Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
A class action lawsuit claiming a Samsung dryer defect causes the drums in the appliances to crack is intact after a motion to dismiss.
Samsung argued the class action lawsuit should be dismissed because the plaintiffs had not adequately established their claims. U.S. District Court Judge Kevin McNulty tossed most of Samsung’s motion, but trimmed a few state law claims.
According to the class action lawsuit filed in 2018, certain Samsung models suffer from a dryer defect that causes the drum to crack, resulting in loud noises, destroyed clothing and potential fires. The plaintiffs say Samsung uses defective fly wheels and gauge steel that is too thin. The only remedy is a costly replacement of the drum, the complaint alleged.
The Samsung class action lawsuit accused the manufacturer of misrepresenting the quality of the high-end appliances to consumers, as well as of violations of federal warranty law and state consumer protection laws.
Judge McNulty upheld most of the class action lawsuit claims, including for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, noting the plaintiffs “offer factual support for their allegations that they had no meaningful opportunity to participate in creating the warranty or alter its terms in any way; for example, the warranty is included in product packaging ‘on a pre-printed form’ and the ‘[c]onsumers are not involved in the preparation of the warranty.’”
The judge also refused to dismiss claims that Samsung violated the Uniform Commercial Code and most claims for fraudulent omission under Ohio, New Mexico, New Jersey, Florida, California and Illinois law.
Samsung argued fire hazard claims should be dismissed because none of the plaintiffs alleged they had suffered a fire due to the dryer defect. Judge McNulty disagreed, noting that the class action lawsuit pointed out the potential for a fire if lint falls through a crack in the drum caused by the alleged defect.
“It is true that plaintiffs have not alleged any particular instances where the defect caused a fire,” the order stated. “That may suggest a future weakness in their case, but their theory of fire risk is sufficiently plausible to state a claim at this preliminary stage.”
“We are pleased with the court’s well-reasoned decision, as nearly all of the plaintiffs’ claims will move forward,” one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs told legal news source Law360 in response to the most recent order. “We are eager to continue pursuing the appropriate relief for the plaintiffs and putative class.”
Indeed, the only claims that were trimmed from the class action lawsuit were unjust enrichment claims under Florida, Illinois and Ohio state laws, as well as a misrepresentation claim under Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act.
According to the order dismissing certain claims, the class action lawsuit had failed to allege that the Florida plaintiff had purchased their Samsung dryer directly from the manufacturer, as required for an unjust enrichment claim under the state’s law; however, the judge did leave the door open to amend the complaint to rectify the claim.
“To properly plead an unjust enrichment claim under Florida law, plaintiffs must re-allege their claim with a plaintiff who purchased his or her dryer directly from SEA,” stated the order.
In addition, claims under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA) were dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to allege that Samsung omitted information about the dryer defect.
Additionally, the judge noted that it appeared as if the plaintiffs had abandoned that claim.
“Because the complaint does not adequately plead an omission under the OCSPA, and because plaintiffs have abandoned any misrepresentation claim, no OCSPA claim remains,” the judge concluded.
According to the order, the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to amend their class action lawsuit to address most of the dismissed claims except for dismissed allegations under the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ODTPA).
“The ODTPA claims will be dismissed because consumers do not have standing to sue under that statute,” the judge said in his order.
The Samsung class action lawsuit seeks to represent consumers who purchased dryers with the defective drum. The plaintiffs are seeking a variety of damages, along with court costs and attorney fees.
Do you own a dryer affected by these alleged defects? We want to hear from you. Tell us about your experience in the comment section below.
The lead plaintiffs and proposed Class Members are represented by Bruce D. Greenberg and Susana Cruz Hodge of Lite Depalma Greenberg LLC and Sauder Schelkopf LLC.
The Samsung Dryer Defect Class Action Lawsuit is DeFrank, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-21401-MRB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
313 thoughts onSamsung Dryer Defect Class Action Lawsuit Survives Motion to Dismiss
My Samsung dryer developed a 3 to 4 inch hole in the drum. We had to replace it after only 5 years of use. There are only 2 of us in the household because our children are grown. It didn’t receive any overuse to cause this crack after such a short period of time.
Well I didn’t get mine new but it surely shouldn’t have cracked the way it has most of the pictures I see are pretty much the same
Our drum has recently cracked and we have no warranty!!! Is there anything that can be done about it!!! Our dryer is not old and I cannot believe that Samsung will not address this issue!!! Please let me know the steps I can take. Thank yiu’
My Samsung dryer drum cracked where it meets the back wall. It appears that the metal basically disintegrated resulting in a large cracked area with sharp edges could potentially damage clothes. In addition, there is a hole that has developed as well. I only noticed this because of an odd sound the dryer was making in addition to some clothes that were ripped. I’d like to be added to the class action lawsuit.
My Samsung Dryer has a cracked drum it is only 5 yers old and rarely used, it is costly to repair, so will need to purchase a new one, it definitely will not be a Samsung, How do I join the class action suit.
My dryer has a crack in the back on top of where the wheel that turn the drum are,
Also it’s only used by me and my Roomate no belts or anything hard goes in there. The drums are definitely made way too weak for an 800$ machine now I have to spend 400$ and a whole afternoon fixing this
My Samsung Dryer we have only had for 18 months. I was shocked to hear a loud clunking noise and immediately have my smoke detector go off. Opened the dryer to see a huge crack/ hole. So frustrated to know this is a common experience. $800 appliances should not be disposable.
I’m a single 70 year old woman. I have minimal laundry. Not a family of 4 worth of clothing and linens to launder. My drum cracked as well. I have photos I can provide. Samsung knows this is happening to almost every dryer built after 2011. Yet the don’t do a thing about it. How do u get on board with this CA lawsuit?
Yes my dryer has just done this and samsung is trying to make me pat 500 to fix the issue since my warranty is expired. Can I still file a lawsuit?
My dryer is not working properly hours and hours working but cloths still wet
My warranty is expired
My dryer drum cracked apart at the rear of the dryer. I had no damage to any personal property but did have to replace the dryer which was $359 dollars and had to personally spend the time to install the drum which took several hours of my day away from my kids.
Bull shit I have taken it apart every 6 months for a element or guide wheels