Apple reaches $22.5 million settlement for scratched iPod nanos
By Donald Melanson 
posted January 23rd 2009 6:20PM
posted January 23rd 2009 6:20PM
It's been a few years and a couple of different nano generations since the first lawsuits started flying, but it looks like those that found themselves with the scratch magnet known as the first-gen iPod nano may soon be able to get a bit of payback for their troubles, as Apple has reached a $22.5 million settlement following a class-action lawsuit. Under the settlement, Apple would pay out $25 to each person that bought a first-gen nano that didn't include a slip case, and $15 to those that bought one after Apple started including free slip cases, not to mention the usual attorney fees and other litigation expenses. All of that is still subject to a judge's approval at a court hearing on April 28th, however, and it could possibly be further delayed by appeals, but those looking to get in on the action (and willing to wait) can find all the necessary details at the link below.
[Via AppleInsider, thanks Mark]
[Via AppleInsider, thanks Mark]
Does this apply only for US residents?
No. I wouldn't want any money for my scratched iPod no matter what because the US legal system is rotten and utterly wrong.
You're desperate to get $25?
@stefan.
guess your price is higher than $25.
@stefan Money not claimed in the settlement is not returned to Apple. They're getting [fined | extorted | rightfully punished] either way. I guess the question is: do you think the lawyers that brought this lawsuit deserve it MORE than you? Most of these lawsuits name some charity or other third-party to receive unclaimed funds beyond a certain deadline, but some allow the law firm to distribute "as they see fit"
Pretty frivolous lawsuit but I bet a lot of 1st gen iPod owners are going to take advantage of the $25. After all, that is 10% of the way to a new Nano...
and 110% of what it's worth now...
This is so stupid. I can't believe people would actually sue apple because their product can get scratched... it's YOUR fault you didn't put it in a case.
Am I allowed to sue Sony for its claims that the PSP and PS3 would have original revolutionary games?
False advertising?
LBP, Patapon, LocoRoco.
Crash Commando, PixelJunk Monsters, PixelJunk Eden
Metal Gear Solid 4 & Gran Turismo 5.
Now prove to me those games are revolutionary. Anyone can just name off games and say they are revolutionary.
I hate Apple as much as the next Apple hater but this is just a bullshit lawsuit. I don't understand why it's Apples job to protect your device..... they never said it was scratch proof nor scratch resistant. I'm assuming the scratches didn't ruin the devices abilities.
@almo
GT5 isn't out and prologue doesn't count. But yea there are alot of great games Valkyria Chronicle FTW
Don't forget MOTORSTORM YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
Oh my goodness. Plastic scratches. When did this start happening?
Plastic do scratch, but my Nokia, Sony and other gadgets remain scratch free even though I don't use a case with them.
The iPod Nanos on the other hand picks up scratches just by holding it.
My glossy Zune 8 goes directly into my jeans, sans case.
I could sell it as new.
Correction, the Nano got scratches if you looked at it funny.
Plastic does not all scratch equally. The older iPod's screen, for example, is also plastic and it's pretty impervious. The plastic my digital camera is made out of does not scratch.
Apple is notorious for using some of the softest materials known to man on their iPods, including both the plastic and the metal. I had my iPod Classic for one day and the back was already all scratched up before I managed to buy a case. I've got other chrome stuff that takes far more abuse (my Fender Jazzmaster, for example) that doesn't have a scratch on it after years of use. At least not on the chrome.
The irony is that this generation Nano replaced what was easily the toughest iPod (and possibly the toughest mp3 player of any kind) on the market to that point, the iPod Mini. Though the new Nanos look like they're built basically the same way as the old Mini.
i'm suing bridgestone. the tires on my car keep wearing down.
im suing sony, my PS3 keeps getting fingerprints.
i should sue you for being dumb enough to buy a ps3
I'll sue ya if ya even look at me funny!
I'll sue you in England!!
bridgestone/firestone reference of the late 90's early 00's(right??) when all the firestone tires started blowing out on ford based SUV's
I'm suing the supermarkets, the food I eat disappear after I eat it.
I'm suing my mother. I keeps growing old.
Once again, the only ones that really win a class action law show are the lawyers. Apple pays millions, you only get $25, and the system gets bogged down. But hey, the lawyers got paid.
right, 'cause this won't have any lasting repercussions beyond the money at all.
fool.
how about the fact that apple now knows from first hand experience that they cannot get away with that kind of crap without punishment, and any other company that can take a lesson from this lawsuit.
oh, but you only care about the 25 bucks...
my thoughts exactly. And the "lawyer costs" part of this settlement, of course, only covers the plaintiff's lawyers. The total cost of the suit is more than $22.5M because Apple paid lawyers too.
Corporate entities don't care if they get sued every once in awhile. It's annoying, yes, but has no long term ramifications on design staff or CEO's. If anything, their pay just keeps going up. If you work for them and are making less than a living wage, then you're in trouble.
@oneMadRssn
Personally I don't think Apple was trying to get away with anything. I have a black 1st gen nano, and while it has a few scratches, it's seen a lot of use and looks nothing like the one in the photo. This is yet another case of a group of lawyers seeing an opportunity to go after a company with deep pockets to get themselves a payday. It's not like Apple got together and said, let's make an iPod that scratches easily so we can piss off our customers. They learned their lesson fairly quickly, because shortly after this happend they refreshed the Nano line with the Gen 2 Nano, and all subsequent iPods use a different type of plastic, and the iPhone and Touch are glass.
It's not like they make cars and found out the seatbelts fail and tried to cover it up or something. Have a sense of proportion.
@Craig: The 'plastic' thats used on 2nd gen nanos and beyond is called aluminum, just in case you were wondering...
@Craig: The 'plastic' thats used on 2nd gen nanos and beyond is called aluminum, just in case you were wondering...
SO, Apple invented transparent aluminum to cover the screen? I never saw that patent...
@craigJ No, Scotty invented transparent aluminum, so they could get the plexiglass for the tank to hold the whales.
I was hoping to read
Go in your local Apple store...
They Will exchange your first Gen iPod Nano for the current version
BOO !
I still use my 1st Gen Nano in my car, but I also bought 3m clear "shield" (forgot the brand) for it as I knew going in, that it scratched awfully easy.
That $25 will be more of a reimbursement for my clear shield purchase.
i have the same problem with my 5th gen iPod w/ video. do we get $25 too?
Indeed, they had the same finish, so it should be included.
As for all you naysayers, are you really trying to tell us that you think it's perfectly acceptable for a portable electronic device that costs $300-400 to collect hundreds of microscratches even from the very lightest of use? That hasn't been the case with the other iPod models; it was a design flaw in the 1g Nano/5g iPod, pure and simple.
The one pictured not only isn't very scratched, but it even appears to be one of the coated (not covered by this lawsuit) ones.
(It appears to have the little lip at the edge of the plastic that the coated ones have).
Wait, I'm sorry, they got sued for releasing a product that gets scratches? Did they even advertise it as a scratch resistant player? Might be BS if it scratches way easier than other products, but in the US, I would never have seen them losing this one unless they clearly stated it is supposed to be scratch resistant.
The point of the lawsuit is that this happens if you use it in the manner in which Steve Jobs himself demonstrated, ie. keeping it unprotected in your pants pocket. There were pictures like the one above showing up after *one day* of use like this.
There are certainly laws on the books in most states that require products to be warranted for any physical damage they might incur during normal and expected use within the warranty period. You couldn't, for example, sell a car whose paint chips and peels off after only 2,000 miles. That's considered a defect in workmanship.
ah. Well, thanks for clearing it up :)
I think it's funny that your big Mario becomes a little Mario after that.
Can someone summarize why someone can sue a company because they put out products that can get scratched? What is the basis of the lawsuit? Lots of things I buy get scratched -- I either assume the responsibility, don't care, or don't buy the products again. I see no reason why I would have the right to sue the company. Am I missing something? A link to the lawsuit filing would be handy too...
just shut up fanboy
What's next? People suing because Apple didn't pre-install Windows on their hardware?
This is so stupid - I mean, okay, maybe they had some liability for not making it slightly better, but who the hell cares about $25? The only person who won in this was the lawyer who "fought for the customer" against apple and their scratchable products.