Thursday, July 11, 2019
Google also deletes documents in its possesion that may not be in line with a mainstream point of view, irrespective of evidence.
With the emergence of 5G technology corporations as agressively pushing it, e.g. Telstra, Samsung (obviously for a high Return On Investment), whereas scientists may be a bit more cautious.
In an article from 15 Jul 2018 by theguardian.com of the headline "The inconvenient truth about cancer and mobile phones" there is a link to a "petition signed by 236 scientists worldwide" that points to a storage facility within Google, where the document has been removed, as seen in the screen capture below:
Reference to document:
Wednesday, July 10, 2019
MSY flaunted Austalian consumer law for a very long time, until they were taken to court for their 'normal' business practice, where they had to state the court case against them and confirm the consumer's rights under Australian law.
In light of the case within the Federal Court of Australia between ACCC and Samsung, we notified the popular Australia electronics retailer JB Hi-Fi of this on a review page of a Samsung Galaxy S10 mobile phone.
JB Hi-Fi declined to publish this consumer warning.
Would you really trust JB Hi-Fi with your hard earned dollars with an inferior or deliberately misleading advertised product?
We do not recommend purchasing any product from JB Hi-Fi at retail prices.
The warning we put to JB Hi-Fi:
Which they did NOT publish:
See 'Notice of Filing' at:
Monday, July 8, 2019
Samsung in court for misleading phone water resistance advertisements
The ACCC has instituted proceedings in the Federal Court against Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd (Samsung) alleging it made false, misleading and deceptive representations in advertising the water resistance of various ‘Galaxy’ branded mobile phones.
Since around February 2016, Samsung has widely advertised on social media, online, TV, billboards, brochures and other media that the Galaxy phones are water resistant and depicted them being used in, or exposed to, oceans and swimming pools.
Samsung also advertised the Galaxy phones as being water resistant up to 1.5 metres deep for 30 minutes. The ACCC’s case involves over 300 advertisements.
“The ACCC alleges Samsung’s advertisements falsely and misleadingly represented Galaxy phones would be suitable for use in, or for exposure to, all types of water, including in ocean water and swimming pools, and would not be affected by such exposure to water for the life of the phone, when this was not the case,” ACCC Chair Rod Sims said.
The ACCC claims Samsung did not have a reasonable basis for making the representations because:
- It did not test or know of testing (or sufficient testing) about how exposing a Galaxy phone to water (including non-fresh water) affected its usable life;
- It held the view that using Galaxy phones in liquid other than fresh water could damage them. For example, Samsung’s website states that the new Galaxy S10 phone range is ‘not advised for beach or pool use';
- It has denied warranty claims from consumers whose phones were damaged when used in water.
“Samsung itself has acknowledged that water resistance is an important factor influencing Australian consumer decisions when they choose what mobile phone to purchase,” Mr Sims said.
Samsung’s Galaxy phones which were advertised as being water resistant were sold at a higher price than Samsung phones which do not have this feature.
“Samsung’s advertisements, we believe, denied consumers an informed choice and gave Samsung an unfair competitive advantage,” Mr Sims said.
Samsung has sold more than four million Galaxy branded phones in Australia.
“Samsung showed the Galaxy phones used in situations they shouldn’t be to attract customers,” Mr Sims said.
“Under the Australian Consumer Law, businesses cannot mislead consumers about their products’ capabilities. Any attempt to do so will risk court action from the ACCC.”
The ACCC is seeking penalties, consumer redress orders, injunctions, declarations, publication orders, an order as to findings of fact, and costs.
Phones subject to the ACCC’s case are the S10e, S10, S10 Plus, S9, S9 Plus, S8, S8 Plus, S7, S7 Edge, Note 9, Note 8, Note 7, A8, A7, and A5, manufactured between 2016 and 2019.
Samsung’s promotions included advertisements on its website, in social media (Facebook, Twitter and Instagram), television, billboards, radio, brochures, YouTube, email marketing, press releases, sponsored articles, in its stores and in other retailers’ stores.
Examples of Samsung’s advertisements are below:
The link to the document below contains the ACCC’s initiating court documents in relation to this matter. We will not be uploading further documents in the event these initial documents are subsequently amended.
ACCC v Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd_Concise Statement