79" "80" and "87". She is partly to blame for the extent of her injuries for "driving" with the coffee between her legs. No matter how hot the coffee was, that was stupid. Next, the guy isn't suing ipod to get a warning lable put on the thing. He is not suing for money. And there is one comment that I do agree with, "Any idiot that turns their stereo, ipod etc. up so loud deserves to go deaf. And the next time one of those idiots is sitting next to me at a stop light and has his car stereo turned up listing to that rap crap is gonna get sued for my hearing loss, not the makers of the car stereo or speakers!
Wow. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? I can see a case if Apple says "Go ahead! Listen as loud as you want for as long as you want! But they put a warning on the product, just like McDonald's now puts "Caution! Beverage may be hot" on their coffee.
Nate:
Am I allowed to read the Bible after oh wise athiest?
Please save me from Jesus who takes away my personal responsibility.
This guy will be suing fork manufacturers for selling 'potentially lethal weapons'.
Aside from different recording levels as another reader rightly pointed out, different headphones have different efficiency ratings. I have some bigger cans which are better quality but require more juice -- so typically I have them louder than I'd have the rubbish ipod ones provided.
Also, useful trick for those traveling on the plane for long periods and wanting good quality sound, get some proper ribbed earplugs which massively attenuates background plane noise if inserted properly. Then listen to music much louder over the top -- net result is very good signal to noise ratio.
My only question is why can't I sue the greedy for wasting my tax dollars on court cases over their own stupity?
Aaron G - How about making it easy and having everything labeled with a warning that it is not to be used by a person lacking common sense. Of course this would cause a mojor cut in company profits but then they would save on court costs.
Baseless lawsuits are whats wrong with this country.
They guy was probably deaf in the first place.
This is something that I too feel needs to be addressed. Some people have said that they have to pump the volume all the way to block out background noise, or that the guy in question should get a pair of headphones that can handle the power.
But I think a good pair of headphones should allow you to play the volume much lower to get a good sound and block out noise. I have just bought a pair of canal earphones (sony's) and I now play the volume much lower, and can hear my music perfectly, with no interuptions from the subways I have to ride everyday.
I bought mine here in Tokyo, I wish it had the sound limiting that is found in Europe, can't apple do a firmware update that lets me limit the volume??
I have had many times where I have tried to Fastforward a track a bit, only to pump it up all the way!!!! Which is damn painful!!!
Sue those bastards for me, and sue them good!!!!
55: NeoteriX
I never implied completely doing away with Government. You're arguing against a straw man.
I'm completely aware of probability and risk. Perhaps you're acquainted with Kahneman and Tversky. Good for you. The implication is that we become better informed or simply don't use goods or services, if our risk tolerance is low, about which we know little to nothing about. Demand responsibly and responsible suppliers will follow, without rising costs for everyone, cutting into GNP, because of the reckless few who apathetically deny that reality is extremely dangerous, even for those who don't need babysitters.
If the irresponsible few's supergoals are vague, non-existent, or based on unjustified beliefs, then their subgoals are likely to be arbitrary or unspecified. Since I'm not aware of any supergoal that's objective (just subgoals which are probabilistically objective with respect to supergoals, and probabilistically justified beliefs that are assumed in formulating supergoals), I don't think any individual or organization has an obligation to formulate anyone else's supergoals and hence utility function for them, except to help others make self-explicit the notion of metacognition (which is not too much to ask of even a minimally functional human, if they desire to do anything more than nothing and self-decompose).
Also, arguments against elitism are necessarily self-defeating (if you're self-righteous in your humility... be humble), whereas it is meaningless to suggest that arguments against ignorance are self-defeating. It's obvious that I don't have infinite knowledge. It's so obvious, I didn't expect that it would make anyone feel better by articulating this fact. However, the idea of a knowledge continuum, with cognitions as points, is uncontroversial.
That's it, I'm suing smokers and cigarette companies for people blowing 2nd hand smoke into my breatheable air space when I walk down the street, putting my health at risk. At least it's not my own fault when I suddenly breathe in toxic air against my will. The iPod suit isn't legit. If you eat Burger King and McDonalds 3 times a day, you'll get fat, sick and possibly die, all your fault. Be responsible, people!!!
This just rocks!
So I'm going out to sue that punk in the supra next to me at the traffic light with the really loud thumping subwoffer where his back seat is supposed to be because I am being deafened by "Second Hand Music"...
Hey... Maybe I can even sue the car company for putting a back seat in the car that could ultimately be removed allowing the speaker to be put in...
This is what happens as we approach the end of Western Civilization...
http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/iPod_nano_Features_Guide.pdf
read page 52..
"Warning: Permanent hearing loss may occur if earbuds or
headphones are used at high volume. You can adapt over time
to a higher volume of sound that may sound normal but can be
damaging to your hearing. If you experience ringing in your ears or
muffled speech, stop listening and have your hearing checked. The
louder the volume, the less time is required before
your hearing could be affected. Hearing experts suggest that to
protect your hearing:
Limit the amount of time you use earbuds or headphones at
high volume.
Avoid turning up the volume to block out noisy surroundings.
Turn the volume down if you can't hear people speaking
near you"
now if you ignore it, its your own fault. cars dont have warnings plastered on the dash saying "go 55 or you may die" .. they dont come with a preset limiter on the car to keep it under 70mph (135 usually, not 70). they dont have a label on your rearview saying "turn your damn head". they dont baby you through everything and they SHOULDNT! if you dont read the manual to see the warnings then its your own damn fault for not reading the warnings. whose fault is it if you make your own food too hot in the microwave? blame Kenmore for making a microwave that heats food too hot? sue a mouse manufacturer for the carpal tunnel you got because you disregarded common sense and didnt take a break for 15 hours? sue BP for selling gasoline that ignited when you were smoking and filling up your tractor?
and regarding the lasers... if a laser hit you in the eye at a concert then it would cause damage.. even though it IS regulated. if a concert venue shined a laser in your eye and damaged your retina, do you sue the concert venue (operator) or the laser manufacturer? youd sue the operator for failing to control dangerous equipment.
if they could, your ears should sue your brain for being retarded and blasting your music.
What a dumbass!! Anything can cause hearing loss! Turn it down... I have 2 studio monitors right in front of me all teh way down that are still pretty loud.. When all the way up I'm sure they're a hell of a lot louder than any iPod.. Do I see any suits there.. No! Same with my Dual Rectifier into a 4x12. Pretty much any audio device if turned up loud enough could cause hearing loss...
I'm surprised no one has used the simple analogy of a car. Most cars presently are able to go 2-3 times the speed limit, probably any speed limit you've seen posted locally. Now, we don't see warning stickers all over the place on our car because a) there are speed limit signs and b) common sense dictates that if we speed, we're likely to get caught or injure someone.
Let me reiterate. Common sense dictates that if there's the potential to do something harmful (physical or otherwise) to you or someone else, most people wouldn't do it. If the guy is too stupid to have common sense, let Darwinism take him. His lawyer should be beaten for lacking the sense to punt the client and his lawsuit.