Samsung in Court for Misleading Phone Water Resistance Advertisements

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/samsung-in-court-for-m…

The ACCC has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd (Samsung) alleging it made false, misleading and deceptive representations in advertising the water resistance of various ‘Galaxy’ branded mobile phones.

Since around February 2016, Samsung has widely advertised on social media, online, TV, billboards, brochures and other media that the Galaxy phones are water resistant and depicted them being used in, or exposed to, oceans and swimming pools.

Samsung also advertised the Galaxy phones as being water resistant up to 1.5 metres deep for 30 minutes. The ACCC’s case involves over 300 advertisements.

“The ACCC alleges Samsung’s advertisements falsely and misleadingly represented Galaxy phones would be suitable for use in, or for exposure to, all types of water, including in ocean water and swimming pools, and would not be affected by such exposure to water for the life of the phone, when this was not the case,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.

The ACCC claims Samsung did not have a reasonable basis for making the representations because:

It did not test or know of testing (or sufficient testing) about how exposing a Galaxy phone to water (including non-fresh water) affected its usable life;
It held the view that using Galaxy phones in liquid other than fresh water could damage them. For example, Samsung’s website states that the new Galaxy S10 phone range is ‘not advised for beach or pool use';
It has denied warranty claims from consumers whose phones were damaged when used in water.
Aside from not having a reasonable basis, the ACCC also claims that the representations are false, misleading and deceptive, because the Galaxy phones were not suitable for use in all types of water, and the life of the phones could or would likely be adversely affected if used in water (including non-fresh water).

“Samsung itself has acknowledged that water resistance is an important factor influencing Australian consumer decisions when they choose what mobile phone to purchase,” Mr Sims said.

Samsung’s Galaxy phones which were advertised as being water resistant were sold at a higher price than Samsung phones which do not have this feature.

“Samsung’s advertisements, we believe, denied consumers an informed choice and gave Samsung an unfair competitive advantage,” Mr Sims said.

Samsung has sold more than four million Galaxy branded phones in Australia.

“Samsung showed the Galaxy phones used in situations they shouldn’t be to attract customers,” Mr Sims said.

“Under the Australian Consumer Law, businesses cannot mislead consumers about their products’ capabilities. Any attempt to do so will risk court action from the ACCC.”

The ACCC is seeking penalties, consumer redress orders, injunctions, declarations, publication orders, an order as to findings of fact, and costs

https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/ACCC%20v%20Samsung%20El…

Comments

  • Samsung should change it H2O proof.

  • +2

    Sony Z series should have been in the same boat!

    • My old Z3 got replaced no questions asked after falling in a sink full of water.

      But I guess that is "fresh water" so they couldn't really argue when it fried itself

      That and they linked to a video of it being unboxed underwater in a pool!

  • Probably only splash proof. I handed in my Samsung phone for warranty service recently, the service report said no sign of liquid damage. I have used my phone outside when it is drizzling and splash water on it when I was brushing my teeth regularly, probably not as careful with it with water compared to my previous phones but definitely not in any situation when my phone was submerged in water in any way.

  • Well…it's a mass produced device, so of course there's going to be some variations in the sealing. Not to mention there's differences in how much abused these devices endured, it's no surprise.

    With that said, I've seen the S7 devices suffer quite a bit of punishment, so they can (easily) survive the sandy beach, salty ocean, or chlorinated pool. It really depends on the particulars.

    But was there exaggeration in the advertisements? Definitely. Should Samsung, LG, Apple pay for it? Maybe, but make SONY pay first since the Xperia Z1-Z5 had flimsy waterproofing and they absolutely denied legitimate warranty claims.

    • +1

      Maybe its the way you have written it but why should LG, Apple pay?

      ACCC has made no findings in this case about those two.

      • I've also seen them advertise the same exaggerated formats, maybe not on TV/Radio but on social media and online. Regardless all three have roughly the same protection from the elements, and the same attitude when it comes to honouring warranty (inflated repair bill or push to sell another unit).

        So the ramifications of such a fine/lawsuit definitely extend out to other OEMs, not just Samsung.
        However, the biggest perpetrator has to be the older Sony phones, very expensive, non-durable sealing, attitude to deny warranty claims repeatedly. This after they've made a pretty sizeable profit from each sale.

        At least with a cheap phone/one lacking waterproofing, you can replace it rather cheaply and can base your expectations a little more cautiously. Though the reason why people pay a high-premium (see ~$600 Redmi K20 Pro versus Samsung S10+ $900) is not only to protect their phone, but to protect their data, since a drowned phone can mean losing some important videos, photos, files, notes, messages, contacts, etc etc.

        • Well I would suggest the the ACCC would be out after the other two if what you say is correct.

          However given they aren't and not knowing your real expertise here, I am unlikely at this stage to be concerned, except with the Samsung

  • This is crazy…going to be interesting to see how this reflects across other devices and the IP rating as well

  • +1

    The more I read about this, I can't believe Samsung advertise their phones as having a IP68 rating. Not just showing the phone around water on adverts.

    https://news.samsung.com/global/infographic-spec-comparison-…

    Samsung S7 dust and water resistance (IP68)

    from wikipedia:
    Immersion, 1 m or more depth The equipment is suitable for continuous immersion in water under conditions which shall be specified by the manufacturer. However, with certain types of equipment, it can mean that water can enter but only in such a manner that it produces no harmful effects. The test depth and duration is expected to be greater than the requirements for IPx7, and other environmental effects may be added, such as temperature cycling before immersion.

    • Why can't you believe that?

      You missed this part of the rating:

      Test duration: agreement with manufacturer
      Depth specified by manufacturer, generally up to 3 m

      https://www.samsung.com/global/galaxy/what-is/ip68/

      Devices backed by an international standard rating of IP68 are deemed fit enough to withstand dust, dirt and sand, and are resistant to submersion up to a maximum depth of 1.5m underwater for up to thirty minutes.

  • Should avoid salt water and electronics at all costs unless you have an underwater housing.

    • -1

      Unless your aquaman, shouldn't be a problem

Login or Join to leave a comment