United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Samsung could not used in-box warranty to kill lawsuit against the company from the customers. Daniel Norcia filed the complaint against the company in 2014 for false advertising of Galaxy S4 and the court allowed the class action lawsuit to proceed.
Court of Appeals has denied plea from Samsung to reject class action suit against the company. The plaintiff Daniel Norcia filed a lawsuit claiming that Samsung Telecommunications America LLC falsely advertised its specifications including speed, performance, and memory capacity of the Galaxy S4, Consumerist reported.
Samsung argued that its customers, including Norcia are bound by a forced arbitration clause included in the warranty booklet of his S4. The company said as reported by Engadget, that the warranty sheet in the phone’s box disallowed Norcia’s right to trial. As the warranty forbid class action lawsuit against the company.
However, judges disagreed and denied the argument. The three judges, Chief Judge Sydney Thomas and Circuit Judge Carlos Bea and Sandra Ikuta unanimously allowed the class action to proceed.
The lawsuit was filed on Feb. 7, 2014 at the U.S. District Court in California. The named plaintiff Norcia said the Korean electronic company falsified the tests on the Galaxy S4. As a result, the test showed the Galaxy S4 performed above its normal performance in the test speed.
Samsung denied the allegations. The company, represented by Paul Hastings Law Firm said that Norcia has signed the binding arbitration clause as he bought the phone, forbidding him to file class action lawsuit against the company.
U.S. District Judge James Donato determined in September 2014 that Samsung could not arbitrate the proposed class action lawsuit against the company simply because of the warranty sheet. Following the court ruling, Samsung appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
Watch the proceeding in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, as legal team for the plaintiff and defendant stated their argument below:
