Global pattern of screen failure in Samsung flip phones: Consumer Commission orders replacement of defective handset

Citing a global pattern of screen failures in Samsung's foldable phones, the Kolkata District Consumer Commission recently held Samsung India guilty of deficiency in service for refusing warranty repair on a Galaxy Z Flip 3.

In a judgment delivered on July 3, the Bench of President Kollol Chattopadhyay and Member Udayan Roy referred to such a pattern as documented in a US class action lawsuit.

Hence, the Commission ordered Samsung to either replace the handset or refund ₹85,000, along with ₹25,000 as compensation and ₹10,000 towards litigation costs.

The complainant, a Kolkata resident, had purchased the Galaxy Z Flip 3 5G for ₹85,000 on January 29, 2022. Within the one-year warranty period, on November 15, 2022, a black shadow appeared near the fold of the screen, which gradually spread and rendered the device unusable.

When he approached Samsung's authorised service centre, it demanded ₹29,849 for repairs, terming the damage "accidental and liquid damage" despite the phone being under warranty.

After a failed mediation attempt before the West Bengal Consumer Affairs Department, the complainant approached the Commission, citing the December 2022 US class action lawsuit Lewis v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and an investigation by law firm Migliaccio and Rathod LLP, both of which flagged screen cracking and failure along the fold as a known design defect in Samsung's foldable phone range.

He argued that Indian consumers deserved the same standard of treatment as consumers abroad.

Samsung, on its part, contended that its service engineer had found a crack on the side of the handset body, which it said was clear evidence of external impact such as dropping the phone or pressing the screen too hard.

It denied any manufacturing defect or deficiency in service and sought dismissal of the complaint. The authorised service centre and the seller did not respond to the complaint and were proceeded against ex parte.

The Commission rejected Samsung's defence by relying significantly on the company's own repair estimate issued on the day the complainant brought in the handset.

The said repair estimate listed the internal display panel, as the part requiring replacement rather than the outer cover glass typically damaged in a drop.

"The company has not explained why an external impact that supposedly cracked the body would require replacement of the internal OCTA display as the primary repair item," the Commission observed.

Hence, Samsung had failed to discharge its burden of proving mishandling, the Commission concluded while ordering it to pay compensation.

[Read Order]