Samsung fined $14 million for misleading smartphone ads

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has fined Samsung Electronics A$14 million (US$9.6 million) for making misleading water resistance claims on 3.1 million smartphones.

The Commission (ACCC) stated that between 2016 and 2018, Samsung announced its Galaxy S7, S7 Edge, A5, A7, S8, S8 Plus and Note 8 smartphones as being able to withstand short dips in sea or fresh water.

as it happens record Attended the Australian launch of Note 8 and I watched in wonder It also survived a short immersion and bubbles appeared from inside the device. Your reporter recalls that Samsung claims the waterproofing reflects the goal of designing a phone that can handle Australia’s outdoor lifestyle.

But the ACCC has labeled ads glorifying water resistance as a phones feature misleading.

“We reviewed hundreds of complaints from consumers who reported having issues with their Galaxy phones after they were exposed to water, and in many cases, their Galaxy phone completely stopped working,” said Gina Kass Gottlieb, chair of the Anti-Corruption Commission.

The problem is not that the phones are leaked. Instead, Samsung has not advised that if phones charge after being dipped in, there is a “fundamental possibility” that the charging port will corrode and stop working.

“Prior to the launch of Galaxy phones, Samsung Australia’s parent company, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., was already seeking to mitigate the effects of this charging port corrosion caused by charging after exposure to water,” according to the ACCC. statement. “However, Samsung Australia’s marketing campaign has promoted the use of Galaxy phones in swimming pools and sea water while there is still a high possibility that Galaxy phones will be damaged by corrosion.”

See also  Apple explains what ad tracking looks like. New commercial ad for transparency app tracking

The ACCC statement notes that the fines allowed to be imposed have increased significantly since the time of Samsung’s misconduct, so the company could have faced a much higher bill for its misleading advertising. ®

By Elvira Soto

"Hardcore troublemaker. Internet advocate. Creator. Subtly charming entrepreneur. Alcohol fanatic."

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.