Samsung “Water Resistant” Smart Watch Water Damage Class Action

About a third of smart watch failures, claims the complaint for this class action, are due to contact with or immersion in water, so that protection from water has become a desirable characteristic. But the complaint alleges that the advertising for the Galaxy Watch Active 2 smart watch, from Samsung Electronics America, Inc., implies that it is waterproof, rather than just water resistant.

The class for this action is all citizens of California who bought the product for personal or household use during the statutory period.

The IEC has set standards for “ingress protection” (IP) from dust and water. For example, a device rated at IP68 has a dust protection rating of 6 and water resistance of 8, that is, water resistance to a depth of 4 meters for up to 30 minutes.

The complaint alleges, “Although Samsung describes the [Galaxy Watch Active 2] as ‘water-resistant,’ its marketing suggests and implies it is ‘waterproof.’”

The complaint reproduces an ad showing two of the watches being splashed with water, saying they “Keep[] up where you go” with an “IP68 and 5ATM water and dust rating plus military grade durability to handle a range of conditions.”

A press release, also depicted, claims the watch can measure thirty-nine kinds of exercise, “with seven of them automatically activated—including running, walking, cycling, swimming, rowing machine, elliptical machine and dynamic workouts.” Other ads, reproduced in the complaint, similarly mention swimming tracking.

Another says that “many Samsung smart watches and fitness bands are water-resistant. In other words, you can keep track of your workout when it’s raining, or even underwater!”

The complaint alleges that the IEC standards do not apply to smart watches, for a number of reasons:

• The testing is done with brand-new watches, but over time, parts, seals, coatings, and so on wear out or degrade.
• The water-protection barriers include such things as coatings, glues, gaskets, membranes, and so on that are porous and “deter” rather than prevent water from entering.
• The testing specifies certain temperatures, degrees of humidity, and air pressures.
• The standard does not specify whether the watch is turned on when it meets the water.
• The standard does not specify how water enters the device.
• The criteria for passing the test are vague, for example, and can vary from whether a short circuit occurs to whether quality is reduced.

The complaint alleges that “the user manual and official websites for the Product[] note[] generally in a small, inconspicuous font at the bottom of the advertisement or representation that it is not or may not be water resistant.” The complaint alleges this is not consistent with the advertising.

In fact, the complaint contends, consumers generally aren’t aware of these statements. Despite the IP68 rating, the complaint alleges that “the Product suffers frequent damage[] after being dropped into, or contacted with, water and other liquids, for a few minutes or even seconds.” Even so, the complaint alleges, Samsung refuses to repair or replace liquid-damaged watches under its warranty.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer
Tags: Deceptive Advertising, Deceptive Labels, Water Damage, Waterproof or Water Resistant