Class Actions Against Galaxy Note7 Begin

Friday 21 October 2016 @ 12.46 p.m. | Legal Research | Torts, Damages & Civil Liability | Trade & Commerce

It seem like a logical expectation that a product with millions of customers like the Galaxy Note 7 which appears to have not only failed, but to have failed to the point of self-destruction, was going to encounter legal claims against its manufacturer - Samsung. This month (October 2016), and especially in recent days, reports of various actions have been appearing.

Some Background

The Galaxy Note 7 was released in August 2016 and marketed as "the best new Android phone". Its virtues were said to be its larger screen, waterproof design, stylus and iris scanner for videos and photos - all for a starting price of US$850. Mere weeks after the launch, customer reports of fires started while charging the batteries began.

On 2 September 2016, Samsung announced it was recalling millions of its new Note 7 smartphones across 10 different countries (including Australia). The company said this was a “global replacement program” resulting from “. . . battery cell issues”  the outcome of which was users having reported that smartphone battery fires or explosions occurred  while the smartphone was charging.

In the USA, Samsung announced an expanded voluntary recall on “. . . all original and replacement” Note 7 devices sold or exchanged, saying:

“Since the affected devices can overheat and pose a safety risk, we are asking consumers with a Galaxy Note 7 to power it down and contact the carrier or retail outlet where they purchased their device,”

Stating also that consumers could exchange their smartphone for another Samsung smartphone or receive a refund. Samsung says that the faulty batteries are the result of a manufacturing flaw at one of the two companies responsible for production of its batteries.

In the USA and in Australia, aviation authorities and airlines have banned or advised against carriage of the Note 7 on flights. A statement last month by the US Federal Aviation Administration is reported as strongly advising passengers not to turn on or charge the devices on board aircraft, and not to stow them in any checked baggage - that advisory being latter updated to include recalled and replacement Note 7 devices.

Some Recent Overseas Class Actions

First, is the report from Legal NewsLine that a Seattle law firm was to file a class action lawsuit over Samsung’s overheating Galaxy Note 7 smartphones. The action, it was reported on 14 October 2016, would be filled within the next week. The law firm had apparently been investigating Samsung’s recent recall of the newly launched Note 7 for the last month. The reasons for the recall were advised as being that smartphones "pose a safety risk". Reports of Note 7's catching fire and exploding while charging were not uncommon. 

Second, is the report in Bloomberg of Waudby v. Samsung, 16-cv-07334, a case in the US District Court, District of New Jersey (Newark), where it is reported that three people who bought Note 7 smartphones that were recalled because of the possibility of it catching fire and exploding, sued Samsung's US division. In the first consumer class-action suit to actually be filed over the troubled device, the Note 7 owners are seeking unspecified damages. They are also seeking an order requiring the company to repair, recall and/or replace the smartphones, and an extension of applicable warranties. The damages claimed are also based on Samsung having told its customers that they would have to wait days or weeks for replacement smartphones while continuing to be charged monthly fees by carriers for phones they can’t use. 

Actions are not limited to the USA, for example, there is also a report of South Korean action filed by the Harvest Law Office where 38 different plaintiffs are seeking about $266.80 per person, in damages over inconvenience and anxiety. It is reported that: 

"They feel money is owed to them because of the time they had to take away from their day to visit stores for battery checks and/or trying to get replacements done. Not only this, but some are seeking damages because of the anxiety they have experienced from just having to deal with a potentially-dangerous product in their homes."

The idea of damages for anxiety caused by the potential for a product to catch fire and explode is at least interesting if not novel.

As yet there are no reports of any class actions in Australia.

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.

Sources:

Related Articles: