Water resistance warning? Samsung lawsuit.

[VidJunky]

Something came across my feed yesterday saying that Samsung was being named in a lawsuit for claiming their phones are water resistant, which some I guess are taking as waterproof because of the way it is marketed. An Australian watchdog group is leading the charge saying that Samsung showing their devices by pools and near beaches is inferring that they would be safe in these environments when the truth is they are not. The chemicals used in pools is harmful to the adhesives that give the device its water resistance rating. Saltwater is actually much worse. We all know however that advertisers are trying to sell you something and often stretch the truth, even bending and breaking it if allowed to, just by letting your mind fill in information that isn't said but seemingly implied. You can read more about the case here.

Personally I have taken the water resistance rating mostly at its word, making me a bit more caviler when using the device in the tub, shower and rain. I never took it to mean that I could take photos underwater or intentionally dunk it into pools of water even though I've seen videos online of just such things. For one, mine would be the unit that had the slight gap or missing drop of adhesive that would allow water into the unit, and for two I know almost any device can survive pure or DI water which makes me skeptical of such tests online. See such a video here.

How much or little did the water resistance of the S10 or your current/former device play in your decision to buy it?

Has the water resistance rating emboldened you to do anything risky? If so like what?

Do you think Samsung conspired with advertisers to mislead customers? If so what should be the punishment?

 

[Mike Dee]

I would never deliberately expose it to water except for rain or to wet wipe it. Regardless of rating it's not covered for water damage.
I don't think they conspired...... I've seen iPhone with similar ads

 

[rescuejg]

I recall the S7 being advertised as water proof.

I can't recall seeing similar ads for the S10.

 

[Mike Dee]

I recall the S7 being advertised as water proof.

I can't recall seeing similar ads for the S10.

They actually used the words water proof?

 

[VidJunky]

I would never deliberately expose it to water except for rain or to wet wipe it. Regardless of rating it's not covered for water damage.
I don't think they conspired...... I've seen iPhone with similar ads

Well with my HTC U12+ it had a similar or perhaps one point higher rating as the S10+ and one time for like 2 seconds I submerged it, just because I thought it was water resistant. However since then I agree intentionally dunking a phone is silly to say the least.

I tend to disagree some what with the conspiracy tho. While ad companies develop the campaign, the producers give them the selling points and approve the final ad. So were they intentionally misleading, more than some what if you consider the fact that they knew the phone was going to be shown poolside and at the beachfront. They would have been better off showing them dropped into a puddle and quickly retrieved or in the rain taking a call. Most insurance has lightened their stance on water damage. I know Asurian used to have a no tolerance policy and now will replace phones for it. Best Buy always has, or at least that's what they claim.

 

[Hermes Hidayat]

Well,im no longer an S10 user.am an IOS user now haha.but im backing Samsung on this.im sure they had the * in the quote.and yup some fools take it too far and test the "waterproof" phone in saltwater and pool water.anyone with the right mind and state should know that they meant WATER.not pool or salt water.

And whats wrong with "Samsung showing their devices by pools and near beaches is inferring that they would be safe in these environments." The device is just NEAR the pool and beaches.not IN THE water(pool/salt).some people just want attention.smh.

 

[anon(19759)]

I would think Samsung would only have to prove the device meets the ip rating they claim. Doesn't mean they are waterproof.

 

[VidJunky]

@Hermes Hidayat I totally agree that lawsuits can be frivolous, for self gain and seem ridiculous to the average person. While I haven't seen too many ad based claims that the S10 is water resistant it is definitely a selling point, as every review and reviewer mentions it. You are also absolutely correct that they aren't showing the device in the pool or ocean, I mean where else do people vacation, right, and I'm just as sure that there is fine print somewhere that clearly defines how the phone was tested and the conditions. However I still kind of believe that some liberties were taken. If you had a super durable phone and showed it in the pocket of a construction worker walking a beam 5 stories in the air would one not assume that the phone would survive some kind of a drop? If not intentionally misleading than at least intentionally leading advertising. How funny would it be to hear a big disclaimer at the end of a phone commercial? "Warning this device is water resistant to rain, untreated toilet water, non muddy puddles, and some sink water. Avoid beaches, pools and saunas as this may severely damage the device. Also avoid drops of more than 4 inches as cracks can form on the screens and backs of glass models. Cracks are not covered as manufacturing defects and owners are completely liable for damaged including scratches, dings, dents and little Joey who looks so cute holding then throwing your $1000 dollar device." Hahaha

 

[anon(10562251)]

What a lot of people don't realize is that sea water (salt) and pool water (chlorine) is not covered. So in other words unless your phone is getting dipped in clean fresh water it really isn't protected anyway. That goes for any IP68 rated device not just Samsung. You can blame the authors of the IP68 specification for being "misleading", I suppose.

 

[fuzzylumpkin]

IP rating is essentially meaningless, so it didn't influence my purchase at all.

OP mentions using their phone in the bath or shower, this is also a bad idea.

Soapy water isn't corrosive in the same way that chlorinated or saltwater is, but it is slightly less dense than normal water, meaning it's easier for it to penetrate a device.

 

[methodman89]

The IP Rating is an important baseline to know, expensive and time consuming for the mfr to prove to the certifying body. See the S8Active as a good example.
As to the denseness of the water being changed so it is more penetrating, things are really fuzzy with that one.

 

[Mike Dee]

Well with my HTC U12+ it had a similar or perhaps one point higher rating as the S10+ and one time for like 2 seconds I submerged it, just because I thought it was water resistant. However since then I agree intentionally dunking a phone is silly to say the least.

I tend to disagree some what with the conspiracy tho. While ad companies develop the campaign, the producers give them the selling points and approve the final ad. So were they intentionally misleading, more than some what if you consider the fact that they knew the phone was going to be shown poolside and at the beachfront. They would have been better off showing them dropped into a puddle and quickly retrieved or in the rain taking a call. Most insurance has lightened their stance on water damage. I know Asurian used to have a no tolerance policy and now will replace phones for it. Best Buy always has, or at least that's what they claim.

If you are talking accidental damage insurance products like Asurion, have always covered water damage. At least for as long as I can remember.

 

[Mike Dee]

What a lot of people don't realize is that sea water (salt) and pool water (chlorine) is not covered. So in other words unless your phone is getting dipped in clean fresh water it really isn't protected anyway. That goes for any IP68 rated device not just Samsung. You can blame the authors of the IP68 specification for being "misleading", I suppose.

Manufacturer warranties don't cover water damage at all

 

[pjniez]

I've rinsed my S10+ under the faucet and had it mounted on the handlebars of my ATV while riding in the rain. So far no issues. I have also taken my older Galaxy phones in the pool (S5 Active, S7, S8, and maybe S9 (can't remember) ) and again no issues. I don't think I've dunked the S10+ yet though and I don't plan to.

I guess, given all of the recent news on the subject of these phones' level of water resistance, I should be a little more careful and/or maybe get one of those expensive and annoying waterproof cases! Nah... That's why I pay for insurance! ;-)

 

[anon(10562251)]

Manufacturer warranties don't cover water damage at all

By "covered" I was referring to the type of water infiltration protection afforded by the IP68 specification / certification. Not warranties.

The requirements for IP68 are very specific and limited by design. However, whose responsibility that ultimately becomes if it fails is an entirely different issue. If failure occurs within the confines of the spec, I can't see how the manufacturer escapes culpability. They market the phones as IP68 compliant and they are the ones responsible for building them that way.

 

[Mike Dee]

By "covered" I was referring to the type of water infiltration protection afforded by the IP68 specification / certification. Not warranties.

The requirements for IP68 are very specific and limited by design. However, whose responsibility that ultimately becomes if it fails is an entirely different issue. If failure occurs within the confines of the spec, I can't see how the manufacturer escapes culpability. They market the phones as IP68 compliant and they are the ones responsible for building them that way.

They escape culpability because they put it in writing that water damage isn't covered. It's also impossible to prove the conditions that water ingress protection failed.

 

[anon(10562251)]

They escape culpability because they put it in writing that water damage isn't covered. It's also impossible to prove the conditions that water ingress protection failed.

Impossible for whom? Seems there is a credible case. Otherwise it wouldn't be going forward to begin with.

Samsung (or whoever) can write whatever weasel clause they want into their warranty, but it doesn't excuse them from failing to construct their devices to the IP68 standard to which they claim to adhere (and market accordingly). That would certainly qualify as false advertising, at the very least.

It will be interesting to see how this progresses. It could very well lead to manufacturers dropping the standard altogether. Or even a counter suit against the agency that wrote the spec and granted Samsung a certification for it in the first place.

 

[Mike Dee]

Impossible for whom? Seems there is a credible case. Otherwise it wouldn't be going forward to begin with.

Samsung (or whoever) can write whatever weasel clause they want into their warranty, but it doesn't excuse them from failing to construct their devices to the IP68 standard to which they claim to adhere (and market accordingly). That would certainly qualify as false advertising, at the very least.

It will be interesting to see how this progresses. It could very well lead to manufacturers dropping the standard altogether. Or even a counter suit against the agency that wrote the spec and granted Samsung a certification for it in the first place.

We're mixing topics here

The credible case you're referring is about whether or not Samsung implied their phones are water proof and are misleading people into making uniformed decisions in their purchases.

With regard to water resistance, I'm saying it's impossible to prove if the IP68 rating failed because you cannot forensically determine or accurately reproduce the circumstances under which it failed. The IP rating is just a certification that is paid for and doesn't guarantee anything except what people want to read into.

Having said, that an individual in the US can take Samsung and or the retailer to small claims court and very likely win. This is simply because it's widely know that in small claims court David usually wins against Goliath because the courts feel Goliath can afford to take the loss and refund the customer if it even goes that far and isn't settled before the court date.

 

[methodman89]

One number can make a world of difference. I wash my Active phone at the sink, keeping the ports down. Never a problem.
The chart attached is handy.

 

[anon(10562251)]

We're mixing topics here

The credible case you're referring is about whether or not Samsung implied their phones are water proof and are misleading people into making uniformed decisions in their purchases.

With regard to water resistance, I'm saying it's impossible to prove if the IP68 rating failed because you cannot forensically determine or accurately reproduce the circumstances under which it failed. The IP rating is just a certification that is paid for and doesn't guarantee anything except what people want to read into.

Having said, that an individual in the US can take Samsung and or the retailer to small claims court and very likely win. This is simply because it's widely know that in small claims court David usually wins against Goliath because the courts feel Goliath can afford to take the loss and refund the customer if it even goes that far and isn't settled before the court date.

But they ARE one in the same. The real issue is Samsung's exclusions and trying to have it both ways - and get away with it. The standard itself is easily verifiable. On the other hand, misleading consumers by relying on the vagueness of the standard is another matter:

"The case...centers on more than 300 advertisements in which Samsung showed its Galaxy phones being used at the bottom of swimming pools and in the ocean."

The standard itself makes no mention of either:

"IP68Protected from total dust ingress.Protected from long term immersion up to a specified pressure"