Samsung Phones Not Working Under Water?

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

What's next?  Citroen getting sued because the C4 isn't actually "alive" and doesn't transform into a dancing robot?

 

 

 

 

[Curufinwe_wins]

Yeah this lawsuit is dumb.

 

Saying all water obviously precludes highly acidic water, other extremely chemically active waters... salt obviously degrades the ability of the device to provide ingress protection. 

 

Samsungs ratings are highly conservative as is. Dont be an idiot.

[Sakkura]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

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.

 

 

But Samsung denied the warranty claims! So either way they would be in the wrong. And obviously you want to focus first and foremost on those cases, where the damages are obvious and easily quantified.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

But Samsung denied the warranty claims! So either way they would be in the wrong. And obviously you want to focus first and foremost on those cases, where the damages are obvious and easily quantified.

Yes but we don't know why they denied the claims.

 

Let's say, I the user, took my phone underwater and it died. I take it to Samsung for repair. When I get it in there, they notice that there's a hole drilled in the back of the chassis.

 

Are they wrong to deny that claim? Of course not.

 

With that in mind, if it can be proven that the phones were otherwise working as intended, with no physical alterations or damage caused by the user, and they were still denied? That's a problem, and should be investigated.

 

Either way, investigating the issue is certainly valid - but to simply claim Samsung is wrong on this matter without having seen the evidence is... premature at best.

[Kroon]

22 hours ago, floofer said:

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.

 

The phones listed in the ACCC suit include the Galaxy S10e, S10, S10 Plus, S9, S9 Plus, S8, S8 Plus, S7, S7 Edge, Note 9, Note 8, Note 7, A8, A7, and A5.

[Sakkura]

59 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Yes but we don't know why they denied the claims.

 

Let's say, I the user, took my phone underwater and it died. I take it to Samsung for repair. When I get it in there, they notice that there's a hole drilled in the back of the chassis.

 

Are they wrong to deny that claim? Of course not.

 

With that in mind, if it can be proven that the phones were otherwise working as intended, with no physical alterations or damage caused by the user, and they were still denied? That's a problem, and should be investigated.

 

Either way, investigating the issue is certainly valid - but to simply claim Samsung is wrong on this matter without having seen the evidence is... premature at best.

We know that the ACCC found enough merit in their claims to sue the company. Normally that means their story checks out. This isn't just an investigation; the investigation is done and the company is being taken to court by the authorities. It's just not the police and prosecutors as it's a civil matter rather than a criminal matter.

[dalekphalm]

33 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

We know that the ACCC found enough merit in their claims to sue the company. Normally that means their story checks out. This isn't just an investigation; the investigation is done and the company is being taken to court by the authorities. It's just not the police and prosecutors as it's a civil matter rather than a criminal matter.

In that case, we'll see how it pans out in court, then. We will get to see what evidence the ACCC presents, and what counter evidence Samsung presents. But I haven't seen any hard evidence one way or the other on this.

 

But just because it went to court doesn't automatically mean the claim is true - that's the whole point of court to determine based on the evidence.

 

So, I take the position that we should all wait for the facts to come out before we jump on an Anti-Samsung (or an anti-ACCC) bandwagon.

[mr moose]

37 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

We know that the ACCC found enough merit in their claims to sue the company. Normally that means their story checks out. This isn't just an investigation; the investigation is done and the company is being taken to court by the authorities. It's just not the police and prosecutors as it's a civil matter rather than a criminal matter.

All that would mean is that they found Samsung guilty of failing to honor product warranty, they have not found proof that it is false advertising.  For false advertising to be the case then majority of phones have to be failing when they goes under water.

 

There are two distinct issues here, one is the claim they are not honoring warranty, the article is light on information, So i am not going to comment beyond not concluding either way who is likely in the wrong.  The other claim is that Samsung engaged in false advertising, If they are relying on a few broken warranty claims for this then it presents a disturbing image were justice might be going in Australia.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Kroon said:

 

The phones listed in the ACCC suit include the Galaxy S10e, S10, S10 Plus, S9, S9 Plus, S8, S8 Plus, S7, S7 Edge, Note 9, Note 8, Note 7, A8, A7, and A5.

Thank you, hope you don't mind me adding to the OP a bit later on (just woke up).

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, Kroon said:

 

The phones listed in the ACCC suit include the Galaxy S10e, S10, S10 Plus, S9, S9 Plus, S8, S8 Plus, S7, S7 Edge, Note 9, Note 8, Note 7, A8, A7, and A5.

 

That's interesting, Samsung only provide an IP rating for the Galaxy Note9, S9, S9+, Note8, S8, S8+, S7, and S7 edge.  Did they actually advertise those other models as waterproof?   I tend to ignore ads.

[Kroon]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

That's interesting, Samsung only provide an IP rating for the Galaxy Note9, S9, S9+, Note8, S8, S8+, S7, and S7 edge.  Did they actually advertise those other models as waterproof?   I tend to ignore ads.

I have no clue about how Samsung advertise their phones in Australia.  Those are however the models listed in the ACCC lawsuit. 

[bbbbbbb99]

On 7/5/2019 at 8:50 PM, mr moose said:

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.

 

 

You may want to read the media release before you give your 2 cents

 

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/samsung-in-court-for-misleading-phone-water-resistance-advertisements

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, bbbbbbb99 said:

You may want to read the media release before you give your 2 cents

 

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/samsung-in-court-for-misleading-phone-water-resistance-advertisements

Did you read it?  Because it doesn't exactly say anything that changes my opinion nor the information already provided.

 

So far it seems the only evidence they have that Samsung phones don't do as advertised is the failure of Samsung to honor some warranties.   Direct from their statement:

 

• Quote

   

  • 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.

   

 

So basically the ACCC are suing Samsung for lack of QC and because they denied a few warranty claims and we don't even know why they were denied.

 

As I said right back at the start:

 

On 7/5/2019 at 7:47 AM, 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.

 

 

 

 

[Spotty]

On 7/5/2019 at 7:47 AM, 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 like saying "They need to prove that ALL Apple butterfly keyboards are defective before it is a problem".

 

This isn't about being "waterproof" [sic] or not. ACCC is not disputing whether or not it meets the standards for an IP68 rating. IP68 rating does not protect against salt water, chlorinated water or "water moving with force" (such as a running tap, hose, waves, etc). The claims Samsung made in their advertisements do not line up with the IP68 rating and the actual durability of the phone. Samsung advertisements for the products depicted it as being used at the beach with waves splashing over and submerged in swimming pools along with the claims that it was water resistant.

ACCC alleges that [some] people who used it at the beach or in swimming pools believing the claims made in Samsung's advertisements have had their device fail as a result of being submerged in water and those people were denied warranty on the device.

[D13H4RD]

At some point though, you have to ask whether some people were thinking twice about such claims. 

 

Yes, the ads showed the phone being used at a pool but Samsung (and most phone manufacturers) do not cover damage caused by moisture/water ingress, so while the phone may very well be water-resistant, if it gets damaged due to it, whose responsibility is it? The manufacturer for advertising the product with claims that it could potentially be used under such conditions or the customer for using it in a way that the ads suggest but goes against conventional logic? Kinda goes both ways to be honest. 

 

It actually reminds me of a mate of mine who had a Fujifilm X-T3 (same like mine) who kept boasting of its weather-sealing only to kill it in a rain shower... 

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, D13H4RD said:

At some point though, you have to ask whether some people were thinking twice about such claims. 

 

Yes, the ads showed the phone being used at a pool but Samsung (and most phone manufacturers) do not cover damage caused by moisture/water ingress, so while the phone may very well be water-resistant, if it gets damaged due to it, whose responsibility is it? The manufacturer for advertising the product with claims that it could potentially be used under such conditions or the customer for using it in a way that the ads suggest but goes against conventional logic? Kinda goes both ways to be honest. 

 

It actually reminds me of a mate of mine who had a Fujifilm X-T3 (same like mine) who kept boasting of its weather-sealing only to kill it in a rain shower... 

I'd say it's the manufacturer.  If you make claims that your product can't support (and may explicitly void the warranty), it's not the customer's fault if they think that's what the product can do.  To abuse car analogies: imagine if a car manufacturer advertised a car's toughness by showing it in a demolition derby... yeah, you shouldn't be shocked if customers complain that the warranty doesn't cover collision damage.

[D13H4RD]

9 minutes ago, Commodus said:

I'd say it's the manufacturer.  If you make claims that your product can't support (and may explicitly void the warranty), it's not the customer's fault if they think that's what the product can do.  To abuse car analogies: imagine if a car manufacturer advertised a car's toughness by showing it in a demolition derby... yeah, you shouldn't be shocked if customers complain that the warranty doesn't cover collision damage.

Remember when Sony used to tout their phones as waterproof, and even showed ads of the phone being used in underwater photography?

 

Yeah, some ads can get pretty ridiculous. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

No this is straight up ACCC being idiots. 

 

it's literally a discussion about salt water vs freshwater. IP ratings are explicitly for fresh water. And Samsung also literally states that the rating is not for saltwater use. But ACCC says that since Samsung ad only says "waterproof" and shows them around beach water (even though freshwater beaches exist) all water should be assumed safe. Even though that is literal insanity.

 

https://www.samsung.com/hk_en/support/mobile-devices/galaxy-s8-can-i-use-my-device-in-sea-water/

 

Is 10 Molar hydrochloric acid (still 90+% water) the same damaging environment as freshwater? pH of 1, very strong acid.... Of fucking course not.

 

And yes, I did actually read the brief ACCC sent out. It's a meritless case.

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Spotty said:

That's like saying "They need to prove that ALL Apple butterfly keyboards are defective before it is a problem".

 

This isn't about being "waterproof" [sic] or not. ACCC is not disputing whether or not it meets the standards for an IP68 rating. IP68 rating does not protect against salt water, chlorinated water or "water moving with force" (such as a running tap, hose, waves, etc). The claims Samsung made in their advertisements do not line up with the IP68 rating and the actual durability of the phone. Samsung advertisements for the products depicted it as being used at the beach with waves splashing over and submerged in swimming pools along with the claims that it was water resistant.

ACCC alleges that [some] people who used it at the beach or in swimming pools believing the claims made in Samsung's advertisements have had their device fail as a result of being submerged in water and those people were denied warranty on the device.

They would need to prove that the phones are intrinsically not water proof as claimed.  so far all they have done is claim that because samsuing refused to honor some warranties that they are not providing what is advertised. 

 

To use your analogy of the butterfly keyboards, it took apple 2 years to accept they were an issue and start replacing, so under the same logic the ACCC should have sued apple for false advertising because the keyboards don't work as advertised.

 

So far all we have is a few warranties not honored and we don't know why.  That does not amount to false advertising if the other X million phones they sold are water proof as advertised.

[bbbbbbb99]

On 7/7/2019 at 7:27 PM, mr moose said:

Did you read it?  Because it doesn't exactly say anything that changes my opinion nor the information already provided.

 

So far it seems the only evidence they have that Samsung phones don't do as advertised is the failure of Samsung to honor some warranties.   Direct from their statement:

 

•  

 

So basically the ACCC are suing Samsung for lack of QC and because they denied a few warranty claims and we don't even know why they were denied.

 

As I said right back at the start:

 

 

 

 

 

Actually this has nothing to do with warranty and actually deals with consumer law in australia, and before this comes up warranties can only extend consumer protections not restrict. 

 

The part of it that matters in this case is the idea of a reasonable use of a product, if you purchase sonething and only use it within certain bounds that are deemed reasonable (common sense will give you a good estimate of what does and doesnt fit) then if it dies before reasonable time has passed then the consumer can get a repair/replacement/refund (theres tons of asterisks im skipping to keep this post from being too long, the accc website has it in more depth if you need).

 

Generally phones going in water isnt reasonable at all which fits common sense. But the moment samsung advertises their phone in the surf, in a pool, samsung has changed the definition of reasonable for that product their advertising. In a surprise to noone, some phones obviously die in these environments. This only becomes a legal thing when they reject these consumers right to a replacement/repair/refund because it isnt a resonable use of the product. So at this moment the advertising says its ok whilst samsung says its not ok so the advertising is false. 

 

The short version is:

- samsung advertises phone in salt/clorinated water even though its only suitible in fresh water

 

- consumer law forced samsung to clearly communicate that it wasnt suitible in clorinated/fresh water which is why the rejections are important

 

- result is advertising and conflicts with reality and therefore false advertising 

 

 

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, bbbbbbb99 said:

Actually this has nothing to do with warranty and actually deals with consumer law in australia, and before this comes up warranties can only extend consumer protections not restrict. 

I am not sure what your experience is with consumer law, but false advertising cannot be based on the belief that something is not possible, but actually has to be proven to false advertising.  Claiming Samsung lacks the ability to provide a water proof product is not grounds for this lawsuit unless they have evidence the product isn't actually water proof.   Like I said in the second post:

 

On 7/5/2019 at 7:47 AM, 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.

 

 

13 minutes ago, bbbbbbb99 said:

The part of it that matters in this case is the idea of a reasonable use of a product, if you purchase sonething and only use it within certain bounds that are deemed reasonable (common sense will give you a good estimate of what does and doesnt fit) then if it dies before reasonable time has passed then the consumer can get a repair/replacement/refund (theres tons of asterisks im skipping to keep this post from being too long, the accc website has it in more depth if you need).

I don't see where that is in question.  What we have is Samsung refusing warranty, but we don't know why.  I assume the ACCC are confident they have evidence, however they haven't said anything other than a few phones weren't replaced under warranty.  And that is not the same as having proof their phones aren't waterproof.

 

13 minutes ago, bbbbbbb99 said:

Generally phones going in water isnt reasonable at all which fits common sense. But the moment samsung advertises their phone in the surf, in a pool, samsung has changed the definition of reasonable for that product their advertising. In a surprise to noone, some phones obviously die in these environments. This only becomes a legal thing when they reject these consumers right to a replacement/repair/refund because it isnt a resonable use of the product. So at this moment the advertising says its ok whilst samsung says its not ok so the advertising is false. 

No,  you are conflating two issues here, one is the rejection of a warranty and the other is of false advertising. 

Apple also rejected warranty claims and ignored the butterfly keyboard issue for several years, does that mean apple were guilty of false advertising? 

 

 

13 minutes ago, bbbbbbb99 said:

The short version is:

- samsung advertises phone in salt/clorinated water even though its only suitible in fresh water

How do you know they are only suitable in fresh water?  How many people have taken their phones for a dip at the beach and had no issues?

 

13 minutes ago, bbbbbbb99 said:

- consumer law forced samsung to clearly communicate that it wasnt suitible in clorinated/fresh water which is why the rejections are important

Where?

13 minutes ago, bbbbbbb99 said:

- result is advertising and conflicts with reality and therefore false advertising 

 

 

 

Nope,  you can allege that Samsung don;t have enough basis to make those claims, but that is not the same as those claims being untrue.

False advertising is advertising something that is not true, not advertising something that might be untrue because we don;t know if they did adequate QC.

 

As I said:

On 7/5/2019 at 7:54 AM, mr moose said:

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.

 

Here is what the ACCC claim:

 

Quote

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

 

If they have proof beyond a few rejected warranty claims then fine (this is what I have maintained from the start) but if they do not then they are effectively claiming false advertising based on possible future problems if their conjecture is true.  

 

They should not be suing unless there is actual evidence the phones don't do as advertised, not because of rejected warranty and not because the ACCC feel Samsung haven't done enough testing, it is not the ACCC's job to run around forcing companies adequately test their products, it's their job to hold them accountable IF a product doesn't represent what is advertised. 

 

 

 

 

[IntMD]

On 7/7/2019 at 3:31 PM, D13H4RD said:

Remember when Sony used to tout their phones as waterproof, and even showed ads of the phone being used in underwater photography?

 

Yeah, some ads can get pretty ridiculous. 

My Sony Z5 was fine taking photos underwater, in a pool, and also the sea. Admittedly I didn't take it deep or for long, but it did work fine. I did eventually kill it by taking it over the 1.5m they said it was resistant to after I'd already got a new phone.

[The King of the Undead]

and we are still discussing this?

[Guest]

On 7/5/2019 at 12:31 AM, Blademaster91 said:

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.

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.

It is miss-leading advertising that is the issue here. Companies need to be held to account for their advertising campaigns or they will and do get away with all sorts. Here in the UK the ASA would deal with the issue at hand.

[Blademaster91]

39 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

It is miss-leading advertising that is the issue here. Companies need to be held to account for their advertising campaigns or they will and do get away with all sorts. Here in the UK the ASA would deal with the issue at hand.

I'm fine with companies being held accountable but these claims the ACCC are making is just dumb. The ACCC is suing Samsung for not QC testing their phones in saltwater which the IP68 specification doesn't cover anyway. There isn't much for them to be suing on as they're assuming using a phone in saltwater should be no different than using it in freshwater. The only other evidence being some denied warranty claims but as others have pointed out we don't know why the warranty claims got denied.