About 1,800 consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Samsung Electronics regarding the performance degradation controversy of the Galaxy S22 smartphone and lost in the first trial.
On the 12th, the Seoul Central District Court's Civil Division 21, presided over by Judge Kim Ji-hye, ruled in the first trial of a lawsuit filed by 1,882 Galaxy S22 smartphone consumers against Samsung Electronics, stating, "We dismiss all claims of the plaintiffs."
This case is related to the 'Game Optimizing Service (GOS)' controversy that emerged in 2022 involving Samsung Electronics Galaxy smartphones. GOS is a function that artificially reduces performance by adjusting the GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) to lower screen resolution, preventing overheating and extending battery life of the smartphone. Samsung Electronics applied the GOS function starting with the release of the Galaxy S7 in 2016. Previously, consumers could disable the GOS function based on their choice.
However, with the release of the Galaxy S22 series, Samsung Electronics mandated the inclusion of GOS and prevented consumers from restricting the GOS function. Consequently, dissatisfaction among consumers arose regarding the significant performance degradation of the Galaxy S22. As the controversy grew, Samsung Electronics issued an apology and updated the software to allow consumers to choose whether GOS would operate.
Nevertheless, some consumers filed a lawsuit against Samsung Electronics, with individual claims for damages amounting to 300,000 won.
During the trial, the consumer side argued, "Samsung Electronics restricted the performance of the Galaxy S22 arbitrarily and uniformly, yet advertised that the product had 'the best performance of its time and could normally use high-spec games,' which constitutes deceptive representation and advertising practices."
They also claimed that failing to disclose the GOS policy applied to the Galaxy S22 infringed on consumers' reasonable choices and autonomy, which constitutes a violation of the law.
The court recognized the consumer side's claims regarding deceptive representation and advertising. However, the court stated, "The evidence submitted by the consumer side alone is insufficient to recognize that damages occurred to the consumers due to deceptive representation or advertising."
Furthermore, the court indicated, "It is difficult to view that Samsung Electronics has an obligation to inform the general consumers intending to purchase mobile devices about this policy regarding GOS."