My Samsung Story

The content of this website has been prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information on this website shall not be construed as an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create, nor shall the receipt of such information constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Nothing contained in this website is intended to provide legal advice or to create a contractual or attorney-client relationship and, by using this website, you acknowledge that this website does not create a contractual or attorney-client relationship

This is a copy of the complaint I filed in Small Claims court in California. Please note, in my complaint, I attached exhibits for all the documents referenced; however, I have not included those here.

....

On December 8, 2019 I purchased a Samsung refrigerator, ("Subject Refrigerator") model number RF263BEAESGAA for $1,547.00 at Home Depot. I began experiencing issues with the Subject Refrigerator during the summer of 2023; the ice maker failed to consistently make ice and kept freezing into a solid mass along with the fan located in the fridge compartment would intermittently emit loud noises

Around May of 2024, my family and I noticed that the Subject Refrigerator's temperature felt consistently warmer than usual. On May 28, 2024, while searching online for information about these ongoing issues with Subject Refrigerator, I learned of the class action suit¹ against Samsung (along with numerous other product defect related lawsuits against Samsung) regarding the very same problems we were experiencing with our own appliance.

While reading about the litigation, I discovered that Samsung was offering a service call and replacement part, free of charge, to remedy this known defect. I immediately called Samsung, provided my appliance's information, and was given a ticket number as confirmation of my upcoming service appointment for the repair and installation of the replacement part.

Soon after this call, I received a text message from a Samsung representative who requested that I send her photos of the Subject Refrigerator's ice maker unit. I tried to upload the photos on the portal website provided by Samsung in its second confirmation email, but I was unable to complete the upload due to "errors" on the site. After being contacted by two more Samsung representatives, I was finally able to text photos of the fridge and the receipt on June 3, 2024.

Throughout the following weeks, I frequently visited the Samsung customer service portal to check the status of my service request. Each time I visited this site (even on the day of the July 26, 2024 incident) I was met with the same message, which stated:

"Dear customer, your request has been received and we are in the process of reviewing the submitted documents. You will only be able to access the portal, to send additional documentation, once the documents have been reviewed. Here at Samsung, we pride ourselves in providing customer service nothing short of excellence. Please feel free to reach out to us for status updates or any additional inquiries."

B. July 26. 2024 Incident

I continued to check the portal throughout the months of June and July of 2024. In mid-July, my 5-year-old son and I began experiencing bouts of vomiting and diarrhea whenever we would drink something out of the fridge. It got to the point that every time my son would have a glass of milk, he would vomit violently. On July 26, 2024, I decided to deep clean the Subject Refrigerator and began removing the refrigerator's contents. It was then that I discovered that the back panels were iced up. Additionally, water was dripping down the back of the main compartment into the vegetable compartments and pooling under the trays. As I pulled open the trays, water gushed out onto my kitchen floor. Obviously alarmed, I called the phone number listed on my Samsung work order. I explained the current situation to the representative and asked him about the status of my pending service request. To my utter surprise, the representative informed me that my service request was "closed out." I asked how it could possibly be "closed out" since nobody had yet contacted me to schedule the service. According to the website, my documents were still being reviewed. The representative answered that Samsung closed out the request since they "could not find a technician available that would complete my service."

I have never heard of a company cancelling out its own work order to remedy a defective product that posed a health and safety hazard. Samsung knew of this product's defect, accepted my claim, and was in the process of scheduling a service call for my unit. According to their own portal, my claim was still active. Yet Samsung decided to close out my request and refuse to follow through on the repair without even contacting me about their inability to complete the process. Due to Samsung's negligence in mishandling my repair request, the defective component failed and caused this major issue.

I expressed my shock to the Samsung representative and explained that it was currently 105 degrees in my area; thus, I needed my refrigerator repaired as soon as possible. He assured me that he would give me a ticket number to have someone respond to me within 48 hours, who would then arrange a date to inspect the Subject Refrigerator. I reminded him that the last time I followed this procedure, my request was closed out without any notice. Additionally, since the Subject Refrigerator was flooding and inoperable, I needed to have the service, repair, and/or replacement provided as soon as possible. The Samsung representative gave me the number of the local appliance repair technician to see if I could get them to come to my home earlier due to this emergency situation.

I immediately called the technician but they informed me that I would be required to pay for the service call and any repairs out of my own pocket. I called Samsung back and they confirmed that they would be charging me to pay for any service calls, fees, and repairs despite the fact that this emergency was caused by their own defective product and their failure to follow through on their previous (and free) service call, When I requested that they provide either a replacement refrigerator or credit toward the purchase of one, Samsung refused. As a result, I had to purchase a small emergency refrigerator, ice, and subsequently a new refrigerator unit. Additionally, all my food in the refrigerator and in the freezer were spoiled and had to be thrown away, approximately $500.00 worth of frozen and fresh food.

LIABILITY

A. Liability under The Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ.Code, § 1790 et seq. Breach of Implied Warranties (Merchantability and Warranty)

The Song-Beverly Act provides that every retail sale of consumer goods in California includes an implied warranty by the manufacturer and the retail seller that the goods are "merchantable" unless the goods are expressly sold "as is" or "with all faults." Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.3, 1792. Merchantability, for purposes of the Song-Beverly Act, means that the consumer goods: "(1) "[p]ass without objection in the trade under the contract description,"(2) "[a]re fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used," (3) "[a]re adequately contained, packaged, and labeled," and (4) "[c]onform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label." Cal. Civ. Code § 1791.1.

I purchased the Subject Refrigerator and am a "buyer" within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1781 (b). Samsung is a manufacturer within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1791(j). Samsung was responsible for producing the Subject Refrigerator and directed and was involved in all stages of their production and manufacturing process. The Subject Refrigerator is a "consumer goods" within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1791(a). At the time of delivery, however, Samsung breached the implied warranty of merchantability because the Subject Refrigerator was defective in that the temperature of the Subject Refrigerator was too warm and the ice machine constantly failed, ultimately leading to a flooding and failure of the Subject Refrigerator; thus it would not pass without objection, was not fit for normal use in a residential setting, and failed to conform to the standard of like products in the trade

The Song-Beverly Act also provides that every retail sale of consumer goods in California includes an implied warranty of fitness, which means that consumer goods will be fit for a particular purpose when a manufacturer, distributor, or retailer has reason to know that the goods are required for a particular purpose. The buyer is relying on the skill and judgment of the seller to select and furnish suitable goods. (Cal. Civ. Code § 1791.1(b).) Again, Samsung knew the reason for the use of the Subject Refrigerator, and I relied on their skill and judgment for the purchase and selection of the Subject Refrigerator.

Samsung also knew that the Subject Refrigerator's make and model had documented issues regarding temperature regulation. Between January 2019 and December 2021, the Consumer Product Safety Commission received over 600 complaints about Samsung Refrigerators. According to Consumer Reports, at least 211 complaints specifically cited food spoilage, while 62 complaints cited food poisoning. Samsung even identified these defects in technical service bulletins issued on July 17, 2015 and August 18, 2014. In addition, on October 5, 2017, Samsung issued Service Bulletin ASC20171005001 wherein Samsung warned that its French door refrigerators contained the following issues: "Fan noise that stops when the door is open, or FF section not cooling due to stuck fan (22 E or C), and/or water pooling under the crisper drawers." I experienced all of these issues with my refrigerator. (Service Bulletins attached hereto as Exhibit "H")

Samsung has repeatedly told me that since their warranty is "repair based," I have no other available options except to pay for a service tech to make a diagnosis. In the event that the service technician concludes the issue falls within Samsung's parameters of the documented issue, they stated they would be willing to provide a (ambiguous and non-defined) one-time extended warranty for parts and labor for a repair. However, when the implied warranty of merchantability is breached, applicable statutes do not require a buyer to give an opportunity to repair before rescinding the purchase.

Any attempt by Samsung to disclaim its implied warranty obligations under the Song-Beverly Act is ineffective, due to its failure to adhere to California Civil Code §§ 792.3 and 1792.4. Those sections provide that, in order to validly disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability, a manufacturer must "in simple and concise language" state: "(1) The goods are being sold on an 'as is' or 'with all faults' basis. (2) The entire risk as to the quality and performance of the goods is with the buyer. (3) Should the goods prove defective following their purchase, the buyer and not the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer assumes the entire cost of all necessary servicing or repair." None of these disclaimers exist in this case.

DAMAGES:

The remedies for a breach of the implied warranties are clear. "Any buyer of consumer goods injured by a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability has the remedies provided in Chapter 6 (commencing with 2601) and Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 2701) of Division 2 of the Commercial Code, and, in any action brought under such provisions, Section 1794 of this chapter shall apply." (§ 1791.1, subd. (d).)

Section 1794, subdivision (a), provides: "Any buyer of consumer goods who is damaged by a failure to comply with any obligation under this chapter or under an implied or express warranty or service contract may bring an action for the recovery of damages and other legal and equitable relief." Subdivision (b)(1) of the same statute continues: "Where the buyer has rightfully rejected or justifiably revoked acceptance of the goods or has exercised any right to cancel the sale, Sections 2711, 2712, and 2713 of the Commercial

Code shall apply." Commercial Code section 2711 provides that when a buyer rightfully rejects or justifiably revokes acceptance of goods, the buyer may cancel and recover specified damages "in addition to recovering so much of the price as has been paid[.]"

Thus, in the event of a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, the buyer is entitled to cancel the contract and recover any amounts paid toward the purchase of the goods. (§§ 1791.1, subd, (d), 1794, subds. (a), (b)(1); Com. Code, § 2711. As a direct and legal result of Samsung's violation of their obligations under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, I have been damaged by having to pay for a replacement product, storing and disposing of the Subject Refrigerator, and the loss of the food that was in the refrigerator.

Conclusion

Dealing with Samsung has been a frustrating, Kafka-esque process. Contrary to Samsung's insistence that the remedy available to me is a "one time" extension of a vague warranty of parts and labor for repair, under the Uniform Commercial Code, I have the right to cancel the contract and seek reimbursement, which I am doing in this complaint. Under section 1794, I am entitled to same compensatory damages recoverable for breach of the Act as those available to a buyer for a seller's breach of a sales contract.