Phone

Samsung accused of false claims about smartphone water resistance

Samsung has been making water-resistant phones for a while now. The Galaxy S5 from 2014 had an IP67 rating and could withstand being submerged for up to 30 minutes in depths of 1 meter or less. The Galaxy S7 was its first IP68 phone which can withstand being submerged in up to 1.5 meters of water for 30 minutes. All of its flagship phones have kept the same IP rating since.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has taken issue with Samsung’s claims. The consumer watchdog says that Samsung has made “false, misleading and deceptive” claims in advertising the water resistance of several Galaxy smartphones. Therefore, it has decided to take Samsung to Federal Court.

Samsung accused of misleading customers

As we have previously explained, phones with an IP-rating are water resistant, not waterproof. There are certain limitations that must be kept in mind. Furthermore, an IP68 rating certifies that the device can be submerged in 1.5 meters of water for up to 30 minutes. However, the official classification mentions that it must be fresh water since the tests for assigning these ratings are conducted in lab conditions. The devices are not tested in a swimming pool or the beach.

The ACCC’s issue is that Samsung’s advertisements show that the devices will be fine with exposure to all types of water, including ocean water and swimming pools, and that they “would not be affected by such exposure to water for the life of the phone.” The claim here is that Samsung showed people in its ads using the devices in pools and beaches even though the IP68 certification explicitly mentions fresh water. It has collected 300 examples of such ads.

The consumer watchdog adds that Samsung has denied warranty claims for customers whose phones were damaged after being used in water. It then points out that Samsung’s own website mentions that the new Galaxy S10 series is “not advised for beach or pool use.” Thus the ACCC is now initiating court action against Samsung and will be seeking penalties.

“Samsung stands by its marketing and advertising of the water resistancy of its smartphones,” the company said in a statement, adding that “We are also confident that we provide customers with free-of-charge remedies in a manner consistent with Samsung’s obligations under its manufacturer warranty and the Australian Consumer Law.”

10 Comments

Sign in »

10
Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

locarno
locarno

“It has collected 300 examples of such ads.”

Where I can watch them ?

What happens after 30 minutes ? 30 minutes and then emerge from the water and then I can again dip it in water for 30 minutes ?

Djean
Djean

I never had a problem with Samsung and water, even sea water, since the S5, but then I took my brand new S10 to the beach and it got water damage, they didn’t cover the damage.
I get it that they have to put that on the manual, but, the phone, was supposed to withstand it.
To late to regret it, I’ll never do that again, and I am really reconsidering buying another Samsung, you get to a point where you just ask yourself, do I need all of that? I don’t think so

warlockba
warlockba

I always bought bleeding edge (usually day 1 devices, cash down, not contract upgrades), but it is not worth it, first you get the price, second you get the big mess of fragmentation in software suites from one generation to the other. The tools get dumbed down by the day. And in the end my goal of having a portable “laptop” for trivial tasks at customer sites got killed with removal of connectivity etc. But the prices keep increasing. Android is fiddly as the devil when it comes to stability and updates, and then OEMs mess that up even more,… Read more »

TECHFRIEND
TECHFRIEND

“Because in the end it is a phone, and it needs to be used as a phone, and a music player, the rest is bonus, and if treated as such…” I guess it depends what you do, day to day. Paying for a premium phone in the past 4x years or so- I feel that Android is mature enough to do many things on a laptop level. Will it replace a laptop? Again, it depends if someone is a traveling business individual or not for example. Many professionals are able to use Cloud apps like Docs to keep their workload… Read more »

PookiePrancer
PookiePrancer

I’ve never had any problems using mine in pools, but I’ve always suspected the ratings were full of crap. Why? Samsung will never stand behind a water-damaged phone; that should tell you how much THEY believe them.

warlockba
warlockba

Btw, if you read actually your warranty conditions of the phone. It only covers pure water, not pool water, not tap water which can contain minerals and impurities etc. So unless you submerge your phone in boiled and distilled water, there is no chance Samsung will take responsibility for water damage … this is what this lawsuit is actually all about, Samsung whining out with every tiny clause in their warranty statements 🙂 Even touching it with sun cream will void your warranty for example (as sun cream is one of the bad things which destroys the silicon seals). That… Read more »

PookiePrancer
PookiePrancer

Even if you submerge it in ideal rating test conditions, Samsung will not honor any warranty on it if it sustains water damage.
That’s where Oneplus actually makes a strong case: why get the IP rating and pass the cost on to your consumers, if you don’t even stand behind it? Their phone, even with a pop-up camera, is every bit as water resistant as an S10+, without an official rating.

o0MHJ0o
o0MHJ0o

But it’s an advert… You’re supposed to follow, and have always been told to follow the manufacturers guide/manual.
By this statement, you can take almost every tech ad from phones to cars, to court. It’s ridiculous!
It’s pathetic, but they’ll probably win, like the guy who took Redbull to court and won, because it didn’t give him wings. That’s why their ads now way wiiiiiiiings instead.

kav946
kav946

That’s the problem with headlines… they don’t tell you anything about the story. The Redbull lawsuit was that it had no more caffeine than standard coffee and thus should not be an energy drink. Some creative news editor came up with a catchy headline “Lawsuit: Redbull doesn’t give you wings” and the BS story spread. If Samsung is advertising the phone showing it in pool water, and ocean water, then claims that those things are not protected, then it is false and deceptive advertising. If a car commercial showed a car driving in snow, then the manual says “do not… Read more »

ProdByEchelon
ProdByEchelon

There’s some truth behind this. Some Samsung phones have large panel gaps and it makes you wonder if all the IP68 rated phones would actually survive.