Yeah, they know it’s cheaper to refund the purchase price rather than to provide a replacement. Why would they ever take the bigger loss to them? They’re businesses, not people with a conscious. They are legally required to make the most profit possible for their shareholders as they are both public entities. Publicly traded businesses are by definition lawful evil because this is the kind of world humanity gravitates towards.
I’m sure the warranty terms are worded in such a way that is most hostile to consumers and most beneficial to themselves. There’s always a half dozen legal gotchas that rarely apply in cases where they would lose a penny more than is typical like market shortages caused by AI infrastructure spend. The only time it makes financial sense for them to honor the warranty is if it’s cheaper than providing a refurbished replacement, and a refurb of these drives is likely worth much, much more than the original.
I’d say the play here is to buy a new one and return the old one but do a label swap. It’s certainly fraud, but then amazon or sandisk get to eat it instead of you. If you are concerned about how hard it hits their bottom lines, check out their stock valuation over the last year.
edit: section D of their published warranty clearly outlines that they are not liable for more than your purchase price:
D. Warranty Limitations and Limitations of Liability
Except for the express warranties stated herein, Samsung disclaims all other express and implied warranties, including but not limited to any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, noninfringement, course of dealing and usage of trade. All expressed and implied warranties are limited in duration to the limited warranty period. This agreement contains Samsung’s entire liability and your exclusive remedy for breach of this agreement. in no event shall Samsung, its suppliers or any affiliates be liable for any indirect, consequential, incidental or special damages, any financial loss or any lost data or files, even if Samsung has been advised of the possibility of such damage and notwithstanding the failure of essential purpose of any limited remedy. in no event will Samsung’s liability exceed the amount paid by you for the product. these limitations and exclusions apply to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.
Samsung will, at its option, either: (1) repair or replace the Product with new or refurbished Product of equal or greater capacity and functionality; or (2) refund the then current market value of the Product at the time the warranty claim is made to Samsung if Samsung is unable to repair or replace the Product.
D. Warranty Limitations and Limitations of Liability
Except for the express warranties stated herein, Samsung disclaims all other express and implied warranties, including but not limited to any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, noninfringement, course of dealing and usage of trade. All expressed and implied warranties are limited in duration to the limited warranty period. This agreement contains Samsung’s entire liability and your exclusive remedy for breach of this agreement. in no event shall Samsung, its suppliers or any affiliates be liable for any indirect, consequential, incidental or special damages, any financial loss or any lost data or files, even if Samsung has been advised of the possibility of such damage and notwithstanding the failure of essential purpose of any limited remedy. in no event will Samsung’s liability exceed the amount paid by you for the product. these limitations and exclusions apply to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.
these limitations and exclusions apply to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.
This is the actually important part. Companies drop unenforceable shit in t&c all the time. It’s just there to intimidate you and force you to give up your rights.
Of course local laws apply, but then you’re relying on specific local or regional laws that somehow invalidate the agreement which probably don’t exist. You’re really in an uphill battle to argue that all of these sections of the warranty - the very thing you’re using to argue you are owed - do not apply to your case.
Your skin in the game is <$500 (for me, this 4TB ssd w/ heatsink is $793 at a local microcenter.) $500 is hardly more than an hour of lawyer time, odds are you’re paying at least $300 just for them to write a cease and desist, and now you’ve got to argue that your lawyer fees should be covered despite an arbitration clause, a jurisdiction clause, and a maximum liability clause. One of the best case scenarios is that you would pony up the cash and they give you a settlement that still doesn’t get you to a point where you have a working product or enough money to buy an identical item after lawyer fees. The worst case scenario is that you get absolutely nothing out of the suit and have to pay for arbitration fees on top of your legal fees.
I’d say the play here is to buy a new one and return the old one but do a label swap.
Louis addressed this in his video. He pointed out that he’s suing in large part because Samsung is penalizing the honest way of doing things. He wants to promote the honest way by setting an example, and good for him.
I’m sure, and unless his lawyers can have section D struck from the agreement somehow I can’t imagine how he’s going to get them to pay him more than what he paid.
For normal people who don’t want to spend the time, effort and energy not to mention cash if you lose to sue I am not sure what relief you could suggest for them. I don’t see anything beyond the typical social media posts where you beg for somebody like GN to buy it from you or for their social media team to eat the cost of a replacement which is wholly unrealistic imo.
oh and their warranty has a fucking arbitration clause and puts it’s legal area in korea, that’s fun and another hurdle which is a total unknown to me how it will go down, but I would guess their arbitration can’t be much better for consumers than the US one.
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
Republic of Korea (excluding conflict of law’s provisions which may direct the application of
another jurisdiction’s laws). All disputes, controversies or claims between the parties arising
out of or in connection with this Agreement (including its existence, validity or termination)
shall be finally resolved by arbitration to be held in Seoul, Korea and conducted in English
under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce. The arbitral award
shall be final and binding on the parties. Except to the extent entry of judgment and any
subsequent enforcement may require disclosure, all matters relating to the arbitration,
including the award, shall be held in confidence.
I can’t imagine how he’s going to get them to pay him more than what he paid.
I have no idea why you’re citing “Section D”. Section D is about the limitations of the warranty/liability, and that clearly doesn’t apply (they offered Louis compensation for the warranty; both parties agree this is within the bounds of the warranty). Sections B, C, and D have been met because both parties agree they have been.
The warranty (Section A) reads:
Samsung will, at its option, either: (1) repair or replace the Product with new or refurbished Product of equal or greater capacity and functionality; or (2) refund the then current market value of the Product at the time the warranty claim is made to Samsung if Samsung is unable to repair or replace the Product.
Samsung therefore has two options: 1) repair/replace the unit or 2) pay Louis the current market value. That’s not even slightly ambiguous. Even if you agree that “at its option” means that “unable to repair or replace the Product” is 100% up to Samsung regardless of its actual ability (which it appears to be), that still means they owe him current market value, which is in the ~$900 range – not what he paid for it. You’re way off-base with your assessment.
(edit: “does not apply” was, I hope, clearly intended to mean “in reference to this conversation because the criteria have obviously been met”.)
How did you come to the conclusion that section D does not apply?
The agreement is the whole thing, not just part of it. Remember this is going to arbitration based out of korea and it has no severability clause. Odds are if you invalidate a part you’re invalidating the whole thing - but who knows, i’m not familiar with arbitration law out of seoul.
How did you come to the conclusion that section D does not apply?
I didn’t. I came to the conclusion that the criteria in Section D have already been cleared, because Section D discusses the cases in which the warranty will not apply; both parties clearly agree the warranty applies because Samsung offered Louis compensation. I don’t understand what warranty you were reading or why this is so difficult for you.
Samsung’s costs haven’t inflated 3x, and they’re the fab, therefore there’s a real strong argument that they should replace rather than refund. The error in your argument is it being cheaper, it’s instead less profitable for Samsung to give refunds at the new purchase price.
I would be willing to bet that a letter from a lawyer along the lines of “refund at purchase price or send replacement, otherwise meet us in court and incur lawyer fees” will get a replacement sent. They’re chasing profits, paying lawyers hurt profits, especially since a single lawyer for a day just to review the situation probably costs them more than their current profits.
They certainly have the capability of replacing the hardware but they know they have you over a barrel because they choose the winner, which is them!
They would just eat a few hundred bucks in unrealized profits… which they’re never gonna do willingly. They probably have an arbitration clause to prevent class action suits too because that’s what everybody lawful evil does these days.
edit: their warranty terms include a line that states:
IN NO EVENT WILL SAMSUNG’S LIABILITY EXCEED THE AMOUNT PAID BY YOU FOR THE PRODUCT.
D. Warranty Limitations and Limitations of Liability
EXCEPT FOR THE EXPRESS WARRANTIES STATED HEREIN, SAMSUNG DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER
EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE,
NONINFRINGEMENT, COURSE OF DEALING AND USAGE OF TRADE. ALL EXPRESSED AND
IMPLIED WARRANTIES ARE LIMITED IN DURATION TO THE LIMITED WARRANTY PERIOD.
THIS AGREEMENT CONTAINS SAMSUNG’S ENTIRE LIABILITY AND YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY
FOR BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL SAMSUNG, ITS SUPPLIERS OR ANY
AFFILIATES BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR SPECIAL
DAMAGES, ANY FINANCIAL LOSS OR ANY LOST DATA OR FILES, EVEN IF SAMSUNG HAS
BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE
FAILURE OF ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF ANY LIMITED REMEDY. IN NO EVENT WILL SAMSUNG’S
LIABILITY EXCEED THE AMOUNT PAID BY YOU FOR THE PRODUCT. THESE LIMITATIONS AND
EXCLUSIONS APPLY TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.
I’d say the play here is to buy a new one and return the old one but do a label swap. It’s certainly fraud, but then amazon or sandisk get to eat it instead of you. If you are concerned about how hard it hits their bottom lines, check out their stock valuation over the last year.
you’re also kinda screwing whatever customer ends up with it. For lost time troubleshooting and returning at the very least.
In my experience essentially all amazon fraud returns that go into circulation end up getting a free replacement.
If you’re not returning a brick in place of a GPU and instead return the actual hardware, the next guy simply gets a DOA that looks like a DOA, quacks like a DOA, and returns like a DOA for another one… so the odds of this causing an actual issue for a normal human is extremely low.
Yeah, they know it’s cheaper to refund the purchase price rather than to provide a replacement. Why would they ever take the bigger loss to them? They’re businesses, not people with a conscious. They are legally required to make the most profit possible for their shareholders as they are both public entities. Publicly traded businesses are by definition lawful evil because this is the kind of world humanity gravitates towards.
I’m sure the warranty terms are worded in such a way that is most hostile to consumers and most beneficial to themselves. There’s always a half dozen legal gotchas that rarely apply in cases where they would lose a penny more than is typical like market shortages caused by AI infrastructure spend. The only time it makes financial sense for them to honor the warranty is if it’s cheaper than providing a refurbished replacement, and a refurb of these drives is likely worth much, much more than the original.
I’d say the play here is to buy a new one and return the old one but do a label swap. It’s certainly fraud, but then amazon or sandisk get to eat it instead of you. If you are concerned about how hard it hits their bottom lines, check out their stock valuation over the last year.
edit: section D of their published warranty clearly outlines that they are not liable for more than your purchase price:
Read for yourself!
You too! Please read it all!
D. Warranty Limitations and Limitations of Liability
Liability ≠ Warranty
Remedy Description ≠ liability cap
This is the actually important part. Companies drop unenforceable shit in t&c all the time. It’s just there to intimidate you and force you to give up your rights.
Of course local laws apply, but then you’re relying on specific local or regional laws that somehow invalidate the agreement which probably don’t exist. You’re really in an uphill battle to argue that all of these sections of the warranty - the very thing you’re using to argue you are owed - do not apply to your case.
Your skin in the game is <$500 (for me, this 4TB ssd w/ heatsink is $793 at a local microcenter.) $500 is hardly more than an hour of lawyer time, odds are you’re paying at least $300 just for them to write a cease and desist, and now you’ve got to argue that your lawyer fees should be covered despite an arbitration clause, a jurisdiction clause, and a maximum liability clause. One of the best case scenarios is that you would pony up the cash and they give you a settlement that still doesn’t get you to a point where you have a working product or enough money to buy an identical item after lawyer fees. The worst case scenario is that you get absolutely nothing out of the suit and have to pay for arbitration fees on top of your legal fees.
That seems quite damning to me. We ought to make sure this page is archived, in case the’ll try a gaslight us.
Edit: It is.
Louis addressed this in his video. He pointed out that he’s suing in large part because Samsung is penalizing the honest way of doing things. He wants to promote the honest way by setting an example, and good for him.
I’m sure, and unless his lawyers can have section D struck from the agreement somehow I can’t imagine how he’s going to get them to pay him more than what he paid.
For normal people who don’t want to spend the time, effort and energy not to mention cash if you lose to sue I am not sure what relief you could suggest for them. I don’t see anything beyond the typical social media posts where you beg for somebody like GN to buy it from you or for their social media team to eat the cost of a replacement which is wholly unrealistic imo.
oh and their warranty has a fucking arbitration clause and puts it’s legal area in korea, that’s fun and another hurdle which is a total unknown to me how it will go down, but I would guess their arbitration can’t be much better for consumers than the US one.
I have no idea why you’re citing “Section D”. Section D is about the limitations of the warranty/liability, and that clearly doesn’t apply (they offered Louis compensation for the warranty; both parties agree this is within the bounds of the warranty). Sections B, C, and D have been met because both parties agree they have been.
The warranty (Section A) reads:
Samsung therefore has two options: 1) repair/replace the unit or 2) pay Louis the current market value. That’s not even slightly ambiguous. Even if you agree that “at its option” means that “unable to repair or replace the Product” is 100% up to Samsung regardless of its actual ability (which it appears to be), that still means they owe him current market value, which is in the ~$900 range – not what he paid for it. You’re way off-base with your assessment.
(edit: “does not apply” was, I hope, clearly intended to mean “in reference to this conversation because the criteria have obviously been met”.)
How did you come to the conclusion that section D does not apply?
The agreement is the whole thing, not just part of it. Remember this is going to arbitration based out of korea and it has no severability clause. Odds are if you invalidate a part you’re invalidating the whole thing - but who knows, i’m not familiar with arbitration law out of seoul.
I didn’t. I came to the conclusion that the criteria in Section D have already been cleared, because Section D discusses the cases in which the warranty will not apply; both parties clearly agree the warranty applies because Samsung offered Louis compensation. I don’t understand what warranty you were reading or why this is so difficult for you.
Specifically what part of Section D concerns you?
Samsung’s costs haven’t inflated 3x, and they’re the fab, therefore there’s a real strong argument that they should replace rather than refund. The error in your argument is it being cheaper, it’s instead less profitable for Samsung to give refunds at the new purchase price.
I would be willing to bet that a letter from a lawyer along the lines of “refund at purchase price or send replacement, otherwise meet us in court and incur lawyer fees” will get a replacement sent. They’re chasing profits, paying lawyers hurt profits, especially since a single lawyer for a day just to review the situation probably costs them more than their current profits.
They certainly have the capability of replacing the hardware but they know they have you over a barrel because they choose the winner, which is them!
They would just eat a few hundred bucks in unrealized profits… which they’re never gonna do willingly. They probably have an arbitration clause to prevent class action suits too because that’s what everybody lawful evil does these days.
edit: their warranty terms include a line that states:
I need you to realize that you’re 100% wrong. Their warranty states that the refund will be the market price at the time the warranty case is opened.
You don’t even need a lawyer to win this one.
I need you to realize that you’re 100% wrong. Their warranty states that their liability will never exceed the purchase price of the product.
https://download.semiconductor.samsung.com/resources/warranty/Samsung_SSD_Limited_Warranty_English_US_10140201029126.pdf
you’re also kinda screwing whatever customer ends up with it. For lost time troubleshooting and returning at the very least.
In my experience essentially all amazon fraud returns that go into circulation end up getting a free replacement.
If you’re not returning a brick in place of a GPU and instead return the actual hardware, the next guy simply gets a DOA that looks like a DOA, quacks like a DOA, and returns like a DOA for another one… so the odds of this causing an actual issue for a normal human is extremely low.
i’d still be pissed if i got one.
make sure to double check the labels before the swap
my stupid ass would 100% return the working unit by accident
deleted by creator