John Patterson of Louisana has filed a lawsuit against iPod maker Apple, claiming that the popular portable music players are "inherently defective in design and are not sufficiently adorned with adequate warnings regarding the likelihood of hearing loss." Patterson is asking for cash in unspecified quantity, and iPod upgrades designed to protect users from accidental hearing loss. Although Patterson himself does not claim to have actually suffered hearing loss, the complaint filed with the U.S. District Court in San Jose claims that the capacity of the device to exceed 115 decibels presents a legitimate risk. Patterson has not issued any public statement, but his attorney Steve Berman explained Patterson's reasons for pursuing the case:


Apple already includes a cautionary notice with the documentation of every iPod, which warns that "permanent hearing loss may occur if earphones or headphones are used at high volume." Patterson considers this warning inadequate, and wants something to be done about it. It is unlikely Apple will readily compromise the glossy iPod aesthetic by adorning the music player with permanent warning messages, but fears of legal liability in an overly litigious society may force the issue. This isn't the first time that iPod-related hearing loss concerns have afflicted the company. Stringent foreign regulations forced Apple to impose a 100 decibel limitation on all the units sold in France. That kind of restriction is not enough for Patterson, who also claims in his legal complaint that the ubiquitous white ear buds shipped with the music player increase the risk of hearing loss because of their proximity to the ear canal.

Audiologists have been concerned about portable music player induced hearing loss for quite some time now. Apparently, the iPod does not pose a greater threat than any other portable music player, and responsible listening makes the risks entirely controllable. An article from Times Online last month includes some relevant quotations from audiologist Angela King, who explains hearing loss:


According to the article, audiologists recommend reducing volume and limiting listening time to approximately an hour a day. Manufacturers recommend taking frequent listening breaks in order to give the ears a chance to rest. The article also includes some interesting statistics from the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, which state that 39 percent of listeners between 18 and 24 years of age do not use safe listening habits.

The risk of hearing loss is clearly real, and some listeners are clearly not taking steps to reduce exposure to detrimental noise. Patterson may have suffered hearing loss from listening to his iPod too loudly, but is a lawsuit really the best solution, and should Apple really be held responsible for the choices made by its users? Lawsuits have a way of drowning out personal responsibility and common sense with the siren song of easy settlement money. One could argue that companies like Apple have a societal responsibility to limit damage that could potentially be caused by their products, but one could also argue that imposing unnecessary limitations reduces the personal freedom of consumers that use products responsibly as well as consumers that are willing to take the risks. If an iPod owner wants to crank up the volume for just a few minutes to enjoy their favorite song, should Apple be required to prevent them from doing so?

Patterson's claim that the iPod is inherently defective also calls for closer scrutiny. When used incorrectly, many electronic devices pose risk of injury. Widely available medical literature as well as documentation distributed with the device by Apple clearly present the risks of detrimental listening habits, and the user is able to control the volume and use the device in a way that does not negatively affect hearing. Should vehicles be considered defective because they can facilitate unsafe driving? Should file browsing software be considered defective because it enables users to accidentally delete files? Obviously there is a gradient. A file manager incapable of providing optional warnings is certainly deficient if not defective, and the same is true of a vehicle that lacks a speedometer.

There are also some broader implications here that impact consumers. This kind of litigation costs companies a lot of money, and a company that has to pay out a hefty settlement may be forced to increase the price of their goods in order to make an adequate profit. Worse than that, companies may decide to invest less of their resources in developing innovative new products in order to avoid the risk of litigation in the future, a fear that has been voiced in the wake of the MGM v. Grokster decision. Although civil law provides consumers with a valuable way to protect themselves from exploitation, detrimental litigation can impede progress and make goods less affordable for consumers. Since Patterson has not actually suffered hearing loss, it might be better for him to consider collaborating with Apple to increase awareness of the problem and find a mutually beneficial solution, even if it doesn't involve someone paying someone else a large sum of money.