Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Hit With Class Action Lawsuit Over Exploding Galaxy Note 7 (vice.com)
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."
I'll wager there were emails requesting that customers at least be exhorted to "use only Samsung manufactured and approved chargers" - and since we've all known certain Android apps to eat battery like candy, I'll wager there were more than a few internal emails warning that certain apps could be dangerous as well.
The Bene Gesserit understand the correct response. The courts need to tell Samsung: "You will pay."
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.
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.
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 keep all of my receipts for purchases of any appliance or electronic device in a zip-lock bag that I keep stored in the freezer, which seems to do the trick quite nicely. I discard old receipts for devices only after I have replaced an older device with a newer one.
Maybe I might be a tad OCD, but it's not a particularly hard thing to do. It's saved us money more than a few times in the past, so it's worth the trouble IMO.
Now I probably would have used the other OS feature of the device to install Linux on it because I'm kind of a geek that way. Every PC I've ever owned since 1994 has had Linux installed on it, I installed OpenWRT on my router the day I bought it, and even installed another OS on my ti calculator.
When it comes to proving I would have wanted to use the Other OS feature on the PS/3 as well, however, I'm not entirely sure how I could have really done that. I somehow don't think they'd take my mere word for it, but I can't begin to imagine how I would have proved it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
'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," but I digress...
I had two of them, they were great. I was sad to hear of the full recall because there's nothing out there like it in functionality. But, in the end, I'm basically in the same position I would have been if the Note 7 had never come along. If I'd wanted a replacement I could have, like 90% of the people out there, called up my rep and had them ship me a different phone, and send my N7 back in. In fact, after the second one, I did. And it will take an entire month for them to credit me for the phones I sent in. But in the end I pretty much used a Note 7 for free, and got a $25 "we're sorry" credit and a $225 "please choose one of our other phones" discount ($75 from Samsung, $150 from the seller). If you can't tell, I'm finding it hard to see the value in such a suit, and I kind of hope the judge tells them to go pound sand because the lawyers are the only ones who are going to make any money in the deal.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
That was lucky!
https://techcrunch.com/2012/11...
>"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.
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 time used.
This is just several jackasses being ambulance chasers like people always say lawyers are.
** granted it is only $100 if you buy another Samsung phone. Otherwise it was something like $25, which should still cover the time the phone wasn't being used because they were good kids and listened to the recall notice.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
They paying me back for the external battery and case I bought too? The contract extension that Sprint forced on people swapping phones?
The charger board itself doesn't have had to catch fire to be the source of the problem, it could simply be the thing that ended up overloading the battery such that a short while later the battery runaway heating cycle became noticeable in the form of flame...
I'm pretty sure the fires all had something to do with either the charging or power management firmware, after all batteries from two different manufactures had the same issue... plainly the issue is not the battery itself.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
At the very least it should make Samsung pony up the 75$ 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
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 /.
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
Shouldn't they be suing the carriers who continued to charge customers even when they knew the phones they sold their customers couldn't be used? Let the carriers sue Samsung if they can/want.
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.
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?
Perhaps a hotspot where the cpu is located.
love is just extroverted narcissism
Due to all these issues Samsung has been having with devices, I see Apple banking huge on Samsung's misfortune which is a bit saddening for Android users.
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 w/ any other Samsung phone, if they were buying it carrier-less, or any other phone, if from their carriers. So people really have no basis to claim any indemnity.
Just yet another ambulance chasing scheme from your friendly neighborhood attorneys