There are two key components to the ACCC's issue with Samsung. First, Samsung's advertising indicated that submerging a Galaxy phone under 1.5 meters of water for 30 minutes or less wouldn't impact the device about the course of its lifetime . Second, Samsung advertised as used in beaches and pools, even though the IP68 certification only applies to fresh water.
ACCC reviewed over 300 Samsung ads as the basis for its claims, it said.
IP68 certified phones are technically water- resistant not waterproof, and specifically for depths up to 1.5 meters and for 30 minutes or under. IP67 phones, likeare resistant to 30 minutes or less for depths of 1 meter or less, but ACCC, referred to phones marketed from 2016 on.
The ACCC claims that Samsung has rebuffed warranty claims by customers who say their phones were damaged by water exposure. Samsung's own website claimsits early-2019 flagship phone, is "not advised for beach or pool use."
"The ACCC alleges Samsung's advertisements falsely and misleadingly represented by Galaxy phones would be suitable for use in, or for exposure to, all types of water, including in ocean water and swimming pools, and would not be affected by such exposure to water for the life of the phone, when this was not the case, "ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
" Samsung showed the phones used in situations they shouldn't be attracting customers, "Mr Sims said.
For its part, Samsung says it has ACCC's accusations and plans to defend itself in court.
"Samsung stands by its marketing and advertising of the water resistancy of its smartphones," the company said in a statement. "We are confident that we provide customers with free-of-charge remedies in a less consistent manner with Samsung's bonds during its manufacturer's warranty and the Australian Consumer Law. Customer satisfaction is a top priority for Samsung and we are committed to acting interest of our customers. "