[interested_observer]

They are also aledging that many returned D600s were never fully fixed before being sold as ‘refurbished’ to even more now-disgruntled users.

• US Law Firm Collecting D600 Sensor Dust Complaints for Possible Class Action Suit

[MegaPower]

Finally

[hks_kansei]

Is it a manufacturing fault? or just that people got dust into the camera (which is unavoidable) and think that it's Nikon's fault?

I wouldn't have thought that any camera manufacturer could guarantee a camera to be dust free, that guarantee falls apart the second the box is opened.


How does this have any legal leg to stand on? (I'm not a lawyer, so don't know the exact ins/outs of sueing people)
Surely its as simple as:

Guy buys Nikon camera
Opens box, puts on lens, takes photos and finds dust.
Contacts Nikon and complains about dust.
Nikon say they'll clean it for $x since they can't guarantee cameras to be 100% dust free once used.
Guy gets annoyed and sues Nikon
Nikon tell judge (or whoever hears case) that once the box is open they can't control if dust lands into camera.
Judge throws case out for being a waste of time.

Surely for there to be ANY legal right to sue there needs to be a manufacturing fault of some kind?

[Aegon]

Surely for there to be ANY legal right to sue there needs to be a manufacturing fault of some kind?

50 states and D.C. have consumer protection laws. These laws cover more than just "manufacturing faults," but also extend to deception and the like. Most of these laws are also biased in favor of consumers, for example by mandating businesses to pay for the consumer's own attorney fees, which is relatively rare in American law. This type of fee shifting can make consumer protection work very lucrative. Check your state's laws and talk to a local lawyer to get a feel for the protection available in your state. My point is that American consumer protection laws are generally very strongly in favor of consumers. And if these lawyers can find a smoking gun showing the depth of Nikon's deception, there might even be heavy punitive damages at stake.

And my gut says that Nikon knew exactly what they were doing.

[hks_kansei]

But wouldn't deception rely upon Nikon having knowingly shipped cameras with dust in the sensors prior to the consumer receiveing them?

And wouldn't it also hinge on there being some assumption that the dust wasn't simply dust that had got into the camera during unboxing, or attaching the lens, or some other method after the consumer had started using it?

[Rondec]

Obviously there was enough of an issue that Nikon "updated" the D600 to the D610. But, on the other hand, it isn't that hard to do a sensor cleaning, if it is just dust...

[Woolcott]

Is it a manufacturing fault? or just that people got dust into the camera (which is unavoidable) and think that it's Nikon's fault?

I wouldn't have thought that any camera manufacturer could guarantee a camera to be dust free, that guarantee falls apart the second the box is opened.


How does this have any legal leg to stand on? (I'm not a lawyer, so don't know the exact ins/outs of sueing people)
Surely its as simple as:

Guy buys Nikon camera
Opens box, puts on lens, takes photos and finds dust.
Contacts Nikon and complains about dust.
Nikon say they'll clean it for $x since they can't guarantee cameras to be 100% dust free once used.
Guy gets annoyed and sues Nikon
Nikon tell judge (or whoever hears case) that once the box is open they can't control if dust lands into camera.
Judge throws case out for being a waste of time.

Surely for there to be ANY legal right to sue there needs to be a manufacturing fault of some kind?

From what I've heard down the grapevine there were assertions that the dust was also accompanied by oil/grease on the sensor in some cases, and that it was down to a shutter system fault. There were stories of those sending in D600s for repair receiving new D610s, which tends to suggest repair was uneconomical, and therefore the repair was rather more than just a cleaning the sensor job...

[JinDesu]

Obviously there was enough of an issue that Nikon "updated" the D600 to the D610. But, on the other hand, it isn't that hard to do a sensor cleaning, if it is just dust...

Several users had shown that it was oil/grease and not just dust. It actually required a proper wet cleaning, which is difficult to do enough once - they had to do it several times until it stopped happening.

[Aegon]

But wouldn't deception rely upon Nikon having knowingly shipped cameras with dust in the sensors prior to the consumer receiveing them?

If you want to know the legal standard at issue, consult the laws of your state and/or get yourself a lawyer. But don't make up your own standard on the internet.

The D600 was released September 18, 2013.

On September 19, 2012, the following video was published on YouTube.

You Tube

You Tube

The problem was bad enough that users found it in ONE DAY.

Even if the standard was "knowingly shipped" as you suggest, how many D600s were "knowingly shipped" after the second day? And how certain are you that Nikon didn't already know of the problem before the first body ever sold? Part of the lawsuit includes discovery, including email discovery, where lawyers get to sift through Nikon's internal emails to find out exactly what Nikon knew and at what time. It took users one day to find the problem, maybe an email can show that it took Nikon one day, too. And maybe a Nikon rep says something fun, like "screw the consumers, sell the bodies."

We lack a great deal of facts here. These facts can be filled-in by collecting information. We don't need to make up our own facts or laws.

[rbefly]

hks_Kansei, it sounds like you're trying to inject some homespun quasi-legal advice into a complicated and ongoing legal matter.
If you watched the video above, you'll see that consumers and reviewers noticed this issue right out of the gate. The shutter assembly was (probably) leaking oil and causing the spots. Some spots were dust trapped by the oil onto the sensor, other spots were just oil. How does oil get 'sprayed' onto the sensor?
By the consumer merely mounting a single lens and taking photos? No, that wouldn't do it. A faulty shutter assembly?
Should Nikon, if found directly at fault, replace all the cameras?
Perhaps there's a sub-contractor (or 2 or 12) that makes the shutter assembly itself. If they're in violation of some quality-control standard, Nikon is off the hook.
Let's find out, shall we? Loser pays.
Law Suit.
JMO,
Ron

[tuco]

... There were stories of those sending in D600s for repair receiving new D610s, which tends to suggest repair was uneconomical, and therefore the repair was rather more than just a cleaning the sensor job...

I had a D600 for a short time before trading it in for a D800. I let the camera store handle sending it in for its free sensor cleaning. It came back with a new sensor and shutter assembly installed. Problem solved. Apparently, people who sent the camera in themselves for a sensor cleaning got just that. A cleaning and the problem continued.

The story I heard from the camera store was there was a last minute design change in the shutter assembly when releasing the D600. But the change never made it to the vendor in time. Some scraping was causing the "dust". It would wear in with enough actuation but excessive lubricate was applied to compound the problem.

Perhaps the lawsuit should address why camera stores sending in gear get better treatment than Joe Consumer for the same problem.