Samsung Must Face Plasma TV Class Action

A class action lawsuit alleging Samsung knowingly sold defective plasma televisions to consumers has survived a motion to dismiss.

Lead plaintiffs Alexis Bronson and Crystal Hardin claim that, in addition to manufacturing defective TVs, Samsung failed to provide extra parts for items worth more than $100 for seven years.

According to the plaintiffs, under California federal law, manufacturers must make spare parts available to consumers.

Both plaintiffs say they purchased a Samsung Smart 3D HD TV that suffered from picture defects. The defects included colored lines appearing on the screen.

Additionally, the Samsung class action lawsuit alleged that the pricey Samsung plasma TVs would unexpectedly turn on and off.

One of the plaintiffs also said that he struggled to find replacement parts.

Samsung attempted to dodge the class action lawsuit, arguing that because the spare parts were technically available, though not at the service center Bronson visited, the company had not violated California warranty law.

U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup disagreed, stating “the Song–Beverly Consumer Warranty Act requires manufacturers to make spare parts available for at least seven years for goods sold for at least $100, even after the warranties have expired, and they must do so whether or not a particular customer presents the unit to a service center.”

Samsung argued that because the plaintiff who complained that he was unable to obtain a replacement part for his plasma TV after visiting a service center failed to bring his unit into the service center, they were not obligated to have the part available.

Judge Alsup also disagreed with Samsung’s interpretation, noting that the California law at issue did not refer to buyers or obligate buyers in any way.

“The plain language of [the law] solely imposes an obligation on manufacturers. Neither subsection imposes any obligation on buyers — or even refers to buyers at all,” noted the judge.

In addition, Samsung stated that the class action lawsuit should be dismissed because the warranty on the units had expired. However, Judge Alsup pointed out that the California law has separate provisions for spare parts and warranties and the plaintiffs had made their claims under the spare parts provision.

Judge Alsup further denied Samsung’s attempt to escape the plasma TV class action lawsuit, noting that his order “addresses the recurring problem consumers face when they invest in expensive consumer goods only to learn that repairs are impossible because the manufacturer no longer makes spare parts available to repair centers.”

The plaintiffs had previously narrowed their class action lawsuit claims. In response to Samsung’s motion to dismiss, they dropped claims related to the units randomly turning on and off.

Bronson and Hardin are represented by Paul S. Rothstein and Kyla V. Alexander of Paul S. Rothstein, Attorney At Law, and Alan J. Sherwood of Law Offices of Alan J. Sherwood.

The Samsung Plasma Television Class Action Lawsuit is Bronson, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., et al., Case No. 3:18-­cv-­02300, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

UPDATE: On Sept. 29, 2019, a California federal judge rejected a proposed Samsung settlement after determining that it doesn’t sufficiently compensate customers who purchased allegedly defective plasma TVs. 

UPDATE 2: January 2020, the Samsung plasma tv class action settlement website is now active. Click here to learn more. 

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Petland Class Action Says Vendor Sells Sick Puppies, Infects Owners

Do I Qualify for a 9/11 Cancer Claim?

McDonald’s Customer Fights To Preserve Drive-Thru Class Action

Asbestos Claim Leads to Award for Plaintiff