Samsung asks New Jersey court to sink class action suit about Galaxy S7 waterproofing woes The US branch of Samsung’s mobile division has asked a New Jersey court to dismiss a proposed class action suit which alleges the business misled customers about the waterproofing on its Samsung Galaxy S7 lines. Arguing on technical lines, Samsung claimed [PDF] the plaintiff had failed to cross the threshold needed for a class …
The "8" in that rating refers to the level of water resistance, with the Samsung Galaxy S7 purportedly able to withstand being submerged in up to 5 foot (1.5 metres) of water for up to 30 minutes.
So presumably all* Samsung needs to do is demonstrate dropping an S7 into water?
*Ok, and deal with objections from lawyers.
.... the S5 was 'waterproof' - the S6 was not - and then the S7 was.
My guess would be that Samsung decided that customers weren't worried about phones being waterproof until they removed the designation for the S6, and then they saw the customers reactions and buying decisions. So the decision was made to make sure that the S7 had the designation .... whether or not it was actually waterproof!
This sounds like it might be a typical PHB/manglement decision similar to the McDonalds coffee fiasco of 1994. In this case the bean counters calculated that any legal repercussions would cost less than the lost sales from the phone not being waterproof.
The S5 was IP67 rated, and included a flap that covered the charging port. The S6 was unrated. Then the S7 was IP68 rated with open ports.
I think the actual expression is "sleep with the fishes".
Was the phone new? Was the case damaged in any way? Had it been opened up and/or tinkered with?
I am not usually on the side of big business but "I dropped it in the toilet and it started acting strange" is hardly the basis for a lawsuit is it?(IANAL)
Having said that, if it was a reasonably new phone that was in good condition then the consumer should be compensated if it has not performed as specified.
Of course there was probably tiny writing at the bottom of the advertisement along the lines of "Phone used was non-working dummy and is only for illustrative purposes"
Oh no, this is not about billing for the time. The lawyer is probably paying the lead complainant for her time. This is class action, where the lawyers may get anywhere from 25% to 35% of the settlement amount if they win. There are highly successful class action lawyers who are billionaires.
I consider myself reasonably waterproof, but after being smacked against some porcelain, I may not be.
And who's to say her wonky phone was water damaged? The shock could quite easily have eased a dry joint or two out of whack.
Honestly, it makes you wonder why some companies go to all the bother of exporting to America, if all your profits are going to get spent in a courtroom every couple of months.
Personally, I'd let some third party handle the American market. Let them make the profits and suffer the litigation that goes with it.
Apple are the same dishonest Fucking shysters on this too.
They should take a lead from the watch manufacturers instead of in our case speculating that the dog had spilled something over the phone without our knowledge before chucking my angry wife out of the Touchwood (Solihull) store breaching CV19 guidelines on social distancing.
https://www.breitling.com/gb-en/service/water-resistance/
one has a hard bottom, and that ding likely caused more of a problem that water naturally exploited.
hard surfaces have been known to crack screens (just sayin'). So my money would be on Samsung because if they can demonstrate 30 minutes and the surprising effect a hard surface has on a phone, then they would be let off as they were not saying "please drop this in a toilet" were they?
I was going to say exactly the same thing. Dropping onto a hard surface could inevitably cause a leak that would not normally happen. Also, who would actually want to use a phone after it had been dropped in the toilet.. Makes more sense to break it and have an insurance claim!
From https://www.samsung.com/global/galaxy/what-is/ip68/
IP, or Ingress Protection, is a universally accepted measurement of varying degrees for dust and liquid resistance. Galaxy S20, S20+, S20 Ultra, Note10, Note10+, S10e, S10, S10+, Note9, S9, S9+, Note8, S8, S8+, S7, and S7 edge feature an IP rating of 68, which means you can bring it with you on adventures and take comfort in knowing that you can carry on using these devices.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.
*Based on test conditions for submersion in up to 1.5 meters of freshwater for up to 30 minutes. Not advised for beach or pool use. Water or dust damage not covered by warranty.
I think pretty much every phone maker has a similar disclaimer. If a phone is rated for IP68 and has water damage and you ask for warranty replacement, how are they supposed to tell how deep / how long it was in the water? You might have dropped it 50 feet deep in the ocean and try to tell them "I only dropped it in the toilet, it should be fine[*]"
[*] The IP68 rating covers FRESH water only, so not pools or ocean - and I hope no one considers toilet water to be "fresh water"!
I still use the S7 edge. It has been a great phone (except for the lack of support as of this year). I have taken it to beaches, pools, hot tubs and it has never failed me after I dusted or rinsed it clean. Since I have an unnatural distaste for fingerprints on smartphones (or monitors, or television sets), I would wash the thing often.
My only gripe was that, rather logically, the touchscreen would go into conniptions in the rain. That is, all until I dropped it and cracked the screen last year. I bought a replacement as it was down to $200 but the replacement was definitely not as water resistant as a new unit!
I am in the market for a phone that gets security updates but still stung by the $800 I paid back in 2016; the phone is perfectly suitable and should be supported for a few more years!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
