Slashdot Mirror


Apple Sued Over Potential Hearing Loss

freaktheclown writes "A man is suing Apple, claiming that the iPod can cause hearing loss for those who use it." From the article: "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, Calif., 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."

14 of 754 comments (clear)

  1. Stop by MountainMan101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The world has enough proof that there is no intelligent life in the US.

  2. It was his choice. by Bomarrow1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well too me this seems rather unfair on Apple.
    In short he had the volume control and it was in his power to change it to the correct level for him.

    It sounds all too like the person who burgled and empty house and fell though the rotten floor boards. Then he sued.

    He shouldn't have had the volume high enough to damage his hearing anyway.

    It seems like saying I should sue /. for keeping me a wake all night to try and get first posts.

    I'm sure if he wins many more will follow though.Could this be the demise of Apple?

    1. Re:It was his choice. by catwh0re · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Not so much a case for Apple, the iPod follows the guidelines for maximum volume output. For example, when it was discovered that the iPod didn't qualify for the European specification (it was off a few db) Apple released a patch for the iPod to lower it's maximum volume output.

      Cases like these aren't generally successful as there is a lot of precedent, this same case has been tried against Sony for their walkman product.

      The conclusion at the end of the day is that it's a difficult case to prove that the iPod caused your hearing loss, and not any of the other environmental factors in your every day life.. afterall there are many iPod owners without hearing loss.

  3. ignorant by dbucowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This just shows how ignorant people can be... it's like suing the maker of a handgun because you were careless with it. Take responsibility for your actions people... if you listen to your iPod too loud then deal with the consequences of your stupidity.

    --
    This just in! 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population.
  4. No personal accountability anymore. by grub · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Good idea!

    I'll start suing the manufacturers of the various amplifiers, receivers, and speakers I've had over the past ~25 years of brutalizing my ears. And I'll name all the bands, especially Motorhead, who have given me pleasure in a separate suit!

    My hearing probably isn't what it should be but the last thing I'd consider doing is suing the product makers.

    written as the sweet sounds of Slayer fill my office... :)

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  5. Shenanigans by The+Only+Druid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are at least a few problems here (all of which have been discussed over the months since the first of these ridiculous complaints):

    First, I've seen ZERO evidence that this has anything to with the iPod per se as opposed to just the nature of in-ear earphones.

    Second, you only incur damage if you play the sound too loud. We've been quite saturated with information on that sort of effect for decades (Townshend?). If you cant figure out that it doesn't matter where the sound is coming from, just how loud it is, then screw you.

    There's more, but this alone is enough to dismiss this crap...

    --
    "Stumble before you crawl"
  6. Sure that sounds good and all, but... by Mille+Mots · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This just shows how ignorant people can be... it's like suing the maker of a handgun because you were careless with it. Take responsibility for your actions people... if you listen to your iPod too loud then deal with the consequences of your stupidity.

    I can only assume that you haven't paid attention to the goings-on in the US for the last, oh, two point five decades or so. There is no need to assume responsibility for your actions, as long as you can find a lawyer (you can't swing a dead cat without hitting one) to plead your case. The goal isn't to win a trial, but to win a settlement. Cash in, as it were. There's a whole industry built around these nuisance suits. The worst part is that the ones that do go to a jury trial are likely to be succesful anyway as the jurors apparently sit there thinking, 'Well, if we give this guy a big award, when it's our turn...' Entitlement mentality.

    On top of that, you get the 'junk science' lawsuits. Dow Corning and the silicone breast implant bankruptcy is a prime example. There never was and is not any scientific evidence that silicone breast implants lead to any of the medical conditions (real or imagined) that were the cause of those lawsuits. I believe there are still silicone implants available, too (although DC is no longer maufacturing them).

    Some times I think I went to bed last night in one timeline. A timeline where normal, common sense prevails. Yet, somehow I've woken up in another timeline. One where everything is slightly off kilter. Not enough to be grossly disorienting, but just enough to be maddeningly noticeable.

    --
    Sig sour

  7. Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Right, so now explain why he's singling out Apple instead of suing everybody who makes earbud-style headphones.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  8. Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... by QuantaStarFire · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem with that is that earbuds have been around for years, probably a decade or more now, so there's been plenty of time to document such side-effects and make people aware of them, or pull such headphones off the market.

    I don't get why people use those things anyways. They always hurt my ears (and I have friends bitch about that all the time as well), so I tend to use larger headphones that just cover my ears entirely. They do pretty much the same thing, and they're not a PITA to wear (though maybe a PITA to carry around; then again, I wear them most of the time. Like right now, for instance.)

  9. Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... by HairyCanary · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There are many other targets, then, besides Apple. And there are better targets, too, by your reasoning -- take for example Etymotic, with their earphones that absolutely seal into your ear canal, blocking out almost all outside noise, and putting themselves very close indeed to your eardrum.

    Except those are no more likely than earbuds to damage your hearing. In order to cause damage, the volume has to be high enough to hurt. You ever hear something at 110+ decibels? Holy shiat, you deserve what you get if you cannot respond properly to pain stimuli.

    And while I'm ranting... what about concerts? I went to an Aerosmith concert a few years ago, and the sound was so loud it was distorting in my ear. I mean... LOUD. Shouldn't we be suing them too? Especially since we can't turn down the volume in that situation.

    Oh wait... personal responsibility. Almost forgot it existed. As it seems the person who brought the suit did as well. Either that or he's just looking for money. That might explain going after Apple instead of smaller fish. No, it can't be, he's definitely looking out for all of our best interests...

  10. Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... by SchrodingersRoot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just for the record, sounds don't have to be loud enough to hurt in order to cause hearing loss. Sounds ~85dB (around the level of a busy street or a factory) or higher are enough to cause permanent damage to hearing. Now, obviously, exposure time necessary for significant damage are inversely proportionate to the volume of the noise.

    And I totally agree that Mr. Patterson is a fruitloop. There's a volume control for a reason. And if I want to ruin my hearing, or say, I don't know, use an iPod for something other than earbuds, like, maybe unpowered speakers, or multiple set of headphones, that's my right! I might need the power that the iPod can put out. Just 'cause some people lose their hearing 'cause they're dumb or not careful enough to protect themselves by turning the volume down a bit, doesn't mean everyone else should suffer. Think of it as evolution in action.

  11. Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Because you can only sue people that actually did damage.

    FTFA:
    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.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  12. Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's not how courts work.

    You can get a bunch of scientists together and claim it's impossible.

    I can get a bunch of "victims" together who claim that they lost 75% of their hearing from listening at REALLY low levels. They'll cry. They'll force the lawyers to yell the questions. They'll spend the court's time fiddling with hearing aids. They'll talk about how they lost their jobs and how their babies were run over by a bus because they couldn't hear the bus until it was too late. It'll be really tragic. And there's no way to prove they can still hear just as well as before.

    The jury can decide either way: for the huge super-rich corporation or for the tragic half-deafened victims.

    During the trial, some ridiculous "public interest group" will send out a press release warning people of the hearing loss, even at REALLY low levels. It'll be in every newspaper and on every TV newscast. Slashdot will post it 4 times in 3 days.

    Apple will settle the case for $10 per iPod. Lawyers will get $9.02 of it and Apple will give iPod owners 98 cents off their next iTMS music purchase.

    They'll artificially limit the sound level on future iPods and put a warning label on them. They'll raise the price $20.

    The lawyers will buy new houses and fast cars. Then they'll start looking for their next big score. (Maybe Apple will have a hit against earnings because of the case. Did they warn the shareholders sufficiently? I smell a shareholder lawsuit.)

  13. Re:Playing Devil's Advocate... by John+Whitley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Etymotic, with their earphones that absolutely seal into your ear canal, blocking out almost all outside noise, and putting themselves very close indeed to your eardrum.

    I've been using a pair of Etymotic ER-4S headphones for about five years now. In practice, I find Ety's are far safer than normal earbuds for just the reason you cite. Since the outer part of the earbud is essentially an earplug with excellent noise blocking, the headphone doesn't have to compete volume-wise with ambient noise. You get the same clarity of sound with a lower volume level due to this.

    It's also worth noting that due to the Ety's proximity to the eardrum, they don't need to be very loud at all. Their drivers run intentionally quiet for this reason. For comparison, with conventional headphones or earbuds if I set them at a comfortable listening level then set them down on the desk, I find that I can still hear the sound to some extent. With Ety's, I can't even tell whether they're on unless the volume is particularly loud or it's *very* quiet in the room.

    Of course, it's critical with any headphone, Ety's or otherwise, to train yourself to moderate playback volume for extended listening.