Class Action Over Supposedly Defective Samsung Plasma TVs Seeks to Represent CA Consumers [UPDATE]

United States District Judge William Alsup has granted final approval to the settlement detailed below, commenting that the deal is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Consumers have until November 30, 2021 to file claims for their piece of the settlement.

Class members may be able to receive an exchange or refund for their broken Samsung televisions. Moreover, Samsung, as part of the settlement, will update its internal website to show its authorized service and repair facilities where replacements for capacitors supposedly responsible for the defect are available. Further still, the deal stipulates that Samsung will assist in filing annual statements through 2021 disclosing the number of class members who have received “some form of relief” through the deal within the prior year. 

“While Samsung’s agreement to make the television part available for class members to purchase is … nominal at best, the proposed settlement allows class members to exchange their televisions or receive a refund of the purchase price,” the approval order states. “By allowing class members to choose between exchanging their televisions or receiving the purchase price, the proposed settlement secures in substance what the complaint sought as compensatory damages.” 

Visit the official settlement website here.

The official settlement website for the Samsung plasma TV class action is live. Answers to frequently asked questions, case documents, and contact information for the settlement administrator can be found at californiapdpsettlement.com.

After the submission of a revised deal on October 7, the settlement proposed to end the lawsuit detailed on this page has been given preliminary approval by a federal judge.

United States District Judge William Alsup on November 1 preliminarily signed off on the settlement, which newly defines the class of consumers covered by the deal as:

“Any resident of the State of California who owns a Samsung plasma television model PN51F5500, PN51F5300, or PN51F5350 (‘Affected Models’), that exhibits a ‘line’ issue that requires a replacement plasma display panel assembly (‘PDP’).”

The new settlement requires the parties to publish class notices in “every major media market” in California, and “most minor ones,” in addition to creating a settlement website.

The deadline by which to file objections to the settlement is January 31, 2020. A hearing to consider final approval and attorneys’ fees is scheduled for February 27, 2020. Judge Alsup’s preliminary approval order can be found here.

United States District Judge William Alsup has denied a motion for preliminary settlement approval for the lawsuit detailed on this page. In a nine-page document submitted September 29, 2019, Judge Alsup cited the fact that class members would receive no money while the named plaintiffs would each receive $6,000 among his reasons for disallowing the settlement.

“The signs of self-interest here are not so subtle,” wrote Judge Alsup.

Judge Alsup said that the terms of the proposed settlement “drastically narrowed” the class to be covered by the deal from that proposed in the lawsuit. The new class proposed by the parties left out consumers who owned Samsung plasma TVs from 2009 until 2013, as well as those who no longer owned a Samsung TV as of July 2019, and cut the type of television covered by the settlement to just three models. Further still, the new settlement added the requirement that a class television must have undergone diagnostic testing by an authorized repair center in order to be covered. 

The biggest issue with the settlement, however, was the proposed agreement’s prohibition on providing notice to absent class members, leaving those individuals to effectively “fend for themselves.” Judge Alsup explained that even though damages claims would in theory survive the settlement, “absent class members would not be put on notice” that they need to file their own claims. Given the substantial narrowing of the class and the prohibition on providing any notice at all to those covered, original class members stand to receive nothing, Judge Alsup said, “not even notice of the need to bring their own lawsuit.”

According to Judge Alsup, the deficiencies with the settlement are by design: 

“Of course, this is all exactly what Samsung wants. Samsung is trying to avoid a new damages class action by a new lawyer to pursue the abandoned damages claim. Samsung alternatively is trying to avoid individual lawsuits brought by absent class members. Absent class members need to know that they now have to fight for themselves." 

Lastly, Judge Alsup highlighted the proposed deal’s “onerous” procedures for objectors, noting that “they too, tank the settlement.” Namely, Judge Alsup’s issue with the parties’ proposed objector procedures came down to the requirement that all objections include an individual’s name, address, and all arguments, citations and evidence that support the objection, including copies of all documents relied upon and a statement that the objector either intends to appear at the final approval hearing or will have counsel present in their absence. Further, it was proposed that objectors include photographic proof that they own an affected television or a “notarized sworn statement” confirming that their TV had been tested diagnostically. The final straw, according to Judge Alsup, was that if an attorney “in any way” assisted an objector, the counsel’s information would need to be provided.

“No settlement can fairly move forward with these procedures,” Judge Alsup wrote. “They require objectors to jump through so many hoops, no one would ever object.”

The parties have leave to move for a new settlement by October 4. A hearing on a new proposed settlement is tentatively slated for October 10.