Samsung calls ACCC's demands 'cheap' in court case about Galaxy phone ads
published 28.07.2020 07:11
As the proceedings move along, the court will continue to look at the ACCC's allegations that Samsung did not test how water exposure impacted the usable life of devices, that the Korean giant "held the view" that use in non-fresh water could damage them and advised as such on its website, and that Samsung denied warranty claims from people with water damaged phones.
At the end of the hearing, Murphy agreed with the ACCC's fallback position for determining how the referee's protocols are developed prior to any evaluations about expert evidence being made.
He explained that a referee was needed as the ACCC's questions for what an expert should look at were too broad as they viewed phone damage through an "inclusive" definition.
The ACCC said it preferred to not have a referee -- which would provide an independent report of an expert's waters tests -- due to the additional costs it would incur.
Samsung has labelled the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC) demands in regards to a Federal Court case as "cheap".