The first generation of iPod nano models may have been small and sleek, but they also apparently had an image problem -- mainly, that it rapidly grew difficult to see the screen after the nicks and scratches began to accumulate on the face of the player. As far back as 2005, users expressed their displeasure over the nano's likelihood for damage, including cracks in the screen in some cases.

Thanks to a now-settled class action lawsuit, nano owners who experienced the scratchies can apply for a refund of $15 (if the iPod shipped with a slip case, as later ones did) or $25 (for no-case shipments). You can get all the details from the settlement website. Refunds may take up to a year (!) to arrive.

[via AppleInsider]

In an oddly prescient lawsuit filed yesterday, a San Diego man claims that Apple and AT&T knowingly oversold the iPhone 3G, and overloaded the network, causing slow data throughput.

We may never know if this morning's outage was in any way related to the claims the man, William J. Gillis, makes in his filing. He is seeking class-action status for the suit. It follows a similar one filed in Alabama which questioned claims that 3G data speeds are twice as fast, as Apple advertised.

Gillis, a local "corporate entertainer" and "world renowned Master Magician" (according to his website), says the iPhone's packaging does not warn buyers that its performance may not meet customers' expectations. That SUV won't actually drive straight up a cliff face, you know.

Newsflash: Every mobile provider oversells the capacity of its network. Witness attending a convention or during a disaster: it's hard to make a call, because everything's jammed with people trying to make calls. It's the cornerstone of the mobile phone industry, and it's probably not going away because of this lawsuit.

Just add this one to the growing pile of work to do for Apple's corporate lawyers.

[Via AppleInsider]

A Birmingham, Alabama, woman has sued Apple, claiming its television advertisements about the iPhone 3G being twice as fast as its predecessor are false. She also claims her handset is defective.

The woman, Jessica Smith, is seeking class-action status for her suit.

According to The Birmingham News, Smith's iPhone connects most often to the slower, older EDGE network, and not the 3G network that the advertisements claim.

Apple has a policy of not commenting on pending litigation, but Apple is, as Macworld puts it, "repeatedly sued" over a variety of complaints.

[Via Macworld.]

ComputerWorld reports that Timothy Smith, an iPhone owner in California, plans to sue Apple for violating antitrust law. His claim rests on the fact that Apple forces consumers to use AT&T as their sole wireless carrier and that the 1.1.1 update bricked phones that were unlocked for other carriers. This sole agreement with AT&T is, according to his suit, anticompetitive, forcing customers to pay more for their phones and for the cell phone service than they would in a competitive market. The suit goes on to add that Apple knew that the probable result of the update would brick unlocked iPhones.

If you're feeling in a litigious mood or if you just want to rubberneck to see what the fuss is about, check out this website set up by the Law Offices of Van Smith and Fernandez. It's got some spiffy photos at the top with a guy on a phone (it's probably not an iPhone) and a couple of lawyers talking (probably neither Van Smith or Fernandez).

You know what they say: let the good times class action lawsuits roll! Or something like that. The latest in what I'm sure is to be a long list of iPhone-related class action lawsuits was filed in New York today over the iPhone's SIM card lock-in, as well as what the plaintiff alleges is Apple withholding of information on roaming data charges. The plaintiff, Herbert H. Kliegerman, wants the iPhone unlock code, and he also wants to restrain Apple from selling iPhones without disclosing both that the included SIM cards are locked to AT&T, and that users could incur roaming data charges when traveling internationally. We have a PDF of the lawsuit (sent to us directly by the plaintiff), but considering the facts that:

• Kliegerman's complaints seem to have much more to do with AT&T's practices than Apple's
• US SIM cards, to my knowledge, are always locked to their particular provider, meaning travelers have always had to purchase some kind of other phone service or an international SIM
• There's plenty of information available at AT&T's site about their international roaming practices, as well as extra plan options to provide for international calls and data usage

I don't think Kliegerman has much of a leg to stand on. Plus, he sent this to us himself, which reeks of digging for 15 seconds in the spotlight - but who am I to shoot down his hopes? Anyone, particularly those who travel and know more about US mobile phone company practices, care to place some bets as to how far he'll get with this?

Just when you think Apple's financial woes have begun to recede, Forbes.com alerts us to a slew of recently filed class action lawsuits that all have the big fruit in their sights. First up is yet another complaint alleging that Apple has created a monopoly by tying iTS purchases to the iPod and only the iPod. Even though suits like this have come and gone, the court has interestingly denied Apple's motion to dismiss.

Next in line is a suit over the MacBook's iBook G4's "abnormally high rate" of logic board failure. This suit was filed Nov. 7th, and Apple still has time to respond.

A third suit is coming from PhatRat Technology LLC, who is calling patent infringement on the Nike+iPod product. A response from Apple is still pending here as well.

Last (though possibly not least?) is a securities class action suit against the company and "certain current and former officers and directors" over all this backdated stock option grant business.

That's about everything Forbes has on the Apple lawsuit list for now. Think it's still worth it to wish Apple a happy new year?

Apple has agreed to a settlement in the Class Action Suit regarding allegedly defective inverter boards that caused problems with 17-inch Studio Displays. Although Apple won't admit any wrongdoing (as is usually the case in these kinds of settlements), it has agreed to settle the claim in order to avoid the exorbitant expense of a trial. The lawsuit claimed that "the inverter board of the Apple 17-inch LCD Studio Display was faulty, causing the gradient dimming of the top or bottom half of the screen of the Display and a power light to constantly blink on and off in a short-short-long pattern to signal a problem."

Under the terms of the agreement, Apple will provide cash refunds ranging from $75 - $400 to claimants who had their affected displays repaired. The amount refunded will depend on when the repair was performed and whether it was an Apple repair or a repair by a a third party. Only US residents are eligible for the settlement. Additional details, claim forms and a FAQ are available on the suit info site.

How many of you are covered by this settlement and plan to submit a claim?

AppleInsider has a story about a group of Mac users who have had enough of their faulty MacBooks, and they're not going to take it anymore. The group has set up a page at ClassAction.com and is looking for support to force Apple into a recall of the company's newest consumer notebook. AppleInsider also points to macbookrandomshutdown.com, a site dedicated to RSS (random shutdown syndrome) that already has over 1,250 reports of afflicted laptops.

This shouldn't be much of a surprise. There have been reports of random MacBook shutdowns for months, and Apple even copped to the problem last month, but there's not been much movement since then.

I didn't sign up at either of the petitioning sites, but I could have. I bought my fiancee a MacBook about a month after they were released and within a week it was shutting down at will. We were lucky, though. We made an appointment at Apple's main store in London and after the Genius witnessed two shutdowns in as many minutes, he said he'd give us a brand new MacBook. Things have been OK so far.

Are any of you still suffering with the same problem? How has Apple handled your complaints? Sound off in comments.

That's right, folks. Thomas Slattery is suing Apple because the iPod won't play music files from other online music stores, and because you have to use iTunes to sync your music to your iPod. A judge in California ruled that Apple must face some of Slattery's charges (though it did dismiss a few other claims including 'unjust enrichment with prejudice,' which doesn't sound good).

Now, I'm no lawyer, but I hope that this lawsuit doesn't have any legs because one of the biggest strengths of the iPod/iTunes combo is the level of integration between the two.

[via Paul Thurrot's Internet Nexus]