Lawsuit Regarding D600 Sensor Spots

kanuck

Wow, I thought this potential lawsuit was quite interesting. A lawyer is collecting a series of customer complaints and claims including one particularly disturbing situation. Part of the lawsuit claims that Nikon took some cameras that were returned by customers because of these dust spot problems, did not fix the issue, and then sold them back to the public as "refurbished" units. I am interested in hearing what some people's thoughts are on this matter:


http://nikonrumors.com/2014/02/15/law-firm-collects-nikon-d600-sensor-dustspot-complaints-for-a-potential-class-action-lawsuit.aspx/

jimo

If this is true and can be proven in a court of law, then I would think that Nikon is in trouble.

sevencrossing

If this is true and can be proven in a court of law, then I would think that Nikon is in trouble.

Well they will have to prove it first
I suspect like all big companies, Nikon are used to be being sued and will have not only , a big legal department but also product liability insurance. All these costs, sadly, will have to passed on to us, the end user

WestEndBoy

It's a civil case. You don't have to "prove" anything. In civil cases the standard is "weight of the evidence." Frankly, I hope Nikon gets taken to task. They've been pretty evil on the subject. They knew there was a problem, they changed nothing with the 610 except the name. This served to distance them from a flawed product without any admission of guilt. It's about as low as you can get. I hope they lose.

I tend to agree with you, but I hope that they don't loose bad enough that the value of my system is compromised.

Golf007sd

Please note that nothing has been filed nor is their a case before any court. Their is a "potential" of a case that might be filed, should the firm have gather enough clients. Legal case of this nature are very complicated and costly to take to trial for any firm, if the payoff is not worthy; hence, not profitable.

Beso

This is a law firm trolling for clients. A few cases are not likely to be valued well enough to warrant a lawsuit. However, if they can find dozens or hundreds of people who feel they have been harmed it ups the likelihood of a decent payday either through a court judgment or settlement. I personally dislike our litigious society and I dislike law firms who troll for clients even more. The law firm is likely to get far more (exponential multiples) from the litigation than any single client.

That having been said, Nikon did not handle this whole fiasco very well. Instead of performing adequate testing prior to releasing the camera, Nikon marketed a reasonably high priced camera body with an inherent flaw. Secondly, Nikon was very slow to acknowledge the problem and take appropriate corrective action. Third, based on what I have read, Nikon gave a number of people "the run around" increasing their level of frustration and adding expense. Had Nikon made an early acknowledgment of the problem, recalled the cameras at their own expense, and either properly repaired or replace the defective cameras, they would have built some goodwill and avoided the potential they are now facing.

Nikon clearly has some QA/QC issues that need to be addressed. Whether they are making strides in the right direction only time will tell. You simply cannot put a defective product on the market that costs several thousand dollars and pretend like the problem doesn't exist. Chances are the law firm will find a significant number of people who are looking for a "payday" and the suit will be filed. Whether it ends up in court or settled out of court it is a good bet that it will cost Nikon more than had they acted appropriately in the first place.

spraynpray

I saw this possibility coming when I recommended one member to take advice on the same course of action on the D600 thread. I agree with Beso above, and also hope it doesn't damage Nikon too significantly. It is, after all, a method of getting taken seriously when the company would not otherwise have done so.

Toyota have become serial offenders in the area of poor QA/QC, they get full marks for owning up to the problems, but now having had so many problems, they are showing themselves to be incompetent in that area.

sevencrossing

Dust on sensors, like dust on film is a fact of life
but they are also claiming "oil and lubricate contamination"
has any one ever proved that oil was cause of the problem?

kanuck

Please note that nothing has been filed nor is their a case before any court. Their is a "potential" of a case that might be filed, should the firm have gather enough clients. Legal case of this nature are very complicated and costly to take to trial for any firm, if the payoff is not worthy; hence, not profitable.

Yes nothing has been filed the pending suit is still in the process of collecting relevant examples so far. I think the case is definitely worth monitoring though as it has the potential to possibly turn into another Toyota situation....

Msmoto

"They knew there was a problem, they changed nothing with the 610 except the name."

I think this may not be entirely accurate.. Read Roger Cicala's evaluation:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/11/d610-initial-dust-assessment

Photobug

Besco said:
That having been said, Nikon did not handle this whole fiasco very well. Instead of performing adequate testing prior to releasing the camera, Nikon marketed a reasonably high priced camera body with an inherent flaw. Secondly, Nikon was very slow to acknowledge the problem and take appropriate corrective action. Third, based on what I have read, Nikon gave a number of people "the run around" increasing their level of frustration and adding expense. Had Nikon made an early acknowledgment of the problem, recalled the cameras at their own expense, and either properly repaired or replace the defective cameras, they would have built some goodwill and avoided the potential they are now facing.

+1 and Amen.

Been a Nikon owner since 1968 and I have loved every one of my Nikon lens and cameras. As we said in teh D600 forum, Nikon really screwed up on this one and DID NOT put the interest of the consumer first. Shame on them!

kanuck

All indications and reviews seem to show that Nikon has fixed this issue in the D610 but basically everything else with camera is the same. I believe you get slightly more frames per second. This price difference between the D600 and D610 is pretty significant at least where I am. This doesn't seem fair at all to the consumer...

spraynpray

I have always thought (and written here) that the main reason for there being only the small (accidental?) fps difference between the D600 and D610 is so that Nikon could retro fit the D610 fix to D600's. As an engineer If I were at Nikon I would have made sure the different parts for the fix were compatible with existing so this could be sorted at Repair Centre level as a warranty upgrade kit but it seems the mentality to see that there is a problem that is their fault is buried sufficiently deep in their psyche that this course of action wasn't taken. Unbelievable - how to make a drama out of a crisis...

sevencrossing

I think it is worth remembering at lot of D600 users do not photograph white-wall @ f/16, with contrast enhancement
and only tiny number read NRF
for once I think KR is right "I wouldn't worry about what you may have read over the Internet from people you've never met" ( and in many cases haven't even used or owed a D600)

ThomasHorton

It's a civil case. You don't have to "prove" anything. In civil cases the standard is "weight of the evidence."

Not quite. In both criminal and civil court, there is still the presumption of the person/company being innocent until proven guilty. The difference is the extent of this "burden of proof".

Criminal cases: Beyond reasonable doubt
Civil cases; A preponderance of evidence.

There are other levels of "burden of proof" besides these two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

TaoTeJared

I hope they get enough people signed up to go to court. Some have said they don't like "lawsuit society" but quite frankly I support it. Law suits, especially class action suits are needed to keep companies in check. Without them companies can continue to deny delivering poor products and/or broken goods. This isn't a frivolous endeavor for a few to get paid, it was 1,000s of people who bought a $1,500 camera and it was broken. It is not worth the cost or effort for one to sue, or for a lawyer to take the case. Combined together it can be beneficial to a firm to take it up and get a judgement that may help out many wronged customers.

As a note, class-action suits only hurt companies pride. Costs are minimal, and rarely are massive judgments ever paid or collected. Nikon's worst fear would probably be forced to fix every body sent in.

sevencrossing

Some have said they don't like "lawsuit society

yup that's me

it results in instruction such as

"When operating the viewfinder diopter control with
your eye to the viewfinder, care should be taken not to
put your finger in your eye accidentally"

and "Keep the sun well out of the frame"
not very helpful for sunsets

henrik1963

We all know that Nikon made a problem camera. We know that Nikon did not do a lot to fix problems in the beginning. But do we know that Nikon still refuse fo fix D600 cameras with problems?

shawnino

Nikon needs to be slapped down on this one. The poor customer service was absolutely appalling.

If I was on the jury it would be a new D610 for each complainant as specific damages... and a D400 and 300/4 VR as punitive damages...

spraynpray

for once I think KR is right "I wouldn't worry about what you may have read over the Internet from people you've never met"

Har-har! I agree - I NEVER believe a thing KR says! :P

TaoTeJared

Some have said they don't like "lawsuit society

yup that's me

it results in instruction such as

"When operating the viewfinder diopter control with
your eye to the viewfinder, care should be taken not to
put your finger in your eye accidentally"

and "Keep the sun well out of the frame"
not very helpful for sunsets

Sorry but a person's annoyance with printed warnings relating to someone who did not to know better isn't a good reason to be against class action law suits. Many of the same people who wrote our constitution also believed the only way to heal some one was to drain their blood out. Just because some may be very smart in many realms, doesn't mean they always will understand everything in the world.

Tradewind35

I see two issues here.
Firstly the D600 may or may not have had a significant flaw. KR approach says not really a problem, just internet frenzy. Others say it was a big problem. In the end Nikon made it go away a bit by bringing out a hasty D610. A product fix of sorts.
Second issue :- Nikon had a marketing and PR disaster on their hands. This required sensitive and imaginative management to retain company goodwill and shore up perceptions - irrespective of whether or not the D600 was actually a flawed design. Seems to me like they completely pooped up that requirement.
A learning organisation might be able to recognise such a failure and do better next time. We hope!
Robin

sevencrossing

Some good points Tradewind

My personal believe is that it was indeed an internet frenzy.

But, as ever, I could be wrong

My belief is based on , admittedly, on very little evidence.
e.g. Some people here, who have never owned a D600 are screaming for Nikon blood and others who have a d600 seem reasonably content

But the interesting issue, is Nikon coping with a PR disaster

I am sure we have all read of cases of cyber bulling, the results can be truly tragic

Just when the D600 dust issues seems to have died down; this comes along and it is covered by nearly every photographic BLOG

This is the side of the internet I really do not like

ben_dmb

I am fairly new in the world of photography and because of that I would like to ask those ones with a longer history in this field if they would like to remember and share with us any other examples of lawsuit actions and what the outcomes were. I think that the history can give us a prediction of the future of this D600 issue.

donaldejose

I am a lawyer who has has a carrier defending civil lawsuits. Many are frivolous and should not have been filed; but not all of them. Many are justified. About 80% of civil cases which are filed end in a settlement; sometimes because it is cheaper to settle than to fight on and on. In the case of the D600 I have one without a significant dust problem; I just had to clean the sensor myself a couple of times up to 10,000 clicks. I am at 11,402 now without the issue resurfacing. In my opinion Nikon has handled the issue so badly I do hope it is sued and Nikon takes that suit as a warning to behave differently the next time such an issue occurs (and they will appear in future products because nothing can be made perfect). I don't care if no one gets a dime, including the plaintiff's lawyers. I do care that Nikon must spend millions defending the case so it is punished in that way. Sometimes civil punishment through litigation is needed to change behavior. Not all bad behavior is an illegal criminal act. That is why we need various types of social pressure to extract a price for bad behavior sufficient to get the actor to think twice before doing it again. Shame on Nikon.

Photobug

+1 donaldejose.

Very nicely said.