JTL If you will have a courage to replace "I" with "we", we might have a chance for success - as collective legal action is more effective then the one which comes from a single individual.
As to an analogy of McDonalds - this refers to a term called "McDonaldization". It is a proper academic term taught in universities throughout the world. It is used in this context to enlighten broader context of organizations, products and its users.
Apart from actual term, juxtaposition of two brands that are very well known is very appropriate in my opinion. As it shares some common traits such as convenience and simplicity, yet on another side of a spectrum there is a hidden externalities of scientifically proved bad diet, as well as - eye strain as we observe in in this forum and website. People struggle, yet at the same time they are addicted. There is similar strategies of neuromarketing at play. Perhaps, there was a reason why many CEO's of major brands do not share the same consumption patterns as ordinary consumers do.
Back to the legal action, if it is provable that apple products have caused symptoms people describe on this website, (e.g. documenting various observable flickers and causes of it, as well as how eye reacts to it with help of medical professionals), apple is fully responsible for it and it means it has to compensate those individuals. This is negligence. General rule if you are in position of great influence or/and power, you have universally expected duty of care. So apple knowingly or unknowingly shipped products that have observable flaws which renders them unfit for use without causing a harm. And - if not all customers are affected by it - there must be a legal clause and/or notice to consumers about it. Just like with nuts for example, as some people have allergy to it and even could die from it. Failure to inform consumers, would cause direct responsibility to the company for any negative outcomes people with allergy to nuts have experienced.
