A B.C. resident who had trouble with a Samsung smartphone under warranty took his issue to the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal and partially won.
Most of us have had issues with a smartphone and have had to do some technical troubleshooting, but things went a step further for KS.
KS claimed $346.28 for repair costs and $1,360.54 in other damages.
Was it a case of user error? Or was a defective Samsung phone responsible?
- You might also like:
- Bell follows suit after Rogers and Fido raise fees
- Court orders BC electronics outlet to pay up over misrepresented warranty
- BC homeowner holds strata accountable for repairs, wins over $1K
According to the tribunal decision, KS purchased a Samsung Galaxy A54 on Oct. 10, 2023, from a retail store with a two-year plan through Koodo. The phone cost $590. Samsung provided an express warranty covering defects for a whole year from when the phone was purchased.
A few months after purchase, in December 2023, his phone stopped accepting his passcode to unlock it.
To win his claimed damages, KS had to prove that the issues he was experiencing on his phone were more likely than not caused by a manufacturer defect.
KS told the tribunal that he used the same passcode on all of his previous phones. He also said his wife knows his passcode and verified that he was entering it correctly.
“Samsung does not argue that this was a simple case of password entry error, and I find it was not. Further, screenshots from various websites indicate that others have experienced the same issue with this brand of phone,” the tribunal said.
Later that December, KS finally unlocked his phone with the help of a Samsung tech online. He had to use the “Find My Mobile” website to lock his phone, set a new passcode, and then use that code to unlock it.
KS soon realized that the fix was temporary. The next day, the phone stopped accepting the new passcode. After a few failed attempts, the phone locked. Samsung presented KS with two options: either try to perform a hard reset or send the phone to FutureTel, Samsung’s authorized service center. He chose to send the phone in.
The phone was sent back to KS, but it wasn’t fixed. On Dec. 14, 2023, FutureTel emailed KS additional instructions to unlock the phone, which proved unsuccessful.
After more troubleshooting dead ends, KS had to send the phone in again.
This time, FutureTel said the only solution was to install a new mainboard. According to a FutureTel manager, locked Samsung phones were considered “out of warranty,” meaning KS had to pay for them. He was quoted $346.28 and agreed to pay it. KS hasn’t had issues with his phone since.
The tribunal said, “I find Samsung breached the warranty by failing to cover the cost of replacing the mainboard. I order it to reimburse [KS] $346.28 for the FutureTel repair cost.”
Including tribunal fees, Samsung was ordered to pay KS $471.28. KS’s other damages stemmed from being without a phone for 48 days, but the court dismissed his additional claims.