Apple (AAPL)

These federal and state court complaints allege that the Company’s iPod nano was defectively designed so that it scratches excessively during normal use which renders the screen unreadable. The Wimmer and Moschella actions were brought on behalf of purported nationwide classes of iPod nano purchasers, with the exception of California purchasers, and allege violations of the consumer protection, express and implied warranty statutes of each state covered by the putative class definition, as well as negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment under the common laws of these jurisdictions. The Calado action was brought on behalf of a purported California class of iPod nano purchasers and asserts claims for alleged violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breaches of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. The Jennings action was filed on behalf of a purported class of all iPod nano purchasers outside of the United States, based upon alleged violations of the same California statutes as in the Calado complaint. The Kahan action was brought on behalf of a purported New York class of iPod nano purchasers and alleges claims under the New York unfair competition law, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. The complaints seek damages and various other remedies. The Company’s responses to these complaints are not yet due.

Two similar complaints,

These federal and state court
complaints allege that the Company’s iPod nano was defectively designed so that
it scratches excessively during normal use which renders the screen unreadable.
The Wimmer and Moschella actions were brought on behalf of purported nationwide
classes of iPod nano purchasers, with the exception of California purchasers,
and allege violations of the consumer protection, express and implied warranty
statutes of each state covered by the putative class definition, as well as
negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment under the common laws of
these jurisdictions. The Calado action was brought on behalf of a purported
California class of iPod nano purchasers and asserts claims for alleged
violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 (unfair
competition), California Business & Professions Code §17500 (false
advertising), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breaches of express and implied
warranties, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment. The Jennings
action was filed on behalf of a purported class of all iPod nano purchasers
outside of the United States, based upon alleged violations of the same
California statutes as in the Calado complaint. The Kahan action was brought on
behalf of a purported New York class of iPod nano purchasers and alleges claims
under the New York unfair competition law, breach of express warranty and
unjust enrichment. The complaints seek damages and various other remedies. The
Company’s responses to these complaints are not yet due.

Two similar complaints,