Samsung Class Action Says Galaxy Defect Renders Cameras Unusable

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 Electronics America Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit alleging the screens covering the rear cameras on some of its smartphones have a defect that causes them to spontaneously shatter within a few weeks of purchase.

“This defect is common and known to Samsung, as Samsung has received countless complaints about it,” plaintiffs Lynette Pang and Timo Masalin allege in the Samsung class action lawsuit.

“But Samsung continues to hide this defect from consumers and has refused to repair it even when covered under warranty.”

Pang and Masalin claim that Samsung’s failure to disclose and repair the smartphone defect has caused consumers to be left with devices in which the camera is unusable. They note that the market for smartphones is highly competitive and therefore companies are continually developing innovative features to entice consumers to purchase their smartphones over their competitors’ products.

According to the Samsung class action lawsuit, the smartphone’s camera is a vital consideration for consumers. Pang and Masalin point to data from the Pew Research Center that shows 92 percent of smartphone owners use the device to take photos.

Samsung reportedly surveyed customers about the most important features in a mobile device in 2015 and found that the camera was one of the top three features. In response, Samsung informed consumers that it was working to develop cameras that take sharper photographs.

However, the Samsung class action lawsuit says that its Galaxy devices are affected by a defect that causes the glass covering the rear camera lens to shatter even when no external force is applied, “in a telltale circular pattern as if it had been shot out by a BB gun.”

Even though Samsung received numerous complaints about the Galaxy camera lens shattering defect in its S7 series, Samsung allegedly denied responsibility and failed to disclose the Samsung Galaxy defect to the public. It even released new S8 and Note 8 devices without fixing the defect, the Samsung class action lawsuit says.

“A smartphone without a usable camera is a device with only partial functionality, and without a repair or refund from Samsung, consumers are left with limited options,” the Samsung Galaxy class action lawsuit says.

Replacing the Samsung smartphone at retail price can cost several hundred dollars, the plaintiffs allege. Even if the consumer insured the Samsung smartphone, the deductible may be between $175 and $250, according to the Samsung class action lawsuit.

Pang and Masalin filed the Samsung class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a proposed Class of California consumers who purchased or leased a Samsung Galaxy S7, Galaxy S7 Edge, Galaxy S7 Active, Galaxy S8 or Galaxy Note 8.

The Samsung Galaxy defect class action lawsuit asserts violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, the Song-Beverly Act, breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment.

Pang and Masalin are represented by Michael D. Woerner, Alison S. Gaffney and Jeffrey Lewis of Keller Rohrback LLP.

The Samsung Galaxy Shattering Camera Cover Class Action Lawsuit is Lynette Pang, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-01882-KAW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division.

UPDATE: On Sept. 12, 2018, a federal judge told Samsung that they must face a class action which alleges that the company’s smart phones are defective and come equipped with camera lenses prone to spontaneous shattering.

UPDATE 2: On Jan. 18, 2019, Samsung argues that a smartphone owner included in a shattering phone camera class action lawsuit should have her claims arbitrated because she didn’t opt out of the arbitration agreement with the phone carrier.