I want to object, but I am not a lawyer and am not sure what to say. Also, if several hundred other members of the "Class" were to object, it might actually have some effect. Can anyone help me on this?
Oh great. My Motorola headset barely produces enough volume for me to hear anywhere except in very quiet spaces.
I’m not sure what litigation has been leveled at headphones, wired ear plugs or other such devices, but I doubt there have been any successful suits or they wouldn’t still exist.
We have people looking for another pay day constantly.
Every time you buy a device these days, there’s some nonsensical warning. I don’t even bother to read them.
I’m a grownup. I buy merchandise knowing what the risks are.
I’ve got a Motorola Bluetooth Earpiece-—what’s supposed to be the problem with it again? This suit sounds like a shakedown.
This is why people hate lawyers. They are not all bad, but some of them are bad. Class action lawsuits, all bad.
Bottom feeders these lawyers. I am here for your RIGHTS I will protect you and see you get what you deserve.( yada yada yada). crawl back in your holes scum.
Never mind hearing loss, they should be sued because they make people act and look stupid.
For what it is worth, I have 2 of the “offending” headsets, one for my phone, and one for my PC. This makes me a member of the class. I am not a lawyer.
If someone with some degree of legal acumen would be willing to post a reasonable boilerplate objection, I will join with others in sending it in.
I agree that this is a shakedown, and I object to attorneys earning $800,000.00 in my name, without any realistic or reasonable benefit to myself or my family, and without anyone actually having suffered any harm. The claim in this case is that the defendants didn’t properly warn people that sticking radio-operated, amplified speakers in their ears might cause hearing loss.
I further propose that all companies producing products of all kinds start putting something similar to the Surgeon General’s warning on every product of every kind. “This product might kill you or hurt you in ways we cannot imagine, particularly if you use it in ways we cannot imagine, but even if you don’t. Be warned that we did our best to make it safe, but can’t control what you do with it. Please read the owner’s manual and don’t do anything stupid. If you do, you are on your own. If you can’t use our product properly, please buy someone else’s. Good luck.”
Once this statement, or something similar, appears in large print on every single product sold everywhere, the product liability people should have less opportunity to do this sort of shakedown. This still leaves open the opportunity to recover real damages when there are real product flaws that really hurt people.
Let me guess, the same crap they hit Apple with over the ear buds being able to be played loud. Although in that case I do appreciate Apple’s response since I can now set the max volume for my kids’ iPods. But that’s a nice user feature, not something that should have to be there because of a lawsuit.
What’s this all about?
As a member of the hard-of-hearing class, I note that the addition of Bluetooth or streaming to the newer hearing aids has been joyously received by a lot of us old deaf types.
If this deters any advancements in this field, I pronounce a pox on these lawyers.
Have no idea if they are making the claim that the devices played at maximum volume will damage your ears or what. But this looks to me as one that ought to be thrown out by the court.
Personal injury law has become a criminal enterprise. It is a classic racket in which a victim is identified, threatened, and then offered “protection” in the form of a “settlement”, the primary benefit of which accrues to the racketeers.
This lawsuit is for all the people suffering from Borg envy.
What was that? Can you speak up? I can't hear you.