fbpx

Samsung Smartphones GOS App Benchmark “Cheating” Class Action

Smartphone makers compete to provide both faster performance and longer battery life. In this class action against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the complaint alleges that certain Samsung smartphones that contain the Game Optimizing Service (GOS) app are rigged for “benchmark cheating,” that is, to test better than they actually perform in normal use.

The National Class for this action is all persons or entities who bought a Samsung device containing the GOS app. New Jersey, Texas, and Virginia Subclasses have been defined for those who bought the devices in those respective states.

At issue in this case are certain Samsung smartphone models that contain the GOS, including models and versions of the S10, S20, S21, and S22, as well as versions designated as FE, Ultra, Plus, or the like.

According to the complaint, the GOS “artificially and selectively limits—or ‘throttles’—access to the Devices’ power and other resources, purportedly with the intention of preventing overheating to and extending battery life of the Devices. Specifically, Samsung has programmed these Devices to run at faster than normal speeds (or higher speeds than apps operating in the real world) when they detect certain ‘benchmarking’ apps[,] i.e., performance-measuring tools used by reviewers and consumers to test and compare the speed and performance of smartphones and tablets.”

Samsung claimed to deliver both faster performance and longer battery life, but knowing that it could not do so, the complaint alleges, “Samsung intentionally programmed its Devices to cheat benchmark apps, and to create false perceptions regarding the speed, performance, and battery life of these Devices.”

When electronics companies release new devices, they are tested and reviewed for publications and review websites through the use of benchmarking apps that can assess them and help in comparing them to earlier or competing devices. According to the complaint, Samsung wanted its devices to appear to perform better than they actually did.

The complaint claims, “Samsung’s throttling manipulation was intended to address a defect in the design of its Devices: the fact that the Devices’ batteries lacked the capacity and power delivery to keep up with the demands placed upon them by Samsung’s hardware and software…” The complaint says Samsung therefore set up the devices “to limit access to their fastest processing cores” for certain popular applications during regular use.

The point of the “cheating,” the complaint says, was to increase demand for its devices and justify high prices for them.

The complaint alleges that Samsung has a history of trying to get around benchmarking tests. It cites a February 2014 class action accusing the company’s devices of speeding up performance when they detected benchmarking apps. The case was settled in or around September 2020.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer

Most Recent Case Event

Samsung Smartphones GOS App Benchmark “Cheating” Complaint

March 11, 2022

Smartphone makers compete to provide both faster performance and longer battery life. In this class action against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the complaint alleges that certain Samsung smartphones that contain the Game Optimizing Service (GOS) app are rigged for “benchmark cheating,” that is, to test better than they actually perform in normal use.

Samsung Smartphones GOS App Benchmark “Cheating” Complaint

Case Event History

Samsung Smartphones GOS App Benchmark “Cheating” Complaint

March 11, 2022

Smartphone makers compete to provide both faster performance and longer battery life. In this class action against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the complaint alleges that certain Samsung smartphones that contain the Game Optimizing Service (GOS) app are rigged for “benchmark cheating,” that is, to test better than they actually perform in normal use.

Samsung Smartphones GOS App Benchmark “Cheating” Complaint
Tags: Deceptive Advertising, False Claims of Quality, Item Does Not Do What It Is Advertised to Do, Testing