Samsung Class Action Claims Consumers Confused About Water Resistance Of Galaxy Watch Active 2 Smartwatch

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.

Samsung Galaxy Watch Active 2 Waterproof Class Action Lawsuit Overview: 

• Who: Nic Dahlquist filed a class action lawsuit against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. 
• Why: Dahlquist claims Samsung misleads consumers by marketing its Galaxy Watch Active 2 smartwatch as “water-resistant.”
• Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court.

Samsung Electronics America takes advantage of most consumers’ inability to differentiate between “water-resistant” and “waterproof” by marketing its Galaxy Watch Active 2 smartwatch as the former, a new class action lawsuit alleges. 

Plaintiff Nic Dahlquist claims that since most consumers’ don’t know the difference between “water-resistant” and “waterproof,” Samsung is being misleading with its marketing tactics. 

Dahlquist argues that consumers “demand” that their smartwatches have water-resistant features since water damage can lead to a need for expensive repairs or replacements. Dahlquist says this is akin to a “hidden tax” that he claims costs American consumers more than $10 billion annually. 

Further, Dahlquist claims that one-third of all smart watch failures are the result of water damaging the device. 

“Aside from longer battery life and shatterproof screens, water resistance has become a key smart watch feature in demand by consumers,” the class action lawsuit states. 

Samsung’s Marketing Technique Implies Device Is Waterproof

Dahlquist claims that, even though Samsung describes the Galaxy Watch Active 2 smartwatch as being water-resistant, its marketing would actually imply that it is waterproof. 

“Defendant takes advantage of reasonable consumers’ inability to distinguish between the two terms through marketing practices that superimpose the term ‘water-resistant’ against a backdrop of visuals and statements that imply the Product is waterproof,” the class action lawsuit states. 

Dahlquist claims Samsung is guilty of unjust enrichment, among other things, and in violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law. 

Dahlquist wants to represent a California class of consumers who have purchased a Galaxy Watch Active 2 smartwatch for personal or household use. He is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief along with compensatory and punitive damages for himself and all class members. 

A separate class action lawsuit was filed against Samsung in January by a consumer alleging the company’s “fingerprint-resistant” and “black stainless steel” kitchen appliances are actually just regular stainless steel. 

Do you own a Samsung brand Galaxy Watch Active 2 smartwatch? Let us know in the comments! 

The plaintiff is represented by Craig Borison of Borison Law, Steffan T. Keeton of The Keeton Firm LLC and Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates, P.C. 

The Samsung Galaxy Watch Active 2 Waterproof Class Action Lawsuit is Axelrod, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No. 5:22-cv-00402, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Samsung 2-in-1 Chromebook Hinge Defect Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
• Oral-B Toothbrush App Collects Biometric Data, Class Action Alleges
• Linksys Routers Sold at Walmart 900% Slower Than Advertised, Class Action Alleges
• HP’s Software Update Made Printers Incompatible With Other Ink Cartridges, Class Action Alleges