By Ina Fried, 3 February 2006 09:25
NEWS
A Louisiana man has filed a class action suit against Apple, saying the computer maker has failed to take adequate steps to prevent hearing loss among iPod users.
The suit, filed on Tuesday in US District Court in San Jose, California, alleges the iPod music player can produce sounds of up to 115 decibels even though some studies suggest listening to music at that level for 28 seconds per day can cause damage over time. The suit, filed on behalf of John Kiel Patterson and all other iPod buyers, seeks monetary damages to compensate for the hearing loss suffered by iPod users, as well as a share of Apple's iPod profits.
The suit also seeks to force Apple to offer a software upgrade to limit the iPod's output to 100 decibels as well as provide headphones designed to block out external noise.
The suit states: "Millions of consumers have had their hearing put at risk by Apple's conduct."
An Apple representative declined to comment. The company has faced other suits over the iPod, including one over complaints that the devices scratch too easily. Apple reached a settlement in another case, related to the battery life of early iPods.
The latest court action follows several news articles quoting hearing experts who warn that prolonged digital music player use at high volumes may put people at risk of hearing loss.
Apple does caution customers in its iPod user manual, with a section labelled "Avoid Hearing Damage".
Apple states in the manual: "Warning: Permanent hearing loss may occur if earphones or headphones are used at high volume. You can adapt over time to a higher volume of sound, which may sound normal but can be damaging to your hearing. Set your iPod's volume to a safe level before that happens."
The suit charges that the warning from Apple is inadequate because it fails to advise people what constitutes a "high volume" or a "safe level".
Apple was forced to limit the output of iPods to 100 decibels in France, although the suit claims Apple has not done so in the US and even that level is "still not safe".
Patterson's suit cites National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health data that sets a safe exposure limit for noise of 85 decibels for eight hours per day. For each five-decibel increase, the safe exposure time drops by half, the suit says.
The suit was brought by lawyers at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, one of two companies that filed the iPod scratching suit.
Ina Fried writes for CNET News.com
Comments
There are 19 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
This is nuts. What about the effect of the Walkman craze of a bygone age? Come on let’s face it, anybody who spends much of the day with earphones delivering high decibel music into there lugs has by definition little else between those ears.
Similarly, those who walk around the streets or ride bikes under such conditions are in line for the annual Darwin Award (awarded to the person who dies doing the stupidest thing). Streets are dangerous places and to deliberately deprive oneself of an essential survival sense is witless.
Much the same goes for those who spend much time in high decibel clubland.
2. anonymous
another example of unbridled greed and abuse of the system. these people are what's wrong with america. selfishly trying to cash in on laws requiring companies to warn consumers not to do obviously stupid things...this is the lowest form of abusing the system. if you've lost hearing, (even though it was your own fault) why not push for a solution to hearing loss? no, you just want the cash. you people make me sick.
3. Catherine W
Completely barking! No-one is forcing these people to buy iPods and spend long periods of time with them plugged into their ears turned up high - it's all purely voluntary.
4. David Morris
It could only happen in America. The rest of the world seems smart enough to turn the volume down.
5. Alex
Great news!! Does this mean that I can, in turn, sue these iPod morons for sharing their maximum volume music with me on the train every morning??
6. Mike
I welcome this suit! All these devices should be limited to 85db! This will also reduce the annoyance to other people in the vicinity.
Whilst the natural selection argument is appealing, hearing loss is too gradual to have effect before the morons can reproduce.
7. John Dixon
Just how idiotically litigious is this? When are Americans like Mr Patterson going to learn about personal responsibility?
A few other things he might not have seen signs for, which he might consider bringing suits for:
1) Repeatedly crossing the street in heavy traffic may result in an increased risk of being hit. Why hasn't the government warned us about this with a sign on every street corner?
2) Repeatedly hitting your head against a wall will eventually lead to bruising, and possibly brain damage. Never seen a wall that carries that warning - let's file a class action against all builders.
3) Never seen a sign on any six inch nail warning that driving it through your foot will result in a loss of mobility. Shocking lack of corporate responsibility - probably both the nail manufacturer and the hardware store need a law suit slapped on them.
Possibly he just needs to learn that when something starts hurting, that's nature's way of telling you to stop. Whether that's staring directly at the sun for ten minutes (forgot that - see you in court, God, for not mentioning that one in the Bible) or turning up the volume too high.
8. anonymous
These sorts of lawsuits are ill conceived and just make life boring for the rest of us.
Anybody whose bought a PSP knows that if plug the headphones in for that immersive gameplay experience you have to turn the thing up to full volume before you even know it's on. The things are limited just to avoid this sort of action. Surely the main issue here is shouldn't people realise that an hour of really loud music is enough and that well, if it hurts you should just stop doing it !!
9. Peter Trinder
I was going to say 'This is Nuts' but others beat me to it. It surely is obvious to normal educated humans that high noise levels can damage your hearing hence the use of ear protectors for working with noisy machinery. If you choose to balst your ear drums you cannot then blame Apple. I am sure the litigant will discover he is wasting his money on Lawyers.
10. anonymous
Why dont these people get a life?
11. anonymous
Until the judiciary get their act together and laugh these people out of their courts...its not going to stop is it?
12. Guy Reynolds
Oh please. This is the nanny state imposed by lawyers for idiots who blame everyone but themselves, and expect to be paid compensation for their own stupidity.
What next a law suit against Apple because peoples human rights have been infringed because they can't turn the volume UP! on their IPod.
13. Richard Turner
Utter madness. It saddens me that there are people in the world stupid enought to need common sense instructions. Oh look, they're Americans. Thank God that American has such a low passport owning percentage.
Let me see, I must sue the manufacturers of toothpicks for not telling me that sticking one in my eye would cause blindness.
We complain here that the Nanny State is restricting our freedoms, and then someone shows us why it exists. If we are required to actually use common sense, some idiot will make a law suit out of it.
Arrrggghhhhhh
14. Dubious Squirrel
Man sues car manufacturers for not doing enough to restrict the speed of vehicles, after he receives a speeding ticket?
Secretary’s united sue paper manufacturers for not doing enough to prevent paper cuts?
Small monkey sues tree for being to difficult to climb?!
Its coming, its only a matter of time now..
America!™
15. anonymous
I suffer from hearing loss - genetic, not self-induced - so I am more or less obliged to listen to music, the radio and the TV via headphones. And I need a fairly high volume in order to pick up any high frequencies at all.
So these clowns would effectively be limiting my options to enjoy audio entertainment if they were to succeed in capping headphone output levels.
Pursuit of happiness? Civil liberties? Class action of my own?
Probably not - life is just too short...
16. Graham Coles
I think Apple should counter-sue on the grounds that these people having nothing between their ears that could possibly sustain damage.
Being capable of producing 115 decibels doesn't mean that this is the only setting available.
Perhaps he should have read the manual where I believe it warns about this, but clearly he didn't as it also provides clear instructions on how to turn the volume down ...
17. anonymous
Go for it Alex - let's sue the iPod using morons as well. I want some PEACE AND QUIET on the train - did you hear me ? No ??? then you must be DEAF ALREADY !
18. Joseph Marshall
It is rediculous lawsuits like this that spoil it for everyone! I have listened to many equally strong, if not stronger signals using the standard headphone jack on many different Stereo Recievers over the past 20 years with absolutely no loss in my hearing.
It seems clear to me that this class action lawsuit is a malicious attack on Apple for which motive I am unaware, but it is clearly not an altruistic one.
19. Someone with Common Sense
Let us start from the beginning. Sue your mother for having given birth to you and not warning of the potential dangers of the world. Also the mother can sue the father for sleeping with her and not warning her of the kind of offspring that could be expected. And finally file a lawsuit against yourself for not reading the instructions and causing permanent damage to your own ears. Actually maybe its a criminal offence case already of GBH on yourself. WOW!!