Samsung Z Fold 3 Damage to Larger Smartphone Screens Class Action

The complaint for this class action calls its defendant, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., “the global leader in the development of foldable phones, which allow significantly larger screens.” But the Z Fold 3 smartphone screens have significant flaws, the complaint alleges, developing problems sooner than expected, and the complaint claims that Samsung often does not honor its warranty or is not equipped to handle a larger number of repairs than it anticipated.

Two classes have been proposed for this action:

• The Virginia and New York Class is all persons in Virginia and New York who bought the product during the applicable statutes of limitations.
• The Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class is all persons in North Dakota, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Utah who bought the product during the applicable statutes of limitations.

The Z Fold 3 seems to be the size of a normal smartphone but unfolds to offer a double-size screen.

How does the hinge area stand up to folding and unfolding? The complaint alleges that Samsung claims it has stood up to tests of folding and unfolding 200,000 times, the number of times it would experience in five years of usage. But the complaint alleges that the testing method “is flawed and not representative of real-world usage” because it did not take into consideration “real world conditions.”

“In normal use,” the complaint alleges, “the Product is exposed to dust, debris, sweat, handling, heat, cold, and water, which can and often does penetrate the screen protector at the hinge, interfering with the folding mechanism.” Testing by other entities, the complaint claims, find that the screens can only sustain 120,000 folds and begin to show “significant screen or pixel damage before 20,000 folds.”

The screens tend to first show a minor crack at the fold, the complaint says, although some cracks immediately run the full length of the fold. After that, the complaint claims, “a black unresponsive zone will form, sometimes accompanied by a green or white line spanning the length of the screen.”

The damage may include corrupted pixels, via very small particles that work their way under the protective film at the hinge point. The complaint alleges, “Eve cold temperatures are capable of causing the screen protector to snap instead of bend, rendering the screen [nonfunctional] when the phone is unfolded.”

Even so, the complaint alleges that when users report damage to the screen, Samsung claims they have caused the damage with error or misuse, such as dropping the phone, applying pressure to the screen, or other mishandling, and charges them $500 or more for repair.

When users send their phones in for repair, the complaint alleges, they often also wait as much as a month for the work to be done, and do not receive loaner phones to tide them over. The complaint claims, “This process takes so long because the extent of the damaged screens was greater than [Samsung] expected, such that there is a shortage of replacement parts.”

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer
Tags: Breach of Contract, Breach of warranty, Deceptive Advertising, Fraud