Samsung Phones Not Working Under Water?

[Guest]

Samsung sued for claiming its phones work underwater

Source: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/money/2019/07/samsung-sued-for-claiming-its-phones-work-underwater.html?fbclid=IwAR3Q__NEPCI3EqC-apdOjr1BUkyS7MtGsCFPwMxkfa7WzK0xaTEj_AUbqew

 

Quote

Australia's consumer watchdog has sued Samsung's Australian unit for allegedly misleading consumers by promoting water-resistant Galaxy smartphones as suitable to use in swimming pools and the surf.

The world's largest smartphone maker did not know or sufficiently test the effects of pool or saltwater exposure on its phones when ads showed them fully submerged, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) lawsuit says.

The case is the first filed by a major regulator and could result in multimillion-dollar fines. It centres on more than 300 advertisements in which Samsung showed its Galaxy phones being used at the bottom of swimming pools and in the ocean.

"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... when this was not the case," ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said in a statement on Thursday.

I would assume an IP68 rating to be suitable for any underwater situation. I've tried my Apple Watch in pools, salt water and the shower numerous times, and it works fine (AW 4 has IP68, so I think that's the same as the Galaxy 10 - someone may need to correct me). This seems to be about the testing, where they have advertised situations which have not been fully tested. 

 

Quote

Samsung showed the Galaxy phones used in situations they shouldn't be to attract customers," Sims said.

"Samsung's advertisements, we believe, denied consumers an informed choice and gave Samsung an unfair competitive advantage."

The ACCC alleges law breaches occurred in more than 300 advertisements. If proven, each breach after 1 Sept. 2018 can attract a fine of up to AU$10 million, triple the benefit of the conduct or as much as 10 percent of annual turnover.

I'm not so sure about an advantage, most waterproof phones coming out are IP68 as standard, as they should be. This rating is an important factor into buying a phone. 

Quote

Samsung said it stood by its advertising, complied with Australian law and would defend the case.

As you would of course. 

 

The article doesn't specify which line of phones, but I would assume its the Galaxy S10 line. The Galaxy lineup itself is quite large, but the S10 is the most advertised. IMO surely the ads where they are using the phones under the water in numerous sitations are a test of themselves, albeit without any certified testing. Time will tell of the verdict of course. 

[mr moose]

I really hope the ACCC aren't just barking up a few faulty phones and that they can prove ALL phones weren't waterproof.  Otherwise the ACCC start to endanger loosing their teeth in the legal system.

[Blademaster91]

It should be common sense to avoid putting all phones in pool or salt water, Samsung doesn't have control over the IP rating system either so I don't see how this lawsuit would go anywhere.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I really hope the ACCC aren't just barking up a few faulty phones and that they can prove ALL phones weren't waterproof.  Otherwise the ACCC start to endanger loosing their teeth in the legal system.

I think it was inferred it was Samsung's testing procedures at their facility, i.e. the phones are not tested in salt water and sandy conditions for a certain amount of time etc - but represented that they can be used in those conditions in the adverts, so ACCC suggest that Samsung cannot guarantee that the user's phone will be perfectly fine. It's fair on one hand, the have a point, but Samsung shouldn't really need to test it that way, if they are able to get the phones IP68 certified anyway. Theres no way to fully test all scenarios, it would simply be too long and unprofitable for each unit. 

[mr moose]

Just now, floofer said:

I think it was inferred it was Samsung's testing procedures at their facility, i.e. the phones are not tested in salt water and sandy conditions for a certain amount of time etc - but represented that they can be used in those conditions in the adverts, so ACCC suggest that Samsung cannot guarantee that the user's phone will be perfectly fine. It's fair on one hand, the have a point, but Samsung shouldn't really need to test it that way, if they are able to get the phones IP68 certified anyway. Theres no way to fully test all scenarios, it would simply be too long and unprofitable for each unit. 

Forcing QC is not the ACCC's job.    Their job is basically to enforce fair trading for everyone.   If the phones are not actually failing (beyond normal failure rates) when consumers are using them as advertised then this is not a good sign.

[Sakkura]

24 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I really hope the ACCC aren't just barking up a few faulty phones and that they can prove ALL phones weren't waterproof.  Otherwise the ACCC start to endanger loosing their teeth in the legal system.

That's not good enough. Even if it's just a small number of phones that are defective, Samsung then has an obligation to replace or repair those phones, because they didn't live up to the promises made in advertisements and spec sheets.

[Acid Panda]

i smell 4chan

[TechyBen]

30 mins is not "swimming with your phone". They kinda make out it's permanently waterproof in the adverts, as suppose to "can survive a dunk".

[TetraSky]

Is this about how you literally can use a phone underwater because your touch isn't recognized? Or about phones failing underwater? Or is it just because a select few phones turned out to have a manufacturing defect that made them not so much water resistant?

I expect the ACCC to fail this.

My A5 was dunked in water plenty of times, not to mention used in heavy rain and it still worked fine... I just get a notification saying the charging port is disabled when wet.

[The King of the Undead]

how can people go oh my phone will be fine if I swim in salt water for 3 hours?

[MMKing]

51 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

It should be common sense to avoid putting all phones in pool or salt water, Samsung doesn't have control over the IP rating system either so I don't see how this lawsuit would go anywhere.

Excuse me? I disagree

Samsung is making it very clear that using their phones under water is to be expected

 

Pool

 

pool

 

Dishwasher

 

IP68 Test

 

 

I'm sorry but you are wrong. The phones ability to function, completely submerged for extended periods has been made abundantly clear by Samsung. Any divergence from this fact, is either faulty production in which case, each individual phones (edit: those affected) will have to be replaced. Alternatively, Samsung has been misleading it's customers into believing their product can function underwater.

[Dabombinable]

10 minutes ago, MMKing said:

Excuse me? I disagree

Samsung is making it very clear that using their phones under water is to be expected

 

Pool

-snip-

 

pool

-snip-

 

Dishwasher

-snip-

 

IP68 Test
 

-snip-

 

I'm sorry but you are wrong. The phones ability to function, completely submerged for extended periods has been made abundantly clear by Samsung. Any divergence from this fact, is either faulty production in which case, each individual phones (edit: those affected) will have to be replaced. Alternatively, Samsung has been misleading it's customers into believing their product can function underwater.

All I know is: I won't be facing any issues with my J2 and using it under water. I only ever expect a phone to survive a quick dunking. Plus if it does get killed...well it doesn't have any IP rating (at least an official one), so it's just like dropping it on concrete.

[dalekphalm]

Let's be clear about something:

 

IP68 means that the phone has been tested by being submerged in freshwater for 30 minutes. It does not guarantee functionality in Salt Water or other water based liquids (this would also include Pool Water, which may contain additives like Chlorine which could still damage the phone).

 

Now, if Samsung specifically indicates it can handle Salt Water or Pool Water, that's different. But the IP68 rating itself does not guarantee those things.

 

Also the IP68 spec doesn't guarantee a specific depth - that's up to the manufacturer to clarify (all it guarantees is that whatever the depth the manufacturer rates, is deeper than 1 meter).

[yolosnail]

38 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Let's be clear about something:

 

IP68 means that the phone has been tested by being submerged in freshwater for 30 minutes. It does not guarantee functionality in Salt Water or other water based liquids (this would also include Pool Water, which may contain additives like Chlorine which could still damage the phone).

 

Now, if Samsung specifically indicates it can handle Salt Water or Pool Water, that's different. But the IP68 rating itself does not guarantee those things.

 

Also the IP68 spec doesn't guarantee a specific depth - that's up to the manufacturer to clarify (all it guarantees is that whatever the depth the manufacturer rates, is deeper than 1 meter).

I think the main issue is that the average person doesn't know what an IP rating is, so if Samsung are advertising the phone as water resistant and have advertisments showing the phone being used in a swimming pools or saltwater, then the only logical conclusion a consumer would come to would be that it's guaranteed to work in those situations! Hence the fslse advertisement.

It's the same as a car manufacturer showing their car driving through a 1m deep river in an advertisement when it has a wading depth of 300mm. Sure, it can drive through water, but not like they show in the ad!

[Blademaster91]

57 minutes ago, will4623 said:

how can people go oh my phone will be fine if I swim in salt water for 3 hours?

Exactly, not sure why people are fine with taking a $1,000+ phone into salt or pool water for hours, even if a company says their device is waterproof I only take the rating as a suggestion and don't get my phone wet on purpose.

54 minutes ago, MMKing said:

Excuse me? I disagree

Samsung is making it very clear that using their phones under water is to be expected

 

Pool

-snip-

 

pool

-snip-

Dishwasher

-snip

IP68 Test

-snip-

 

I'm sorry but you are wrong. The phones ability to function, completely submerged for extended periods has been made abundantly clear by Samsung. Any divergence from this fact, is either faulty production in which case, each individual phones (edit: those affected) will have to be replaced. Alternatively, Samsung has been misleading it's customers into believing their product can function underwater.

No that is just marketing, plenty of companies do that, and as mentioned for the ACCC to really sue over this they would need to thoroughly test about every other  phone that makes claims of being water resistant.

Also with the IP68 vid you linked, the disclaimer is made that the IP68 rating only tests using freshwater.

[MMKing]

@Blademaster91

Lets not get hung up in details, as to exactly how water proof the product is stated to be. The only hard claim i see is 1.5 meters, 30 minutes. What matters is that Samsung is advertising that their phones should function underwater. That is the whole point of the ad.

 

1. The general consensus among the consumers is that telephones are generally too sensitive to water, to survive more than some drops.

 

2. Samsung advertises their phones, where the product clearly functions underwater. Even conducting tests, where it's explicitly written that it was under 1.5 meters of water, for a duration of 30 minutes.

 

3. The consumer then buys the product, with the expectation that the product should function underwater.

 

4. ACCC sues Samsung, with the claim that Samsungs advertisements are misleading the customers into believing the product will function underwater, when in reality, ACCC alleges. The product does not function underwater at all, or at the very least to the extent advertised.

 

''No that is just marketing'' is the entire point of the ACCC allegations. The marketing material, conflicting with reality is the core of the issue here.

[dalekphalm]

12 minutes ago, yolosnail said:

I think the main issue is that the average person doesn't know what an IP rating is, so if Samsung are advertising the phone as water resistant and have advertisments showing the phone being used in a swimming pools or saltwater, then the only logical conclusion a consumer would come to would be that it's guaranteed to work in those situations! Hence the fslse advertisement.

It's the same as a car manufacturer showing their car driving through a 1m deep river in an advertisement when it has a wading depth of 300mm. Sure, it can drive through water, but not like they show in the ad!

In terms of the pools shown in the advertisements, while it might imply any pool, some pools are freshwater (with no chlorine) - though I agree that should be clarified.

 

Perhaps some clarification in advertisement is required - but the specifications themselves are quite clear about the testing conditions.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

That's not good enough. Even if it's just a small number of phones that are defective, Samsung then has an obligation to replace or repair those phones, because they didn't live up to the promises made in advertisements and spec sheets.

 

I don't think you understand what has been presented as the issue.  This is about false advertising not product support.  There is no indication that Samsung is not honoring warranty on defective phones. 

 

The issue the ACCC is alleged to have presented is that Samsung can't guarantee what they claim.  It seems from the surface that the ACCC believe because there is no independent standard test that validates a devices ability to be submerged in salt/chlorine water that it is false advertising. 

[Salv8 (sam)]

lets do some basic maths

 

water + electronics = 

 

 

[RejZoR]

I'm surprised lawsuit isn't about user drowning because they wanted to talk to their girlfriend while underwater...

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

The issue the ACCC is alleged to have presented is that Samsung can't guarantee what they claim.  It seems from the surface that the ACCC believe because there is no independent standard test that validates a devices ability to be submerged in salt/chlorine water that it is false advertising. 

Exactly.

That is what is happening here. It is really bothering me that we are now letting these shitty, clickbaity and wrong headlines take over tech news as well. The real title should be "Samsung Australia is being sued for misleading salt-water resistance advertising".

 

The lawsuit isn't even about the phones not working underwater. The lawsuit is specifically about misleading people into believing the phone is resistant to saltwater, which it might be, but Samsung hasn't tested it and therefore "had no reasonable basis to make some of its claims".

Basically, if you haven't tested something in Australia then you can't make claims about it in advertisements, which sounds fair to me.

[Loote]

Yeah, I probably wouldn't think too hard about it having water-resistant phone, but salt is bad for so many things. I know that in winter my bike's chain can go overnight from 'looks new' to 'dark red with huge amount of rust'. I guess you could use your smartphone in the ocean, but you should wash the chlorine/salt away and, just like they said, it's not tested to what extent can the phones resist it.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Exactly.

That is what is happening here. It is really bothering me that we are now letting these shitty, clickbaity and wrong headlines take over tech news as well. The real title should be "Samsung Australia is being sued for misleading salt-water resistance advertising".

 

The lawsuit isn't even about the phones not working underwater. The lawsuit is specifically about misleading people into believing the phone is resistant to saltwater, which it might be, but Samsung hasn't tested it and therefore "had no reasonable basis to make some of its claims".

Basically, if you haven't tested something in Australia then you can't make claims about it in advertisements, which sounds fair to me.

 

The only issue is that if the phones are usable under water then it isn't false advertising.      Not having a test is does not mean the products can't do as claimed.

[Sakkura]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

I don't think you understand what has been presented as the issue.  This is about false advertising not product support.  There is no indication that Samsung is not honoring warranty on defective phones. 

 

The issue the ACCC is alleged to have presented is that Samsung can't guarantee what they claim.  It seems from the surface that the ACCC believe because there is no independent standard test that validates a devices ability to be submerged in salt/chlorine water that it is false advertising. 

Read the article.

 

Quote

Some consumers damaged their phones when exposing them to water and Samsung had refused to honour warranty claims, the ACCC said in the lawsuit, though Samsung said it complied with all of its warranty obligations under Australian law.

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

Read the article.

 

 

We don't know anything about those claims.  The lawsuit as stated indicates false advertising, it seems only to be based on those few cases.  If they are using a handful of cases to claim false advertising then what about all the other supposed waterproof phones?  do they have evidence ALL phones aren't waterproof or just a handful that failed (for reasons we don't yet know).  

 

If it turns out that Samsung did indeed fail to make waterproof phones then advertise them as such,  then in this case it will be all good and justice will be done,  But,  if it turns out that the vast majority of phones do exactly as advertised and the ACCC are suing based on normal failure rates (or worse, phones that were tampered with or damaged from dropping making them no longer water proof), then ACCC is only setting consumers up for failure down the line as Australian law only permits you to take legal action a limited number of times.