Samsung's Foldable Claims Based on 'Flawed Testing,' Alleges Class Action

Samsung’s claim that its Z Fold 3 smartphone can be folded and unfolded at least 200,000 times -- the number of such actions a user would perform in five years -- is based on “flawed” testing methodology and “not representative of real-world usage,” alleged a fraud class action filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Dec. 26 (docket 1:22-cv-10882).

Plaintiff Antonio Lewis, of Charlottesville, Virginia, noted Samsung advertises the Fold series phones as meeting “stringent durability standards,” based on “rigorous tests,” but he said the goal of the testing was to determine that the maximum number of folds before functionality was reduced “without regard to real world conditions.” Videos, said the plaintiff, show a pause between each fold and unfold sequence, “which means no external strain, pressure or heat-generated friction is involved.”

In normal use, the plaintiff maintained, the Fold 3 is exposed to dust, debris, sweat, handling, heat, cold and water, which can penetrate the screen protector at the phone’s hinge, “interfering with the folding mechanism.” When other entities applied fold tests similar to Samsung’s, the product sustained only 120,000 folds, alleged the complaint, “with significant screen and pixel damage before 20,000 folds.”

Illustrations of screen defects showed cracks, plus corrupted pixels resulting from microscopic particles penetrating the protective film at the phone’s hinge, creating air pockets, alleged the complaint. “Even cold temperatures are capable of causing the screen protector to snap instead of bend,” which rendered the screen nonfunctional when the phone is unfolded, the plaintiff alleged.

Samsung “consistently fails to honor” the one-year warranty when a user reports screen damages, alleged the complaint. That can lead to customers having to pay for a loaner phone since they can be without their phone for over a month because of the extent of the damage and a “shortage of replacement parts,” the complaint alleged. Third-party repair shops Samsung has contracted with are “not trained or equipped to adequately repair” damaged foldable screens due to Samsung’s “failure to supply them necessary parts and instructions,” said the complaint.

The plaintiff attempted to get coverage for a damaged screen from Samsung under his warranty but was told screen repair wasn’t included, the complaint alleged. Samsung told Lewis it would cost $500 for the repair he needed; he bought the phone for nearly $1,800 and did not have it for over one year, the complaint said. The class is seeking monetary, statutory and/or punitive damages and interest, plus costs and expenses. Samsung didn't comment Tuesday.