Samsung sued by Australian watchdog over "deceptive" Galaxy ads

[midian182]

Why it matters: Samsung is facing trouble in Australia, where the country’s consumer watchdog is suing the Korean giant for allegedly misleading people over just how water-resistant its phones are.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) alleges that Samsung made “false, misleading and deceptive representations” in its ads for Galaxy phones.

The problem, according to the ACCC, is that since 2016, Samsung put out over 300 ads showing the Galaxy devices being used at the bottom of swimming pools and in the ocean, but the company did not test how exposure to water, especially non-fresh water, affected the phones' usable life.

Additionally, despite the ads showing them being used on beaches and in pools, the Galaxy phones’ IP68 certification (works at depths of up to 1.5 meters for 30 minutes or less) only applies to fresh water. Samsung even states on its website that the Galaxy S10 is ‘not advised for beach or pool use.' It’s also claimed Samsung denied warranty claims for water-damaged phones.

One of the ads in question

“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 also notes that Samsung sold phones with water-resistance features at a higher price than those without the feature.

“Samsung’s advertisements, we believe, denied consumers an informed choice and gave Samsung an unfair competitive advantage,” said Sims. "Samsung showed the Galaxy phones used in situations they shouldn't be to attract customers."

Each breach of the law after September 1, 2018, could see Samsung fined up to A$10 million ($7 million), triple the benefit of the conduct or as much as 10% of annual turnover, writes Reuters. Breaches prior to that date can result in fines as high as A$1.1 million (~$773,000).

Responding to the accusations, Samsung said it "stands by its marketing and advertising of the water resistancy of its smartphones."

"We are also confident that we provide customers with free-of-charge remedies in a manner consistent with Samsung's obligations under its manufacturer warranty and the Australian Consumer Law. Customer satisfaction is a top priority for Samsung and we are committed to acting in the best interest of our customers."

Back in 2017, Sony settled a US class action suit for making deceptive waterproof claims in its Xperia ads.

Main image credit: Karlis Dambrans via Shutterstock

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/80800-samsung-sued-australian-watchdog-over-deceptive-galaxy-ads.html

 

[ForgottenLegion]

While I'm still of the old mindset that phones + water don't mix regardless of IP rating and have never taken any of my phones for a swim, Samsung need to hold their hands up to this one and fix all affected phones. This is quite out of order.

Another case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Marketing department going against handset certification.

 

[Uncle Al]

There was a time when American companies were held to a significantly higher standard and "false advertising" was simply anything the company could not prove under "normal use". The bar has been lowered so far that terms like "lifetime" guarantee means whatever the company wants to define lifetime as, just another deception for the consumer. Allowing companies to prey upon the ignorance of the everyday consumer should be criminal and treated as such. Doing business in the USA is a privilege, not a right and was one of the hallmark standards by which the rest of the world operated. Dipping standards means decreasing quality of products and with that practice being allowed it is no wonder the US is no longer the leader in so very, very many markets around the world.
If the Administration wants to "Make America Great Again", holding American industries fully accountable is one way to insure we will be great again in the eyes of the world .... which is what it's supposed to be about, isn't it?

 

[SethNW]

While having IP rating is nice, do note that IP ratings are tested in most ideal conditions, regular water and very steady state, no moving around or waves. So yeah, don't go swimming with your phone. IP ratings do help your chances to get away with getting phone wet by accident lot. But as far as I know they don't mean completely waterproof.

As for advertising, they definitely should be responsible, because if they show it in ad, this means it should be no problem to do it with your phone. Though I do feel this was problem of marketing once again not knowing what they are talking about and not bothering to check "boring" specifications. Since people in marketing often aren't very technical, so they often don't know about stuff they advertise.

 

[ChrisH1]

...The bar has been lowered so far that terms like "lifetime" guarantee means whatever the company wants to define lifetime as ...

Indeed. One definition is, when the device fails it has reached the end of its lifetime!

 

[Mikael_r]

If these ads can result in Samsung being sued, couldn't fast food companies be sued for deceptive images of what their food looks like? And beer companies?

 

[Darth Shiv]

If these ads can result in Samsung being sued, couldn't fast food companies be sued for deceptive images of what their food looks like? And beer companies?

In Australia yes. What's your point?