Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Samsung Smartwatch Battery Class Action

Last week, a New Jersey federal judge denied a motion by Samsung Electronics America Inc. to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging it misrepresents the battery life of one of its smartwatch products.

Plaintiff David W. Noble alleges he paid $199 for a Samsung smartwatch after viewing representations about the product’s battery life on Samsung’s website, in advertisements and in press releases. He entered into a two-year agreement with AT&T to provide 3G mobile telecommunication technology, paying approximately $10 per month.

However, Noble discovered that the Samsung smartwatch battery only lasted about four hours before he would need to recharge it, even though he says his usage was within the parameters of the smartwatch’s intended use.

According to the Samsung class action lawsuit, Noble replaced the Samsung smartwatch twice, and experienced similarly short battery life with both replacement smartwatches.

Noble claims that he is not alone and points to a number of online comments posted by dissatisfied purchasers of Samsung smartwatches who also claim that the battery life under normal usage lasts only four to six hours. He says that he would not have purchased the Samsung smartwatch if he had known that the battery life was far shorter than the 24- to 48-hour battery life represented by Samsung.

He subsequently filed a smartwatch battery class action lawsuit accusing Samsung of misrepresenting the battery life of its smartwatch product.

Samsung filed a motion to compel arbitration, but the court denied the motion on March 15, 2016. The denial was affirmed by the Third Circuit on March 29, 2017 and Wolfe filed an amended Samsung class action lawsuit on June 23, 2017. Samsung asked the court to dismiss Noble’s amended complaint but U.S. District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo denied that request on Feb. 8.

Judge Arleo dismissed two claims in Noble’s Samsung class action lawsuit but allowed the remaining four claims to move forward.

She denied Samsung’s motion to dismiss a common law fraud claim and a negligent misrepresentation claim, finding that Noble’s class action lawsuit used sufficient specificity about the alleged misconduct. Noble alleged that Samsung was aware that its smartwatch battery life representations were false because the battery was not capable of sustaining the advertised battery life.

Judge Arleo found that the disclaimer of any express or implied warranty with regard to the Samsung smartwatch’s performance was enforceable because it was inconsistent with Samsung’s own representations about the product’s battery life.

“This disclaimer does not harmonize with Samsung’s representation that the smartwatch would last 24-48 hours without needing to be recharged,” Judge Arleo wrote in her opinion. “This disclaimer is inoperative and cannot serve as the basis for dismissing plaintiff’s express and implied warranty claims.”

However, the judge did dismiss Noble’s claim under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, finding that Georgia law would apply to his case because he purchased the Samsung smartwatch in Georgia. She granted Noble 30 days to replead the claim under Georgia law.

Judge Arleo also threw out unjust enrichment claims because Noble didn’t purchase the smartwatch directly from Samsung.

Noble is represented by Joseph J. Depalma of Lite Depalma Greenberg LLC and Benjamin David Elga of Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP.

The Samsung Smartwatch Battery Class Action Lawsuit is David W. Noble v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03713, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.