Why Apple needs to get sued for screen image retention

[roadkill401]

Anyone who went out and bought the new Retna 5K iMac in 2014, 2015 and likely later models needs to sue Apple for gross negligence in the design of that model. We are stuck with a defective product that is prone to screen image retention and Apple should be forced to pay us back.

WHY? This is a design flaw and not the BS that Apple is pushing. This is not an image that is caused by the screen, but something else in the design or way that Apple implemented the graphics screen management.

Try it out: There are some things that just do not make any sense.


1. Give yourself a second vitual desktop and change the background colour of it to a medium gray. That way you can easily see any retained image.

2. On either the main or vitual desktop screen, load up Safari and have it display a mostly white with some black or dark coloured areas.

3. Hit the Shift Control Eject keys to turn off the screen. Go away for 3-4 hours. When you turn the screen back on, you will have image retention of the Safari window even though the screen was turned off and displaying nothing.

WHY??


4. Go to the main screen and assign a black and white checkerboard background.

5. Close all open application so no program is on the screen. Leave the screen turned on for 3-4 hours. Then change the backgound back to medium gray. The only things that will have burn in are any of the desktop icons and the menu bar / doc. The background image doesn't leave image retention. Nor does the mouse icon.

WHY??


Those two items disprove that it is caused by what is displayed on the screen or a fault by the LG display as a display that is turned off should not get any image retention. Rather it is likely that the graphics display card is at fault. But Apple designed their own chip parts and made a hybrid ATI display card for the iMac. I think it is that display card that is a bad player and is causing the trouble inside the iMac. If an App window will cause retention but a background image doesn't clearly shows it has to be something other than the actual screen at play.

 

[MacDawg]

Go for it and prove it in court
That's your right, but you gotta make the case and make it stick

 

[dcpmark]

Here you go.....go for it!

DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS
Proven Results in Class Action Defective Products Litigation
When a product fails or causes injury due to a bad design or manufacturing flaw, the manufacturer is liable. Manufacturers have a duty to stand behind their products, to design and test them to industry standards, and to warn end users of potential dangers. In many cases, large numbers of consumers experience similar losses or injuries because of a uniform defect.

Our experienced trial lawyers have won claims on the basis of design defects, manufacturing defects, failure to warn and breach of warranty.

Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP (PSW) has had notable success in class action lawsuits for defective products liability. We welcome inquiries from consumers about pending class actions or possible new cases involving defective products. If you believe you have a case or may qualify for participation in a pending class action, call us toll-free at (877) 391-8300 or send an email.

Examples of Our Defective Product Cases:

• Automobile Defects: PSW attorneys brought a class action lawsuit against Volkswagen alleging that the service manual incorrectly stated the inspection and replacement intervals for timing belts on Audi and Volkswagen branded vehicles equipped with a 1.8 liter turbo-charged engine. The case resulted in a nationwide class settlement in which class members were offered 100 cents on the dollar.
• High Technology Products: PSW attorneys have served as co-lead counsel in state and nationwide class actions against such companies as Apple and Acer involving defective computers and iPod nanos. These cases have all resulted in favorable settlements.
• Household Goods: PSW attorneys served as class counsel in a lawsuit arising from the sale of nine million defective fire sprinkler heads that led to huge failures during actual fires. The case resulted in a nationwide class settlement valued at approximately $37.5 million.
• Defective Drugs: With plaintiffs nationwide, defective drug cases are typically combined into a class action in one jurisdiction. PSW has done significant work internally and with other law firms to certify these cases as class actions and pursue compensation on behalf of injured plaintiffs

https://www.pswlaw.com

 

[mmomega]

Fortunate that I haven't noticed this over the last 4 years. I have a couple 27" 5Ks.

 

[redheeler]

I get your frustration, and had to deal with this issue myself on my Late 2014 model. Sometime afterward Apple put up a support document suggesting a screensaver as a fix for a hardware issue that is visible during normal use, which is laughable. it saddens me to see their attitude and training regarding this specific issue is now worse than it was based on my experience with the Late 2014 I had over three years ago.

So far, image retention hasn't been widespread enough to result in a lawsuit, and other forum members have indicated that newer panels (made in 2017 or later) are less likely to develop the issue. However, another display issue that can potentially affect most (if not all) recent iMac models has prompted a lawsuit.

 

[whosthis]

I get your frustration, and had to deal with this issue myself on my Late 2014 model. Sometime afterward Apple put up a support document suggesting a screensaver as a fix for a hardware issue that is visible during normal use, which is laughable.

Did that fix work or not? I think it basically means that retention is completely reversible. It is not a permanent "burn in".

 

[ThugFreak]

Did anyone else get this?
The trial begins on October 25, 2019

Court-Directed Notice regarding Class Certification
Shamrell, et al. v. Apple Inc. Class Litigation

LEGAL NOTICE
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. IF YOU PURCHASED A NEW IPHONE 4 FROM JUNE 24, 2010 THROUGH OCTOBER 10, 2011 OR IPHONE 4S FROM OCTOBER 11, 2011 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 20, 2012 OR THE IPHONE 5 PRIOR TO APRIL 1, 2013 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2016, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS LITIGATION.

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you that your rights may be affected by proceedings in the lawsuit known as Shamrell, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 37-2013-00055830-CU-PL-CTL, pending before the Honorable Ronald L. Styn of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Central Division (the "Court"). This Notice is given under California law and by order of the Court.
What is this lawsuit about? The Fourth Amended Complaint ("Complaint") alleges that Apple Inc. sold the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S and iPhone 5 with defective sleep/wake (power) buttons and failed to disclose (or insufficiently disclosed) this defect to purchasers in violation of various California state laws. This action seeks relief for alleged claims of breach of warranty and alleged violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Song-Beverly Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Complaint seeks damages in the form of recovery of the cost to repair the broken sleep/wake button or the diminished value of the iPhone due to the broken sleep/wake button, along with restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief.

Apple denies all of the allegations in the Complaint, and denies that Apple did anything improper or unlawful. Apple has asserted numerous affirmative defenses to the claims in this case.

A trial to determine the merits of Plaintiffs' claims has not yet occurred. This matter is set for trial beginning on October 25, 2019.
Are you included? If you are a California citizen who purchased a new iPhone 4, 4S or 5 from Apple or a third-party retailer and your sleep/wake button stopped working or worked intermittently during the first year after purchase for the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S, or during the first three years after purchase for the iPhone 5, you may be a member of one or more of the classes.
Are you not included? You are not a member of any class if Apple has already repaired the malfunctioning sleep/wake button on your device or provided you with a replacement device (including under the Repair Extension Program for the iPhone 5). You are not a member of the iPhone 5 class if you purchased your iPhone 5 device after April 1, 2013.
By Court Order dated January 8, 2019, the Court certified this case to proceed on behalf of two Classes, defined as follows:iPhone 4 and 4S Class:All California citizens who purchased one or more iPhone 4 or 4S smartphones from Apple or a third-party retailer, from June 24, 2010 through October 10, 2011 for the iPhone 4, and from October 11, 2011 through September 20, 2012 for the iPhone 4S, and whose sleep/wake (power) button stopped working or worked intermittently during a one year period from date of purchase. Excluded are persons whose iPhone 4 or 4S was repaired or replaced by Apple due to a non-working sleep/wake button.iPhone 5 Class:All California citizens who purchased one or more iPhone 5 smartphones from Apple or a third-party retailer prior to April 1, 2013, and whose sleep/wake (power) button stopped working or worked intermittently during a three year period from date of purchase. Excluded are persons whose iPhone 5 was repaired or replaced by Apple due to a non-working sleep/wake button.
The public version of the Complaint, the Court's class certification order and other documents related to this lawsuit can be accessed at www.powerbuttonclassaction.com.

What are your options? If you are a member of one or both of the Classes, you have the right to stay in the Class or be excluded from the lawsuit.
OPTION 1. Do Nothing. Remain a Member of the Class(es). If you do nothing, you are choosing to remain in the Class(es). It will cost you nothing to remain a member of the Class(es), and if any recovery is ultimately awarded by the judge or jury, you may receive a share of that recovery. However, if Apple prevails, you will not receive anything, and you will not be able to prosecute a separate claim against Apple arising out of these claims.

If you elect Option 1, you need to do nothing at this time. You may receive a later notice advising you of the outcome of this case and your right to participate in any recovery, if any recovery is obtained. In addition, any member who does not request exclusion ("opt out") may, if the member so desires (but is not required to), enter an appearance through counsel. ANY JUDGMENT OBTAINED ON THE CLASS CLAIMS IN THIS ACTION, WHETHER FAVORABLE OR NOT, WILL BIND ALL CLASS MEMBERS WHO DO NOT OPT OUT OF THIS ACTION.
OPTION 2. Exclude yourself from the lawsuit. Alternatively, you have the right not to be part of this lawsuit by excluding yourself or "opting out" of the Class(es). The Court will exclude from the Class(es) any person who timely requests exclusion. If you elect to opt out, you will not be bound by any judgment of the Court, and you retain your right to sue Apple for any individual claims you may have arising out of these issues. As a condition of opting out of the class, you will be unable to participate in any recovery that a judge or jury may award the Class(es) in this action. If you choose to exclude yourself from the lawsuit, you should decide soon whether to pursue your own case, because your claims are subject to statutes of limitations that set time limits for filing a lawsuit.
IF YOU WISH TO EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THIS PROCEEDING, you must request exclusion in one of the following ways:

1. Send an "Exclusion Request" in the form of a letter sent by U.S. mail, stating that you want to be excluded from Shamrell, et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 37-2013-00055830-CU-PL-CTL (San Diego Superior Court). Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number, email address, and signature. You must mail your Exclusion Request, postmarked by August 26, 2019, to: Shamrell et al. v. Apple Class Litigation, P.O. Box 404111, Louisville, KY 40233-4111.
2. Send an Exclusion Request Form, available at www.powerbuttonclassaction.com by mail postmarked by August 26, 2019, to: Shamrell et al. v. Apple Class Litigation, P.O. Box 404111, Louisville, KY 40233-4111. Or, email your exclusion request form to Admin@powerbuttonclassaction.com by August 26, 2019.

Who represents you? The Court has appointed ANTHONY SHAMRELL and DARYL RYSDYK to act as the class representatives for the iPhone 4/4S class and iPhone 5 class, respectively. The Court has also appointed several law firms to act as counsel for the Class ("Class Counsel"), including:

DOYLE LOWTHER, LLP
William J. Doyle, II.
bill@doylelowther.com
John L. Lowther
john@doylelowther.com
Chris W. Cantrell
ccantrell@doylelowther.com
4400 NE 77th Avenue, Suite 275
Vancouver, WA 98662
Tel: (360) 818-9320
Fax: (360) 450-3116

GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS
John H. Gomez
john@thegomezfirm.com
Deborah S. Dixon
ddixon@thegomezfirm.com
655 West Broadway, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (619) 237-3490
Fax: (619) 237-3496

You don't have to pay Class Counsel or anyone else to participate. If Class Counsel obtains money or benefits for one or both of the Classes, they will ask the Court for an award of fees and costs, which will be paid by Apple Inc. or from any money awarded to or recovered for the Class(es). However, any fee paid to Class Counsel must be approved by the Court.

You do not have to use Class Counsel. You have the right to hire your own lawyer to appear in Court for you in this lawsuit; however, if you do, you are responsible for paying that lawyer.

How do I find out more about this lawsuit? If you have any questions about either this lawsuit or this Notice, you may call or write to Class Counsel at the addresses provided above. Inquiries should not be directed to the Court.

For more detailed information about this lawsuit, including the Complaint, the Court's class certification order and other documents, go to www.powerbuttonclassaction.com or call 1-855-336-4060 or contact Class Counsel above. It is possible that the trial date or other deadlines will change. Please check the website for updates on the status of the case and the schedule.

This Notice has been approved and directed to be provided to Class Members by Court order dated February 22, 2019.

DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT FOR ANY REASON.

 

[redheeler]

Did that fix work or not? I think it basically means that retention is completely reversible. It is not a permanent "burn in".

Image retention will appear when something stays on the screen for 5-10 minutes. For example, the MacOS menu bar. After entering fullscreen mode in an app, a ghost image of the menu bar remains visible at the top of the screen and takes 5-10 minutes to fade away. It's not a permanent ghost image, but you will notice it occasionally when something stays on the screen for a long time (as is common with the MacOS menu bar, Dock or app toolbars) and then you switch to something else immediately afterward.

The screensaver prevents a ghost image from being visible when you leave the computer and return to the lock screen, because the ghost image has a chance to fade away while it is running. But it cannot be used in the scenario mentioned above and is not a fix for the problem. The problem is hardware-based and in the LCD panel itself. It could be present right out of the box or take months or years of use to develop. (If the Mac is 5+ years old I many not care, and I have seen it on my Late 2006 iMac, so it's not an issue that is exclusive to the Retina models. But my Late 2014 model took only about six months for the issue to develop, and my 2012 rMBP had it bad right out of the box. Both instances were resolved through in-warranty display replacements, though on the 2014 the issue just kept returning on the new panels.)

 

[redheeler]

The OP did get a few things wrong. It's caused by the screen, not the GPU, and is not visible in software screenshots. The ghost image doesn't fade away (at least not as quickly) while the screen is off, hence it's visible when returning to the lock screen after turning the screen off (and not using a screensaver). Also, you shouldn't go looking for the issue with the checkerboard tests. It only becomes an issue if it's severe enough to notice during your normal use patterns or workflow.

 

[JonD25]

Late 2014 iMac here and have noticed it steadily getting worse. Kinda feel powerless though since it's out of warranty and I feel like a trip to the Apple Store for them to check it out will only leave me without my main work machine and take up a lot of my time for them to tell me they can replace the screen at a cost I'm not really thinking is worth paying at this point, especially when I've heard from others how replacements exhibited the problem as well. Probably just going to try and sell it off for cheap or trade it in to Apple directly and get a MBP soon anyways, but I'd much prefer being able to sell it privately for full value rather than having to discount it for whoever would be interested in it anyways.

 

[mikehalloran]

There are other threads where this issue has been cussed and discussed by loyalists who are convinced that the world is coming to an end over this.

Perhaps the moderators can merge this thread with one of those.

 

[roadkill401]

The OP did get a few things wrong. It's caused by the screen, not the GPU, and is not visible in software screenshots. The ghost image doesn't fade away (at least not as quickly) while the screen is off, hence it's visible when returning to the lock screen after turning the screen off (and not using a screensaver). Also, you shouldn't go looking for the issue with the checkerboard tests. It only becomes an issue if it's severe enough to notice during your normal use patterns or workflow.

I don't understand why if a screen is off, hense it would have either a low power, or no power going to it, would retain a ghost of an image for 8-10+ hours, where it is said that it should disapear in 5-10 minutes if the screen image changes?

I have had time when I have tried to watch a movie on Netflix on the screen and had scenes that were displaying wrong as image retention became an issue. Like your watching a scente where it is supposed to be dimly lit, and there is an impossible bright spot in the screen where a ghost of the scene before is stuck on the screen.

I have given up trying to do any photo editing on my iMac as you can't trust what you see is what is really there. If that isn't a clear shot at notice during your normal work flow. I have just religated the mac to 'that other computer' in the office as it cost more to fix it yet again, than it was to just move on to a better class of machine running Windows.

 

[roadkill401]

So far, image retention hasn't been widespread enough to result in a lawsuit, and other forum members have indicated that newer panels (made in 2017 or later) are less likely to develop the issue.

I question how anyone with a 2017 model would know how the screen was going to work in 3-4 years? They haven't been around long enough to tell if the screen is susceptible? I tend to think the screen issues are an awful lot like the butterfly keyboard where Apple will say it only happens in a small percentage but really it comes down to how many people just give up and live with the crap rather than complain.

I didn't think that buying an iMac would have the functional lifespan of AppleCare and after that you are expected to just trash your investment and just buy a newer model. I don't own an iPhone and don't buy into that replace it every year mindset. It seems that Apple have decided to start in the same old model that Windows machines got into, where you make it only just good enough to last out 2-3 years and then throw away technology. At least he Windows machines are cheep enough that you can get away with it. I paid an excessive premium for this iMac for the 5K retina screen. The only option that I can see for this mac is to just buy a second screen that will be used for all critical display and the 27" retina screen is just a defective backup that you sort of don't care what it looks like. Sort of the wrong way around but what else can you do.

 

[mikehalloran]

Also, you shouldn't go looking for the issue with the checkerboard tests. I

That's like pushing an engine to the red line and being shocked by excess oil consumption.

 

[mosher]

i have 2015 27inch imac and i have a terrible image retention issue.
after only 1 minute of use i can already see menu bar ghosting in other apps.

Apple has to admit its failure

 

[ZipZap]

Does Apple give forewarning of retention at the time of sale? Do the list it as a feature? Have they worked at all to correct it?

I think this is why that lawsuit will go forward and Apple will lose in the end.

 

[JonD25]

That's like pushing an engine to the red line and being shocked by excess oil consumption.

For the record, I don’t need to do any checkerboard test to see image retention. Just regular use, within literally minutes, the menu bar, desktop icons, or pretty much any bright elements around the edges of the screen start ghosting VERY noticeably. It’s a pretty unacceptable flaw.

 

[mosher]

For the record, I don’t need to do any checkerboard test to see image retention. Just regular use, within literally minutes, the menu bar, desktop icons, or pretty much any bright elements around the edges of the screen start ghosting VERY noticeably. It’s a pretty unacceptable flaw.

same for me

 

[Erehy Dobon]

Did anyone else get this?
The trial begins on October 25, 2019

Court-Directed Notice regarding Class Certification
Shamrell, et al. v. Apple Inc. Class Litigation

...

What is this lawsuit about? The Fourth Amended Complaint ("Complaint") alleges that Apple Inc. sold the iPhone 4, iPhone 4S and iPhone 5 with defective sleep/wake (power) buttons and failed to disclose (or insufficiently disclosed) this defect to purchasers in violation of various California state laws. This action seeks relief for alleged claims of breach of warranty and alleged violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Song-Beverly Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The Complaint seeks damages in the form of recovery of the cost to repair the broken sleep/wake button or the diminished value of the iPhone due to the broken sleep/wake button, along with restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief.

Just to close the loop on this, I received a $24 settlement check about six weeks ago which I dutifully cashed.

My guess is that in ten years or so, I will receive a settlement check for the butterfly keyboard. There may be another check for battery performance brouhaha.

I don't expect any of these to go to a jury trial.

 

[ThugFreak]

Just to close the loop on this, I received a $24 settlement check about six weeks ago which I dutifully cashed.

My guess is that in ten years or so, I will receive a settlement check for the butterfly keyboard. There may be another check for battery performance brouhaha.

I don't expect any of these to go to a jury trial.

LOL! I got that check too. I recently got a notice from a law firm for a different Apple class action lawsuit.
I wasn't sure if it was real or not, so I deleted the e-mail. It took over 2 years to get that $24.

 

[tyc0746]

So, has that $24 fixed/mitigated anyone’s image retention problem?

 

[ThugFreak]

So, has that $24 fixed/mitigated anyone’s image retention problem?

The only people getting rich are the lawyers.

 

[Moonjumper]

I have a big problem with image retention on my 2015 27” iMac. I have heard reports of it starting after upgrading to Mojave, which matches when it started for me.

A screensaver helps a bit, but it soon comes back. Plus the worst retention is around the edges, and Flurry is the most suitable screensaver for giving the pixels a workout, but it is mostly active in the centre of the screen.

 

[Ethosik]

I actually have image retention on my 2019 i9 iMac. This is why I want to get a headless Mac and just use my own monitors. I am thinking about the new Mac mini as it should definitely be better than my iMac for Final Cut Pro.

 

[President-Elect Beachball]

I actually have image retention on my 2019 i9 iMac. This is why I want to get a headless Mac and just use my own monitors. I am thinking about the new Mac mini as it should definitely be better than my iMac for Final Cut Pro.

This is how being an Apple customer goes, you spend a ton of money on hardware that has an issue that can't/won't be fixed. The solution? Spend more big bucks on yet ANOTHER Apple product. We keep rewarding them for their shady/shoddy manufacturing.

And why do we do that? Because we want/need to continue using their software, either because we already invested the $$$ on it, or because there are really no alternatives on windowsland. That's why we accept what is in fact an abusive relationship.

The Mac Mini does look like the least painful solution, but beware: unless you have a 4k monitor and are willing to run it at 200% scaling, the image will look like garbage. Why? Because Apple doesn't like to play nice with anything third-party.