|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 4640 | Technology | 04/04/2006
Louisiana resident John Kiel Patterson filed a lawsuit that claims Apple's iPod can cause hearing loss. The suit, submitted to a San Jose, Calif. federal court seeks class-action status, compensation for hearing loss suffered by iPod users, and demands that Apple Computer update the iPod software so the portable music players can't blast tunes at more than 100 decibels.
"Millions of consumers have had their hearing put at risk by Apple’s conduct,” states the lawsuit. Apple has an entry in the iPod manual regarding the earbud's link to hearing damage, and instructions on how to minimize the risk of such damage, the warning in the manual suggests to keep volume at a “safe level,” however, the suit claims this is unsatisfactory as it does not advice listeners as to what a safe level should be. Many experts say that the use of earbud-style headphone like those bundled with iPods can lead to hearing loss. Patterson's suit charges Apple with not advising users of a safe listening volume, nor including a meter on the devices to monitor decibel levels. "The ear buds are small and are placed in the listener's ear canal, close to the cochlea,'' the lawsuit reads. "The close proximity to the ear canal directly impacts the amount of hearing loss caused by the MPs [music players], simply because there is less chance of dilution of the sound.'' Studies show that listening to music at 115 db for more than 30 seconds a day can cause permenant hearing damage to even the healthiest of listeners, Apple’s iPod provides no preventation for such use of the player. At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints. Other Technology Cases of Interest Several class actions have been filed against the officers and directors of biotechnology company Organogenesis, Inc. (formerly AMEX: ORG) by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between November 15, 1999, and January 30, 2002. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. A class action has been filed in California against internet service giant, AOL Time Warner, Inc. and its customer service company, ICT Group, Inc. The action is brought on behalf of all California residents who have had an unauthorized "spin-off" account opened in their name and as a result have been double billed without consent by AOL. The action is brought under California consumer protection, contract and collections law. The action seeks compensatory, statutory and punitive damages, disgorgement of profits and recovery of funds as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. Stockholders who are hurt by corporate misrepresentations have the right to have their day in court. A class action has been filed against communications company Alamosa Holdings Inc. (OTC:ALMO, formerly Nasdaq: APCS; NYSE: APS) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between January 9, 2001, and June 13, 2002. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. A class-action lawsuit was recently filed against Yahoo! Inc. accusing the company of engaging in "syndication fraud" against advertisers who pay Yahoo to display their ads on search results and on the Web pages of partner Web sites. The suit claims that Yahoo displayed these advertisers' online ads via spyware and adware products and on so-called "typosquatter" Web sites that capitalize on misspellings of popular trademarks or company names. If you were trying to call AT&T and accidentally reached Sprint, it might not have been a coincidence, according to a class action suit in New York state courts. Sprint and ASC Telecom admit to maintaining numerous toll-free numbers that differ by only one digit from the numbers of competing long-distance providers. The numbers generate so-called "fat fingers" business, which results from the competitors' customers' unknowingly using the wrong long distance provider. A caller attempting to dial long distance through AT&T's 1-800-CALL-ATT number, for example, might errantly dial a number such as 1-800-CELL-ATT. The companies then charge their accidental callers rates vastly greater than what the callers' intended providers charge. A customer initiated a suit alleging that the companies' actions constitute common-law fraud and violate New York's General Business Law prohibition on deceptive acts. Last week, the New York state Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court's certification of a New York state class, though it declined to reverse the court's dismissal of a national class. Several class actions have been filed against computer technology giant Hewlett-Packard Company (NYSE:HPQ) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who sold the company's common stock between September 4 and November 5, 2001. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose Director Walter Hewlett's opposition to the 2001 merger with Compaq Computer Corporation, thereby artificially deflating the price of the company's securities. |
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
