St Louis fighting for us again. We don’t deserve this hero but we fucking need him
It’s small claims court, so anyone else getting fucked by this wont benefit. It’s going to take a bigger case. This will be forgotton about in a coupke months and Samsung will keep doing it.
Most business laws are just pay-to-play regulation anyways
Not true. If you can cite another similar small claims case against the company, the Judge will take that under consideration as well.
It’s only not beneficial if they settle outside court and have a non disclosure agreement. And that’s not going to happen with Rossmann. There is zero doubt in my mind that he would turn down a million dollar payout to keep quiet.
I also don’t expect him to settle. Louis has principles and a DGAF - get it done attitude and an extreme allergy to bullshit. Truly a hero for the people. All he asks is that we participate and speak out on these issues. My next guys poker night (or equivalent) might include a group email writing session. I know several people who I would not have expected to get involved who have written their reps regarding right to repair and other consumer advocacy and freedom issues.
But if he has success, well, I can go to the lawyer and show him that success (because I’m in the same boat right now), maybe it just needs more cases…
I’m rooting for him, but I also can’t recall any warranty agreement that didn’t include something along the lines of “or refund of original purchase price at manufacturers discretion” as an acceptable remedy instead of replacement.
At the bottom of the article it cites that they have the right to refund if they can’t repair or replace, but since they’ve shown plenty of stock in their own store they can replace. He also cites their own policy which reads “refund the then current market value of the Product”.
Agreeing with you here, they probably had the last line there to save themselves money, as historically tech items lose value over time, so if you bought an ssd for $200, and 6 months later needed to be replaced or refunded, historically they can realistically offer you $150, as that would traditionally be the new market value after 6 months, but in today’s timeline, now its apparently worth $900 and they probably don’t want to pay that.
Samsung hurt itself in confusion
I wonder if these repair companies that Samsung outsources to have internal metrics to keep payouts or replacements as low as possible.
Gaslight the customer into returning and agreeing to a “refund at original cost”. Do this X number of times for contract bonuses or something.
Yeah I think it’s a tall order, but I also don’t have the impression that rossmann picks a fight without having a pretty good chance of winning.
Small claims court is likely where this is filed. So, it’s very likely he will get the desired outcome.
edit: ended up watching video on yt at 2X. It is indeed his plan to file suit in small claims court, or as he puts it in his email, “Justice Court of Travis county, Texas” if his demands to replace at current market value or provide replacement are not met.
The video implies he is willing to spend time and money that exceeds the cost of drive to get the outcome desired. But I think that’s more of a performative statement since it’s going to small claims which has very reasonable case fees and can defend self.
It also draws a bunch of negative attention to Samsung for this scummy move. Ideally more media pick this up.
That samsung doesn’t have a replacement drive in stock is a blatant lie. They just want to sell him one for the inflated price.
They never used to give you full refunds when these drives lost value over time. And if they did it wasn’t what you paid origionally. Now their price is ballooned and suddenly they are eager to do so.
It’s extremely clear what Samsung is doing here.
Edit/Addendum that i take no credit for:
Evidently it’s against their own warranty terms: https://semiconductor.samsung.com/consumer-storage/support/warranty/
In the event Samsung determines, in its sole discretion, that the Product suffers from defects in material or workmanship and does not substantially conform to the published specifications under normal use, for as long as You own the Product and during the limited warranty period, and subject to the conditions and exceptions stated in this Agreement, Samsung will, at its option, either: (1) repair or replace the Product with new or refurbished Product of equal or greater capacity and functionality; or (2) refund the then current market value of the Product at the time the warranty claim is made to Samsung if Samsung is unable to repair or replace the Product.
But I think that’s more of a performative statement
Should it somehow go beyond that, somehow, I have little doubt Louis will put his money where his mouth is. He’s paid $10.000 bounties to people demonstrating they can crack locked firmware, and done lots of other things.
It can absolutely be both though. He knows his reputation, and it’s a performance to add to it, but it’s not exactly harmful or anything.
Just had a similar thing happen to me. Bought some WD reds. Two drives were DOA. Since no drives were available to replace them, I could return for a refund. Then had to buy drives when they were in stock again at double the price.
It’s like DoorDash giving you a partial refund and not actually getting you what you ordered when there is a fuckup by the restaurant.
How satisfied are you with your customer support? I didn’t get what I fucking ordered!
doordash is a horrible example…
they do nothing but keep you lazy… they don’t make the food, package the food, or see the food… that’s the restaurant’s problem, not doordash
that said, don’t use doordash… or Uber…
Well, it’s definitely tangential. The only overlap is how their refunds don’t actually fix anything and there is no path to actually addressing the original customer intent. A new order would be more money, and a gamble on the same error happening (maybe even intentional neglect by the people at the restaurant). And having to go out and get it yourself breaks the whole reason you engaged with the company at all.
It’s a very broken customer service system they have. And it has to be that way to keep their margins.
The part that irritates me is the act like they can’t refund anything after “the store confirmed the order”. One time I meant to check the price of a liquor bottle, dropped phone, between trying to prevent it falling and picking it up I touched the purchase button. The store “confirmed the order” within 30 seconds. Since the store confirmed the order and started “preparing the order” I could cancel it but couldn’t get a refund. The issue? It was 11:15pm. Legally liquor stores can’t sell packaged liquor after 9pm here. Either a. The store didn’t confirm anything and have be not started preparing anything b. The store is openly defying multiple laws. The c. The you are full of shit. Plus what’s “preparing” a bottle of liquor? Why can’t you send a notification of “put it back on shelf” and be done? Fine yeah my mistake of accidentally pressing button, maybe a 10% “restocking fee” still bullshit but acceptable. Not being able to cancel order at all though???
If it’s not clear, the store was closed but order was defaulted to be delivered at 11am the next day as that was next available legal delivery time.
Charge back time! That is like full on Karen mode appropriate (a very rare occurrence).
Since we know what happened is the liquor store just has every order that comes in “confirmed” by default and its just better for them and Dash to work this way. Like what if a child had hit the button? Fuck you I guess?
If I did it right now same thing would happen… With 2 different liquor stores
Yeah, it looks like that is by design then. Glad I don’t deal with those programs myself. I would worry opening the thing on my phone.
i am chargeback level satisfied
Get em Louis
Fuck the chaebol
I admire this guy’s stubbornness. Sadly, even if he ends up winning, Samsung probably won’t feel this at all.
It sets some precedent for future lawsuits so it might keep Samsung in line for the next one.
Still going to cost them more than the $950 for a refund
Rossman knows that. He’s not doing this for his own personal gain.
Yeah, hopefully something bigger hits them.
I totally agree, but maybe it’s gonna inspire other people to do likewise. David doesnt have to be alone against Goliath anymore ^^Cheers
The wording of Samsung’s warranty seems to support this conclusion:
“{…}during the limited warranty period, and subject to the conditions and exceptions stated in this Agreement, Samsung will, at its option, either: (1) repair or replace the Product with new or refurbished Product of equal or greater capacity and functionality; or (2) refund the then current market value of the Product at the time the warranty claim is made to Samsung if Samsung is unable to repair or replace the Product.” [emphasis added]
What’s funny is this wording was likely designed to try and screw over the customer and backfired, because historically a used SSD has always been cheaper than the original purchase price. But in this specific market, it works in the consumer’s favor.
Which is, of course, why they suddenly feel entitled to not follow their own rules.
Happy cake day!
Exactly that because drives were getting cheaper over time so it saved Samsung money to refund at the going market rate and at worst case it would be just a few dollars more. When they penned that they never envisaged the shitshow we have going on today when the price of storage and RAM has 4x’d or more.
Please review section D of their warranty terms and conditions. It clearly states they are not liable for more money than the original purchase price:
D. Warranty Limitations and Limitations of Liability
Except for the express warranties stated herein, Samsung disclaims all other express and implied warranties, including but not limited to any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, noninfringement, course of dealing and usage of trade. All expressed and implied warranties are limited in duration to the limited warranty period. This agreement contains Samsung’s entire liability and your exclusive remedy for breach of this agreement. in no event shall Samsung, its suppliers or any affiliates be liable for any indirect, consequential, incidental or special damages, any financial loss or any lost data or files, even if Samsung has been advised of the possibility of such damage and notwithstanding the failure of essential purpose of any limited remedy. in no event will Samsung’s liability exceed the amount paid by you for the product. these limitations and exclusions apply to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.
So yes, they will totally cover the cost of a replacement or refund of market value at the time of requesting the refund, but they are only liable for that purchase price. If the value goes above what you paid, they are not liable for providing the increased price. This is the having cake and eating it too. It’s worded to protect them the fullest, or if they decline to replace it later and it’s much cheaper for them to provide you with a market value refund, they will do so.
The problem with that is the first sentence:
Except for the express warranties stated herein
It states pretty clearly to me they are liable for the current market price if they are unable to repair or replace.
That is not a sentence, you took a sentence fragment. Very important distinction in a legal document.
Except for the express warranties stated herein, Samsung disclaims all other express and implied warranties, including but not limited to any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, noninfringement, course of dealing and usage of trade.
They are saying they are not liable for any implied warranties. The only warranty that is valid is the one defined in the document. They are not saying that section D does not apply to express warranties, as the next sentence talks about them in terms of limiting duration.
Reading is fundamental man.
Stop trying to act like you know the answer. It could go either way, it’s up to the judge and judges can have different interpretations, even at the supreme court level decisions are usually not unanimous.
Fuck you gotta insult the guys reading ability, you both read perfectly fine and neither of you are lawyers so you have no authority even if you read English perfectly well.
you are lawyers
thanks man we know
you read English perfectly well.
thanks
see what I did there?
Yeah it’s called sophistry, dickheads have been doing it for millenia.
I guess the question is what the price was when he submitted the claim.
Edit: Today’s price isn’t necessarily the price when the claim was filed.
$949
Now here’s a guy who at least bothered to read the title.
There’s a time difference between today and when the claim was filed.
He sent it off, they sent it back, and he tested it before they offered the purchase price as a refund.
I know this because I bothered to read the article
It was a video. And covered in said video.
No, that’s the price when the refund was offered. The warranty states it’s the price when the claim was filed.
As stated in the video, this was not done long ago. This is why he has to wait 60 days.
I had the same case when the prices weren’t as absurd then, so I just paid 20 Euros extra, not that bad, but now… I will likely this issue again (like he has), because the SSD in question is defective again, I really hope he has success, it’s still within guaranty for some time so I wait how this turns out (until short before guaranty is gone).
Yeah he is trying to hit them where it really hurts, their reputation.
Samsung is one of the biggest single entities on earth. They paid out two billion in class action settlements on their shitty ice makers alone and recouped their costs by selling the same shitty ice make in repairs.
Samsung’s reputation cannot be hurt. Their pockets are bottomless and they have a hand in every single industry on the planet.
Rossmans case won’t even go higher than lower management.
He is doing more than you or I. To the normies they hear the right to repair guy is suing them and then they might consider not getting the new galexie book f13.
I experienced something similar with a GPU when coin mining made the prices explode.
But I knew they would do that, because the law here is not designed for prices to suddenly explode out of proportion.
So you are only refunded the original price of purchase, which would normally be fine.This resulted in me using a low end GPU (unsuitable for mining) for almost a year, because I refused to pay the inflated prices for a proper GPU.
I’m sorry to say, but I doubt Louis Rossmann can win this case, because it is not generally feasible to make the law so the customer can demand a replacement, because a replacement isn’t always possible, which is why the seller can fulfill obligations with a refund of the price paid.
If new products had come out at lower prices, a refund is normally a great deal for the customer. But currently in this case it is not.
Their terms were written to allow them to refund less than the purchase price by refunding the current price instead of the purchase price. You buy SSD for $200, a year later the model is reduced to $150, they refund you $150. They haven’t changed those terms, so they are violating their own contract by not refunding at the current price.
Their terms were written to allow them to refund less than the purchase price
OK that would be clearly illegal here (Denmark). They can replace the product, but they can’t make a refund that i smaller than the purchase price.
It is also illegal to change conditions so they are worse for the customer than what the law states.
I think this goes for all of EU, but USA is an absolute shit country also regarding consumer rights.
I like how the article does not mention Samsung on the title even once.
Its clearly there… What do yours say?
Something is off, It was not there when I made my post. Op is framing me, you have to believe me. Op is protecting Samsung or something.
Yeah, they know it’s cheaper to refund the purchase price rather than to provide a replacement. Why would they ever take the bigger loss to them? They’re businesses, not people with a conscious. They are legally required to make the most profit possible for their shareholders as they are both public entities. Publicly traded businesses are by definition lawful evil because this is the kind of world humanity gravitates towards.
I’m sure the warranty terms are worded in such a way that is most hostile to consumers and most beneficial to themselves. There’s always a half dozen legal gotchas that rarely apply in cases where they would lose a penny more than is typical like market shortages caused by AI infrastructure spend. The only time it makes financial sense for them to honor the warranty is if it’s cheaper than providing a refurbished replacement, and a refurb of these drives is likely worth much, much more than the original.
I’d say the play here is to buy a new one and return the old one but do a label swap. It’s certainly fraud, but then amazon or sandisk get to eat it instead of you. If you are concerned about how hard it hits their bottom lines, check out their stock valuation over the last year.
edit: section D of their published warranty clearly outlines that they are not liable for more than your purchase price:
D. Warranty Limitations and Limitations of Liability
Except for the express warranties stated herein, Samsung disclaims all other express and implied warranties, including but not limited to any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, noninfringement, course of dealing and usage of trade. All expressed and implied warranties are limited in duration to the limited warranty period. This agreement contains Samsung’s entire liability and your exclusive remedy for breach of this agreement. in no event shall Samsung, its suppliers or any affiliates be liable for any indirect, consequential, incidental or special damages, any financial loss or any lost data or files, even if Samsung has been advised of the possibility of such damage and notwithstanding the failure of essential purpose of any limited remedy. in no event will Samsung’s liability exceed the amount paid by you for the product. these limitations and exclusions apply to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.
Samsung will, at its option, either: (1) repair or replace the Product with new or refurbished Product of equal or greater capacity and functionality; or (2) refund the then current market value of the Product at the time the warranty claim is made to Samsung if Samsung is unable to repair or replace the Product.
That seems quite damning to me. We ought to make sure this page is archived, in case the’ll try a gaslight us.
Edit: It is.
You too! Please read it all!
D. Warranty Limitations and Limitations of Liability
Except for the express warranties stated herein, Samsung disclaims all other express and implied warranties, including but not limited to any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, noninfringement, course of dealing and usage of trade. All expressed and implied warranties are limited in duration to the limited warranty period. This agreement contains Samsung’s entire liability and your exclusive remedy for breach of this agreement. in no event shall Samsung, its suppliers or any affiliates be liable for any indirect, consequential, incidental or special damages, any financial loss or any lost data or files, even if Samsung has been advised of the possibility of such damage and notwithstanding the failure of essential purpose of any limited remedy. in no event will Samsung’s liability exceed the amount paid by you for the product. these limitations and exclusions apply to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.
Liability ≠ Warranty
Remedy Description ≠ liability cap
I’d say the play here is to buy a new one and return the old one but do a label swap.
Louis addressed this in his video. He pointed out that he’s suing in large part because Samsung is penalizing the honest way of doing things. He wants to promote the honest way by setting an example, and good for him.
I’m sure, and unless his lawyers can have section D struck from the agreement somehow I can’t imagine how he’s going to get them to pay him more than what he paid.
For normal people who don’t want to spend the time, effort and energy not to mention cash if you lose to sue I am not sure what relief you could suggest for them. I don’t see anything beyond the typical social media posts where you beg for somebody like GN to buy it from you or for their social media team to eat the cost of a replacement which is wholly unrealistic imo.
oh and their warranty has a fucking arbitration clause and puts it’s legal area in korea, that’s fun and another hurdle which is a total unknown to me how it will go down, but I would guess their arbitration can’t be much better for consumers than the US one.
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
Republic of Korea (excluding conflict of law’s provisions which may direct the application of
another jurisdiction’s laws). All disputes, controversies or claims between the parties arising
out of or in connection with this Agreement (including its existence, validity or termination)
shall be finally resolved by arbitration to be held in Seoul, Korea and conducted in English
under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce. The arbitral award
shall be final and binding on the parties. Except to the extent entry of judgment and any
subsequent enforcement may require disclosure, all matters relating to the arbitration,
including the award, shall be held in confidence.I can’t imagine how he’s going to get them to pay him more than what he paid.
I have no idea why you’re citing “Section D”. Section D is about the limitations of the warranty/liability, and that clearly doesn’t apply (they offered Louis compensation for the warranty; both parties agree this is within the bounds of the warranty). Sections B, C, and D have been met because both parties agree they have been.
The warranty (Section A) reads:
Samsung will, at its option, either: (1) repair or replace the Product with new or refurbished Product of equal or greater capacity and functionality; or (2) refund the then current market value of the Product at the time the warranty claim is made to Samsung if Samsung is unable to repair or replace the Product.
Samsung therefore has two options: 1) repair/replace the unit or 2) pay Louis the current market value. That’s not even slightly ambiguous. Even if you agree that “at its option” means that “unable to repair or replace the Product” is 100% up to Samsung regardless of its actual ability (which it appears to be), that still means they owe him current market value, which is in the ~$900 range – not what he paid for it. You’re way off-base with your assessment.
(edit: “does not apply” was, I hope, clearly intended to mean “in reference to this conversation because the criteria have obviously been met”.)
How did you come to the conclusion that section D does not apply?
The agreement is the whole thing, not just part of it. Remember this is going to arbitration based out of korea and it has no severability clause. Odds are if you invalidate a part you’re invalidating the whole thing - but who knows, i’m not familiar with arbitration law out of seoul.
How did you come to the conclusion that section D does not apply?
I didn’t. I came to the conclusion that the criteria in Section D have already been cleared, because Section D discusses the cases in which the warranty will not apply; both parties clearly agree the warranty applies because Samsung offered Louis compensation. I don’t understand what warranty you were reading or why this is so difficult for you.
Specifically what part of Section D concerns you?
I mean it’s a very simple thing. Each sentence does not invalidate or preclude the one after or before it, all statements can be true without conflict.
From the article:
the SSD maker offered to refund him the original $330 he paid for the drive
so they are offering his original purchase price.
Section D states without any conditions for it to apply:
in no event will Samsung’s liability exceed the amount paid by you for the product.
This is a carte blanche statement capping the total dollar value of the warranty at the price originally paid. It’s no less valid than section B outlining the terabytes written and years after purchase as limiting factors of when the warranty applies. This sentence is literally the reason why they are offering the original purchase price of $330 and not one cent more. They do not offer to refund today’s purchase price of 1099.99 on their website (assuming he bought it directly from them) because they don’t have to.
If they offered a model that was in the grid as being 0.1TB written or 1 year, the warranty would only be that long. B is establishing those limits, even though the product has a warranty those conditions apply for the warranty and it’s remedies to be effective. It doesn’t limit the scope of the remedy, but it does limit the conditions of which the warranty applies. The warranty as described in section A is specifically worded to be broad and then limited by all other conditions in the warranty agreement.
Section A is effectively saying they exclusively choose the remedy from the available options: A refund no more than the market value (which is limited in section D to the purchase price) or a replacement.
If they had opted to choose to refund him and the product had dropped in price from $330 to $50, they could opt to provide a $50 refund as that is the new market value and also under their liability limit.
I started off on here with a comment saying the entire system is setup to screw consumers and give them the best benefit. It’s true. It’s just not done in a plain way and easily confused by those not carefully reading the entire fairly brief agreement.
edit: another way to think about how legal agreements work is to change the formatting so that every single whole sentence is a bullet point under section headings. The clauses can stand alone unless they’re very ambiguous. There’s no ambiguity here, there’s an actual purchase price and a limit being imposed. It doesn’t depend on anything else to be effective and it doesn’t just apply to a subset of scenarios. The only thing that seems to defeat it in the entire document is local laws.
I’d say the play here is to buy a new one and return the old one but do a label swap. It’s certainly fraud, but then amazon or sandisk get to eat it instead of you. If you are concerned about how hard it hits their bottom lines, check out their stock valuation over the last year.
you’re also kinda screwing whatever customer ends up with it. For lost time troubleshooting and returning at the very least.
In my experience essentially all amazon fraud returns that go into circulation end up getting a free replacement.
If you’re not returning a brick in place of a GPU and instead return the actual hardware, the next guy simply gets a DOA that looks like a DOA, quacks like a DOA, and returns like a DOA for another one… so the odds of this causing an actual issue for a normal human is extremely low.
i’d still be pissed if i got one.
I’d say the play here is to buy a new one and return the old one but do a label swap.
make sure to double check the labels before the swap
my stupid ass would 100% return the working unit by accident
