RSSUK family: Apple offered 'exploding iPod' hush money in exchange for refund
By Tim Conneally | Published August 3, 2009, 4:21 PM
Apple's iPod Touch is the latest device to succumb to a lithium-ion battery explosion, but as the Times of London first reported this morning, Apple reportedly wanted to keep the issue a secret.
When Ken Stanborough of the UK dropped his daughter's iPod Touch last month, the device began hissing, burning, and then eventually exploded in "a big puff of smoke, and it went 10 feet in the air." Stansborough said he went to Apple for a refund, and was only promised a refund if he would sign a paper stating he would "agree that you will keep the terms and existence of this settlement agreement completely confidential."
Any breach of the contract would have "result[ed] in Apple seeking injunctive relief, damages and legal costs against the defaulting persons or parties."
Instead of signing the agreement, Stanborough went to the press.
"They're putting a life sentence on myself, my daughter and Ellie's mum, not to say anything to anyone," the Liverpool resident told the Times. "If we inadvertently did say anything, no matter what, they would take litigation against us. I thought that was absolutely appalling."
Lithium-ion batteries are well-known for frequently overheating, bursting into flames, and sometimes even explode. Companies such as Sony, Dell, HP, Research in Motion, and tons of others have all had to conduct recalls in some form over dangerous Li-Ion Batteries.
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission has tried to make it irrefutably clear that the increased power of Li-Ion batteries comes at a price, issuing repeated warnings that they are more susceptible to damage from stress. A voluntary standards document issued by the Commission says, "High energy chemistry batteries include lithium ion and lithium metal polymer that are thinner, smaller, and lighter weight and contain more energy than traditional rechargeable batteries. While conventional battery chemistries, such as lead acid, pose fire and explosion hazards that must be considered, the combination of high energy packed into a small volume and a volatile chemistry requires special safeguards to minimize potential hazards. Batteries with larger capacities often need more safety circuits and additional care when using and handling, with or without the equipment; and batteries must be properly tested with the product and charger as a system."
In 2005, the CPSC issued a joint statement with CTIA about Li-Ion batteries, saying "Li-Ion batteries are more sensitive to physical stress than alkaline batteries...and need to be treated with more care."
Indeed, there is plenty of videographic evidence of the volatility of Li-Ion batteries, but the limits of a device's durability varies from object to object.
There is not yet proof that simply dropping any iPod Touch will result in a grenade-like reaction.
Nah, something smells a bit fishy about this story. I'm not saying the batteries don't go bust in this way. But is it any co-incidence that the father's some sort of electronics expert and he was worried that signing the agreement would've signed his life away? Over-dramatic or what methinks - nah, something ain't right.
Score: 0
|It is just what you would expect to happen nothing more.
Actuarially, the cost of quietly paying off one person with a massive amount of money (not the case here though it seems) and not let all your customers know you have a potentially dangerous\faulty product makes perfect sense.
Even if the ipod had exploded killing or maming the guy Apple would do the same, paying off the family with a massive amount of cash and make them sign a nda to ensure they didn't blab.
One payout versus a re-call of products and all the associated bad-press is an easy choice to make after all.
Score: 0
|Just to be picky, but the newspaper is called The Times, there is no "of London" anywhere in the title.
Score: 5
|Yes, but there *is* a New York Times which is commonly referred to as "the Times"..perhaps he was just being specific?
Score: -3
|i've heard it called 'london times' before? hmm
Score: -1
|i guess someone forgot to do some r&d :)
Score: -2
|Are we sure the iTouch in question wasn't hacked at Defcon last weekend?
Score: -2
|It was a special unit made specifically for the soldiers in iRaq. :p
Score: -1
|This is BS Tim.
The family was forced to sign an NDA regarding the settlement. They were not told they couldn't talk about their exploring iPod.
NDA's regarding settlements in cases like this are 100% normal.
There is no story here...
Score: -3
|Damn time-out edit button....
They chose not to sign the NDA (stating that cannot speak about the terms or conditions of the settlement) and they don't get their refund....
Boo-hoo.
As I said, it's standard practice for *any* company...especially one as in the public eye as Apple.
(Note: "exploring" should have been "exploding" in the post above)
Score: -1
|What is the color of the sky in your world? NDA's are signed for settlements in lawsuits, not for warrenty claims. Working in IT I send stuff back for warrenty claims weekly and never once has a manufacturer demanded I sign a NDA.
Score: 0
|*laughing*
So you are certain it was *just* a refund? ....and the settlement didn't include anything protecting Apple from further action and perhaps a bit extra?
Funny...I could have *sworn* the information regarding the terms had not been released. Got a link?
Score: 0
|The anti-apple media at it again...settlements for anything by a company are extremely rarely given without a confidentiality clause. That is standard practice. A total non-issue.
Score: -5
|Yeah, dolt...all those positive Safari reviews are *so* Anti-Apple.
Get a clue.
Or better yet, since you hate the "news" on here so much....go elsewhere. :) We really won't mind.
Score: 0
|I support the latter, fully.
I should only hope that the personal electronics of the future don't go grenade when people drop them.
Score: 0
|Funny how PC_Tool trolls down here, yet says the same thing as me in posts above this. is it multi-polar disorder or are there really multiple people posting under that username, like the editors of this site?
Score: 1
|is that all that Safari stuff that installed its self though itunes when no one was looking and then it was all messed up and left tunes of computers exploitable not that they where not running windows to start with but thats besides the point
Score: 4
|i would think that you ment bi-polar maybe
Score: 0
|@fatty:
You said: This site is Anti-Apple!!! OMFGBBQLMFAOCOPTER!!!
Above I posted something actually relevant to the *article*.
How is this the same as what you posted? Or did you just imagine making a relevant and rational post?
Score: -3
|"You said: This site is Anti-Apple!!! OMFGBBQLMFAOCOPTER!!!"
I said no such thing.
I said:
"The anti-apple media at it again...settlements for anything by a company are extremely rarely given without a confidentiality clause. That is standard practice. A total non-issue."
I know you do have reading comprehension issues, now don't you?
Score: 1
|Sorry.
When you say things like: "The anti-apple media at it again" in every Apple thread, I stop reading as it begins to translate to:
"Betanews is Anti-Apple!!...troll...troll...troll"
Ya know; your typical response in *any* thread that even mentions Apple in anything but the most glowing and fawning terms. :)
Score: -1
|apology accepted.
Score: 0
|You're right he is rather annoying... rather that username is rather annoying...
I hardly ever comment because all it does is bash everyone, it's hard to have an opinion around 'Mr/Miss Gestapo' lurking around here.
Score: 1
|If you're going to post your opinion publicly, people are well within their rights to rip it to shreds if it is not a well thought-out, or even remotely rational one. :)
Welcome to teh intarwebz.
Score: 0
|