Samsung Owes Galaxy S4 Owners $10 For Cheating On Benchmarks (androidpolice.com) 32
Three years after a class-action lawsuit was filed against Samsung for artificially boosting CPU and GPU performance to report inflated benchmark scores, a settlement has been reached to fine the company for its infraction. Android Police reports: Samsung finds itself on the hook for paying $13.4 million in damages, breaking down to $2.8 million for settlement costs and $10.6 million for injunction relief. Taking all Galaxy S4 sales into account, that $2.8 million for victims of the benchmark-rigging amounts to about $10 per person. In addition to this fine, Samsung is committing to refrain from manipulating benchmarks on its devices, but only for three years. Following this timeframe, Samsung can technically reactivate the code responsible for cheating benchmark applications; however, re-engaging in this behavior would most likely result in future litigation. Details as to how owners can claim their $10 payout have yet to be released.
Easy peasy (Score:3)
Details as to how owners can claim their $10 payout have yet to be released.
Yes. You simply have to submit your GPS-confirmable whereabouts on S4 rollout day, April 27, 2013, and what your dog was thinking about that day.
Re:Easy peasy (Score:4, Insightful)
More likely add your name on a list, receive a postcard, sign and return it. That's the normal procedure.
It will be the lawyers who won the settlement who manage the process, not Samsung.
Re: Easy peasy (Score:2)
I hate to break it to them, but they got cheated out of way more than $10 the moment they bought a "flagship".
10 Bucks on a several hundred dollar item!? (Score:5, Insightful)
10 Bucks on a several hundred dollar item!? This is ridiculous.
The only way companies will learn their lesson in regards to such things is by completely wiping out their profits for something.
Fine a company a small fraction on what they made on a given product they lied about and they'll learn nothing. Fine a company the bulk of what they made above production costs in regards to a product they knowingly lied about and you'll all of a sudden find companies acting in a moral manner. Of course proving the "knowingly" part can be tricky to prove
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you work for Apple or something?
or something.
Because wiping out a company's profit means they will cease to exist.
If there is profit to be made a new company takes its place. Why should we defend a company that cheats?
Samsung Electronics is a massive industrial conglomerate. You won't kill them by wiping out profits of one division for a quarter, or even for a year. They chose to do so they could probably run their phone making business for decades without seeing profits.
Re: (Score:2)
Try this: if you make the cost of settlement high enough, at some point, it's better for the company to go to trial than to try to settle it. Do you really trust these plaintiffs' lawyers to be able to competently execute a long, drawn-out class-action strategy?
Re: (Score:2)
If they can't win in the market without lying to their customers, they can go screw. A punishment has to actually stop them from doing it in the future... 10 bucks off a phone is not enough to dissuade them if they think they sold enough extra phones through the lie to cover that cost.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course proving the "knowingly" part can be tricky to prove
But also irrelevant - it's their duty to verify that whatever is advertised is correct and not misleading.
Of course, if it can be proven that they 'knowingly' did it, then that should increase the damages, but shouldn't be the bar to prove guilt.
Re: (Score:3)
Right, right, they lied about their product. But it was not a fraudulent product, it was a real cell phone, and probably even a good one.
The retail price doesn't matter, this isn't some sort of refund.
It is a small windfall whose purpose is merely to punish Samsung.
Re: (Score:1)
You didn't really lose anything (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so immorality on all sides justifies it for all (and not even for all sides as you very nicely point out to undermine your own argument. I'm completely puzzled by that but "thanks"?)? It's safe to say you've failed to convince me of anything outside of reinforcing what I've already said.
here's how I want mine (Score:2)
What is this BS? (Score:2)
Details as to how owners can claim their $10 payout have yet to be released.
I've purchased name-brand capacitors off ebay in the past and been notified in writing that there is a class action against the manufacture long before a judgement has been issued. Why in hell is the first I'm hearing of an item I purchased from a licensed dealer of Samsung products a fucking story the class action is already done and over with? I'm glad my S4 was the one and only Samsung product I purchased. It was an OK phone, at best.
Re: (Score:2)
Why in hell is the first I'm hearing of an item I purchased from a licensed dealer of Samsung products a fucking story the class action is already done and over with?
Because you failed to read slashdot regularly, Grandpa. Like, duh.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's do the math (Score:2)
Samsung's revenue was 219.34 billion U.S. dollars in 2018 (source [xinhuanet.com]).
A $13.4 million fine is the equivalent of fining a person that earns $100,000 a total of $6.11 (six dollars and eleven cents).
That will show them!
Re: (Score:2)
From your fucking link:
Samsung's mobile phone division recorded 10.17 trillion won (9.15 billion U.S. dollars) in operating profit last year
Please read your links before you post them, and use the relevant numbers. 9 billion. Not 219 billion. Slight discrepancy.
Re: (Score:2)
OP was stating the revenue numbers for Samsung as a whole, while you were only looking at the profit value of a single division within the company.
Samsung (just the mobile phone division part) had over $9 billion of money left over after all expenses were accounted for. I'm sure this measly fine will really hurt them.
Re: (Score:2)
The grandparent stated revenue, as noted by others. Revenue is a more appropriate figure, since a person also has expenses in that $100,000 needed to live.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't charge you anything, not even postage. Their pay is in a separate pot.
3 years, my my... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Samsung is committing to refrain from manipulating benchmarks on its devices, but only for three years."
what, how is this even legal?
it's fraud, they lost a court case about it, but it's only a 'problem' for 3 years?
Re: (Score:2)
These "refrain" clauses come from the fact it's hard to prove intent to defraud as opposed to screwing things up. This clause means that if the situation arises again they cannot claim that they didn't know this was a problem thus they stipulate the intent to defraud.
The counterargument in this specific case is that the benchmarking will eventually change enough that it's possible to screw up the future version in a different way, so the stipulation of intent shouldn't be indefinite.
The real crime is that t
Just a hunch (Score:2)
....I'd guess the lawyers chasing this made slightly more than $10 each.