Samsung Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over Exploding Galaxy Note 7 (vice.com) 42
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Samsung's Galaxy Note 7 troubles are continuing -- the company was just hit with a class action lawsuit in New Jersey focused on recovering cell phone contract fees for customers who were left with an unusable phone for several weeks. The suit has three initial plaintiffs, who say that they were left without a phone for the several weeks between when Samsung and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission originally issued a recall and told consumers to "power down" their devices (September 9), and when the company began offering replacement devices (September 21). It also notes that Samsung didn't make enough replacement devices immediately available -- which is probably a good thing considering that the company ultimately had to recall those as well. "Samsung informed consumers they would have to wait several days, and even weeks in many cases, before receiving a replacement smartphone," the suit alleges. "During this time, and as a result of Defendant failing to provide consumers with an adequate replacement, consumers continued to incur monthly device and plan charges from their cellular carriers for phones they could not safely use." The total recall and destruction of Galaxy Note 7 phones is unprecedented for a modern smartphone, so there isn't much to look at in order to project whether the case will succeed. "Samsung has agreed to recall and reimburse the cost of the device, but their customers have had to continue to pay on their data and voice plans during the time they had to make their device inoperative until they received their replacement device," Richard McCune, one of the lawyers representing the class, told me. "That is the loss that the case is focused on."
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it could be the charger board (or firmware). (Score:3)
The charger board itself doesn't have had to catch fire to be the source of the problem, it could simply be the thing that ended up overloading the battery such that a short while later the battery runaway heating cycle became noticeable in the form of flame...
I'm pretty sure the fires all had something to do with either the charging or power management firmware, after all batteries from two different manufactures had the same issue... plainly the issue is not the battery itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Still a necessary activity. (Score:2)
And hopefully the lesson that is learned is that you should never cut short QA time just to try to take the jam out of a competitor's donut.
This fiasco is going to hang around their neck like "you are holding it wrong" continues to haunt Apple. Except that was bad reception, not physical danger, and airport gate announcements about your phone (girlfriend heard one of these on Monday while flying to Chicago - American Airlines was specifically talking about the Galaxy Note 7)
Re: (Score:2)
The courts need to tell Samsung: "You will pay."
For a contract dispute between two third parties?
For a device that they have not only wholly refunded but provided discounts for future products for?
Or are you just in the typical knee-jerk mode of every company that ever has a problem with a product ever needs to instantly be put completely out of business?
Re: (Score:3)
Samsung are already taking a massive financial hit over the failure of the Note 7, so there's no punitive sense in bringing this suit.
Reading the summery this lawsuit it's far from frivolous, it has real merit.
There are many different payment plans, some rather spendy -while many of them involved paying off the S7 included in the monthly charges.
Unlike the PS3 rebate, it's very easy for these people to prove they did indeed own a S7 and length of time they suffered.
Re: (Score:2)
I would refute the notion that it is difficult to prove that one purchased a PS3 at the requisite time to qualify for their rebate. While I didn't ever buy a PS3, I do still have purchase receipts from some products that date that far back, and if I were to have bought a PS3 during that time period, I'd definitely be able to still prove it today To keep the receipts from fading, I kee
Re: (Score:3)
No it does not. Samsung is already giving them the full purchase price of the phone + $100** back. It's highly doubtful, even with the stupidly expensive plans at most places here in the U.S., that they paid more than $100 in thirteen days FOR THE ONE PHONE.
There are many different payment plans, some rather spendy -while many of them involved paying off the S7 included in the monthly charges.
Even if paid monthly the full cost of the phone gets reimbursed by Samsung ( and the credit they get as well ) and there are no more phone payments due. This includes the partial month that was used since they are not prorating the partial month or ANY t
Re: Lawyers (Score:2)
They paying me back for the external battery and case I bought too? The contract extension that Sprint forced on people swapping phones?
Re: (Score:2)
If I read the refund page from Samsung correctly a few days ago yes, they ARE actually paying for accessories bought as well. I don't know if it is through the carrier only or not, but something was said about refunding accessories that are built specifically for the note 7.
IF you really had a note 7 I would recommend looking into what you are entitled to in the refund instead of whining on /.
Re: (Score:1)
note: not a note 7 owner...
are they paying for damages caused by the phone's extremely hot, toxic smoke emitting, fire? possibly to a car? backpack? leg? laptop next to, under the phone? couch?
Re: Lawyers (Score:2)
At the very least it should make Samsung pony up the 75$ differential between the customer replacing his Note 7 handset with another of his own choosing.
On another note, I'd purchase Note 7s without the battery... with an external power source theyd make a great VR HEADSET
Re: (Score:1)
Samsung are already taking a massive financial hit over the failure of the Note 7, so there's no punitive sense in bringing this suit.
But there is. Samsung has been an obnoxious company for years, with their planned obsolescence and general disregard for its customers. They are getting a much deserved comeuppance.
Re: (Score:3)
Samsung are already taking a massive financial hit over the failure of the Note 7, so there's no punitive sense in bringing this suit. The plaintiffs won't receive much compensation, maybe a $20 credit for their next phone bill. Only the lawyers will get anything out of this.
Quite right. In fact, Samsung has been an ideal corporate citizen here - they were the ones to first draw attention to this problem, then do the recall-exchange and finally the ultimate recall
The only lawsuits that would be justified would be the ones where people were actually injured - like the phone overheating in their pants or so on. Otherwise, Samsung had already first offered a replacement, and when the replacements were no better, then a complete recall. People also had the option of exchanging
Re: (Score:3)
And unless you're going to take the time and resources to file your own suit, you might as well take the money - there's a chance of it being >$0 reward for only a few minutes' work. It's already being taken from the company no matter how many claimants file.
How much is standard for butthurt? (Score:2, Interesting)
'Cause there's a lot of butthurt going around on the Note 7 forums. Jesus - it's a phone. A nice one, but still just a phone. I get it if you were one of those weird edge cases where you got stuck in Bora Bora after the recall but before you had to fly home. Or you traded your Note 4 for $200 to get it and now you can't get your original phone back. That sucks - no doubt. Or you tried to save $100 by buying one off of Craigslist and now it's hard to return. I'm going to call that a "learning experience," bu
Phew! (Score:2)
That was lucky!
https://techcrunch.com/2012/11... [techcrunch.com]
Explode? (Score:2)
>"Samsung Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over Exploding Galaxy Note 7 "
Except none of them "exploded." Burned, perhaps... but that doesn't sound sensationalistic enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong defendant? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This right here. Contract law is typically based upon specific performance. If I had a problem with my Samsung phone from AT&T I would imagine given my contract with AT&T it would be wholly AT&T responsible for the fact that the device they provided me under that contract failed to work.
And I did just that with an ISP. I had no internet access for a week because my ISP provided modem was down and it took a week to replace. I called my ISP and had the full week's costs credited to my account.
Profit Margin (Score:1)