Jump to content

Samsung TVs: Difference between revisions

From Consumer Rights Wiki
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
 
(12 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Incomplete|Issue 1=No references}}
{{ProductLineCargo
|ArticleType=Product
|Category=Television, Smart TV
|Company=Samsung
|Description=Samsung smart TVs collect viewing data every 500ms, cheated on reviewer benchmarks, and display ads that can't be fully disabled
|InProduction=Yes
|ReleaseYear=2008
|Website=https://www.samsung.com/us/tvs/
|Logo=Samsung UN105S9 TV.jpg}}


{{DISPLAYTITLE:Samsung TVs}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Samsung TVs}}
{{InfoboxProductLine
| Title = {{PAGENAME}}
| Release Year =
| Product Type =
| In Production =
| Official Website =
| Logo =
}}Samsung TVs were once known for their durability and long lifespan. Consumers could buy a Samsung TV and expect it to last 10 years or more with minimal issues. However, in recent years, many Samsung TV owners have noticed that these devices now barely last 4 years before encountering significant problems. So, what changed?


'''Samsung’s Quiet Reduction in Quality Assurance'''
'''[[Samsung]] TVs''' have been the subject of multiple lawsuits, regulatory complaints, & consumer backlash over data collection practices, benchmark manipulation, & post-purchase advertising. In December 2025, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Samsung & four other TV manufacturers, alleging their smart TVs collected detailed viewing data without consumers' knowledge or consent.<ref name="therecord-acr-lawsuit">{{Cite web |title=Texas sues 5 smart TV manufacturers over data collection practices |url=https://therecord.media/texas-sues-5-smart-tv-makers-over-acr-tech |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260117140238/https://therecord.media/texas-sues-5-smart-tv-makers-over-acr-tech |archive-date=2026-01-17 |access-date=2026-04-04 |website=The Record}}</ref> Samsung settled in February 2026, agreeing to halt data collection without express consent.<ref name="therecord-samsung-settlement">{{Cite web |title=Samsung updates ACR privacy practices after Texas sues TV manufacturers |url=https://therecord.media/samsung-updates-acr-privacy-practices-texas |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260312075740/https://therecord.media/samsung-updates-acr-privacy-practices-texas |archive-date=2026-03-12 |access-date=2026-04-04 |website=The Record}}</ref>


The decline in the lifespan of Samsung TVs can be traced back to changes in their quality assurance (QA) process. In the past, Samsung maintained a robust QA team that rigorously tested their products, identifying and resolving potential issues before they reached consumers. However, over the past decade, Samsung has reportedly reduced the size and scope of its QA operations, likely in an effort to cut costs and accelerate production timelines.
==Incidents==


With fewer resources dedicated to thorough testing, more defective units are making it to market. As a result, modern Samsung TVs are more prone to hardware failures and performance degradation than older models that benefited from stricter quality control.
===Automatic content recognition surveillance===


'''Common Issues Leading to Shorter Lifespans'''
{{Main|Texas Attorney General sues multiple TV makers over ACR user data collection}}


The reduction in QA has led to a noticeable increase in common hardware failures, including:
Samsung smart TVs use {{Wplink|automatic content recognition}} (ACR), which Samsung brands as "Viewing Information Services." According to the Texas AG's petition, the technology captures screenshots of the TV display every 500 milliseconds, regardless of the content source.<ref name="petition-samsung">{{Cite web |date=December 15, 2025 |title=State of Texas v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Original Petition |url=https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Samsung%20TV%20Petition%20Filed.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260318010130if_/https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/press/Samsung%20TV%20Petition%20Filed.pdf |archive-date=2026-03-18 |access-date=2026-04-04 |publisher=Office of the Texas Attorney General |format=PDF}}</ref> ACR doesn't just track Samsung apps. It also captures content routed through HDMI ports from cable boxes, game consoles, DVD players, & devices casting via Apple AirPlay.<ref name="petition-samsung" /><ref name="therecord-acr-lawsuit" />


*'''Power Supply Failures:''' Faulty capacitors and poor-quality components can cause sudden shutdowns or prevent the TV from powering on after a few years.
On 15 December 2025, Paxton filed separate lawsuits against Samsung, [[Sony]], [[LG]], [[Hisense]], & {{wplink|TCL Technology}} under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA).<ref name="therecord-acr-lawsuit" /><ref name="iapp-acr">{{Cite web |title=Automated content recognition technology takes privacy enforcement spotlight |url=https://iapp.org/news/a/automated-content-recognition-technology-takes-privacy-enforcement-spotlight |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260217004853/https://iapp.org/news/a/automated-content-recognition-technology-takes-privacy-enforcement-spotlight |archive-date=2026-02-17 |access-date=2026-04-04 |website=IAPP}}</ref> The Texas AG alleged that Samsung used dark patterns to prevent consumers from opting out, requiring consumers to navigate buried settings menus to disable data collection that took a single click to enable during setup.<ref name="petition-samsung" /><ref name="privacyguides-settlement">{{Cite web |date=2026-03-02 |title=Samsung Forced to Halt Data Collection in TVs in Texas Without "Express Consent" |url=https://www.privacyguides.org/news/2026/03/02/samsung-forced-to-halt-data-collection-in-tvs-in-texas-without-express-consent/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260312015505/https://www.privacyguides.org/news/2026/03/02/samsung-forced-to-halt-data-collection-in-tvs-in-texas-without-express-consent/ |archive-date=2026-03-12 |access-date=2026-04-04 |website=Privacy Guides}}</ref>
*'''Panel Degradation:''' LED and OLED panels degrade faster, leading to dimming, discoloration, or dead pixels over time.
*'''Main Board Malfunctions:''' Inadequate heat management results in main board failures, which can cause erratic performance or complete system failure.


Many of these issues tend to occur shortly after the manufacturer’s warranty expires, leaving consumers with the choice of either expensive repairs or replacing their TV entirely.
Samsung became the first of the five manufacturers to settle, on 26 February 2026.<ref name="therecord-samsung-settlement" /> The settlement required Samsung to halt all ACR data collection without express consent & rewrite its consent screens to be "clear and conspicuous."<ref name="therecord-samsung-settlement" /> Samsung stated it "shares the Texas Attorney General's goal of promoting transparent and consumer-friendly privacy practices" while maintaining that its TVs "do not spy on customers."<ref name="therecord-samsung-settlement" /> Sony, LG, Hisense, & TCL had not settled as of the IAPP's January 2026 report.<ref name="iapp-acr" />


'''Shift Toward Planned Obsolescence'''
A separate federal class action, ''DiGiacinto v. Samsung Electronics America Inc.'' (Case No. 1:26-cv-00196, S.D.N.Y.), was filed on 09 January 2026, by five Samsung TV owners alleging the company collected & disclosed their viewing data without consent.<ref name="pacer-digiacinto">{{Cite web |title=DIGIACINTO et al v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. |url=https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/62368800/DIGIACINTO_et_al_v_Samsung_Electronics_America,_Inc |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260407195220/https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/62368800/DIGIACINTO_et_al_v_Samsung_Electronics_America,_Inc |archive-date=2026-04-07 |access-date=2026-04-04 |website=PACER Monitor}}</ref>


Another factor contributing to shorter TV lifespans is the shift in Samsung’s business strategy. In recent years, the company has focused more on releasing new models annually, encouraging consumers to upgrade frequently rather than maintain their current sets for an extended period. This focus on new product cycles has led to a decline in long-term durability, with modern Samsung TVs often being built for replacement rather than longevity.
In 2017, the FTC settled with [[Vizio]] for $2.2 million after Vizio collected second-by-second viewing data on 11 million TVs without consent & sold it to advertisers with demographic information appended.<ref name="ftc-vizio">{{Cite web |date=2017-02-06 |title=VIZIO to Pay $2.2 Million to FTC, State of New Jersey to Settle Charges It Collected Viewing Histories on 11 Million Smart Televisions without Users' Consent |url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2017/02/vizio-pay-22-million-ftc-state-new-jersey-settle-charges-it-collected-viewing-histories-11-million |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260317153711/https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2017/02/vizio-pay-22-million-ftc-state-new-jersey-settle-charges-it-collected-viewing-histories-11-million |archive-date=2026-03-17 |access-date=2026-04-04 |publisher=Federal Trade Commission}}</ref> The FTC required Vizio to delete the data & obtain affirmative express consent for future collection.<ref name="ftc-vizio" />


'''Impact on Consumers'''
===Benchmark manipulation===


For consumers who expect their TV to be a long-term investment, these changes have been disappointing. While Samsung TVs may still offer impressive picture quality and features, the lack of durability means that buyers must now factor in the likelihood of premature failure. Many consumers are beginning to explore other brands that prioritize longevity or are opting to purchase extended warranties to protect against early breakdowns.
In June 2022, reviewers at HDTVTest & FlatpanelsHD discovered that Samsung's S95B QD-OLED & QN95B Neo QLED TVs were programmed to detect standard reviewer test patterns & artificially inflate performance measurements.<ref name="flatpanelshd-benchmark">{{Cite web |last=Larsen |first=Rasmus |date=2022-06-03 |title=Samsung caught cheating in TV benchmarks, promises software update |url=https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1654235588 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260306085623/https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?id=1654235588&subaction=showfull |archive-date=2026-03-06 |access-date=2026-04-04 |website=FlatpanelsHD}}</ref><ref name="hdtvtest-benchmark">{{Cite web |title=Samsung caught using algorithms to mislead reviewers about display accuracy |url=https://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/Samsung-caught-using-algorithms-to-mislead-reviewers-about-display-accuracy |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251006103430/https://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/Samsung-caught-using-algorithms-to-mislead-reviewers-about-display-accuracy |archive-date=2025-10-06 |access-date=2026-04-04 |website=HDTVTest}}</ref>


'''Conclusion: A Cautionary Note for Buyers'''
Professional TV calibrators use a standardized 10% window to measure HDR brightness & color accuracy. Samsung's firmware detected this specific window size & altered the TV's output.<ref name="hdtvtest-benchmark" /> On the QN95B, the TV boosted its peak brightness by approximately 80%, from a sustainable 1,300 nits to 2,300 nits, by sending short bursts of power into the miniLED backlight that couldn't be maintained without damaging the panel.<ref name="flatpanelshd-benchmark" /> On both models, the Electro-Optical Transfer Function (EOTF) & luminance tracking were adjusted to appear accurate to testing equipment.<ref name="flatpanelshd-benchmark" /><ref name="hdtvtest-benchmark" />


If you’re considering purchasing a Samsung TV, it’s important to be aware of these changes. While the brand’s reputation was built on quality and reliability, today’s Samsung TVs are not designed with the same long-term durability in mind. Until Samsung prioritizes stronger QA practices and shifts away from planned obsolescence, buyers should approach their purchase with caution and consider alternative brands if longevity is a priority.{{Placeholder box|Add a 2-3 sentence introduction starting with "'''{{PAGENAME}}''' is a ...<ref name":0">ref goes here</ref>".}}
Reviewers bypassed the cheat by switching to a non-standard 9% window. The firmware didn't recognize it, & the TV displayed its actual performance.<ref name="hdtvtest-benchmark" /> Vincent Teoh of HDTVTest first identified the issue during his S95B review; Rasmus Larsen of FlatpanelsHD confirmed it on the QN95B.<ref name="flatpanelshd-benchmark" /><ref name="hdtvtest-benchmark" />


==Consumer impact summary==
Samsung denied cheating, stating: "Samsung Electronics does not use any algorithm for the purpose of yielding specific test results."<ref name="techhive-benchmark">{{Cite web |title=Samsung TV benchmark brouhaha: Scandalous cheating, or tempest in a teapot? |url=https://www.techhive.com/article/784413/samsung-tv-benchmarks.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230609015926/https://www.techhive.com/article/784413/samsung-tv-benchmarks.html |archive-date=2023-06-09 |access-date=2026-04-04 |website=TechHive}}</ref> Samsung then pushed firmware update version 1211 for the S95B, which eliminated the discrepancy between 9% & 10% window measurements.<ref name="hdtvtest-benchmark" />
{{Placeholder box|Overview of concerns that arise from the conduct towards users of the product (if applicable):
* User Freedom
* User Privacy
* Business Model
* Market Control}}


==Incidents==
This wasn't Samsung's first benchmark manipulation. Samsung was previously caught artificially boosting processor performance on the Galaxy Note 3 & Galaxy S4 smartphones when they detected benchmarking software was running.<ref name="register-benchmark">{{Cite web |date=2022-06-15 |title=Samsung accused of cheating on hardware benchmarks -- again |url=https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/15/samsung_tv_benchmark/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260219071258/https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/15/samsung_tv_benchmark/ |archive-date=2026-02-19 |access-date=2026-04-04 |website=The Register}}</ref> Samsung settled the resulting class action in 2019 for $13.4 million, paying Galaxy S4 owners $10 each.<ref name="register-s4-settlement">{{Cite web |date=2019-09-30 |title=Ever own a Galaxy S4? Congrats, you're $10 richer as Samsung agrees payout over dodgy speed tests |url=https://www.theregister.com/2019/09/30/samsung_benchmarking_settlement/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251227185943/https://www.theregister.com/2019/09/30/samsung_benchmarking_settlement/ |archive-date=2025-12-27 |access-date=2026-04-04 |website=The Register}}</ref> The settlement required Samsung to stop using benchmark-manipulating code in its smartphones for three years, after which Samsung was free to resume the practice.<ref name="register-s4-settlement" />
This is a list of all consumer protection incidents related to this product. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the [[:Category:{{PAGENAME}}|{{PAGENAME}} category]].
 
{{Placeholder box|Replace the placeholder text in the sections below with the incidents that affect this product and a short summary. Also replace the link so it point to the right product line or company article.}}
===Voice recording privacy controversy===
===Example incident one (''date'')===
 
{{Main|link to the main article}}
In February 2015, CNET's Chris Matyszczyk reported that Samsung's smart TV privacy policy warned: "Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition."<ref name="cnet-voice">{{Cite web |last=Matyszczyk |first=Chris |date=2015-02-08 |title=Samsung's warning: Our Smart TVs record your living room chatter |url=https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/samsungs-warning-our-smart-tvs-record-your-living-room-chatter/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260310143537/https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/samsungs-warning-our-smart-tvs-record-your-living-room-chatter/ |archive-date=2026-03-10 |access-date=2026-04-04 |website=CNET}}</ref> The third-party contractor processing the voice data was Nuance Communications, a voice-to-text company.<ref name="computerworld-epic">{{Cite web |title=EPIC files FTC complaint about Samsung's Smart TV 'surveillance' |url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/1618951/epic-files-ftc-complaint-about-samsungs-smart-tv-surveillance.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251003165231/https://www.computerworld.com/article/1618951/epic-files-ftc-complaint-about-samsungs-smart-tv-surveillance.html |archive-date=2025-10-03 |access-date=2026-04-04 |website=Computerworld}}</ref>
Short summary of the incident (could be the same as the summary preceding the article).
 
===Example incident two (''date'')===
Samsung published a blog post on 10 February 2015 titled "Samsung Smart TVs Do Not Monitor Living Room Conversations."<ref name="samsung-response-voice">{{Cite web |date=2015-02-10 |title=Samsung Smart TVs Do Not Monitor Living Room Conversations |url=https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-smart-tvs-do-not-monitor-living-room-conversations |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260224161152/https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-smart-tvs-do-not-monitor-living-room-conversations |archive-date=2026-02-24 |access-date=2026-04-04 |website=Samsung Newsroom}}</ref> Samsung clarified that voice data was only transmitted when users pressed an activation button on the remote control to perform a search, & updated its privacy policy to explain this mechanism.<ref name="samsung-response-voice" />
...
 
EPIC (the Electronic Privacy Information Center) filed a formal complaint with the FTC on 24 February 2015, alleging Samsung violated the FTC Act, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), & the Cable Communications Policy Act.<ref name="epic-complaint">{{Cite web |title=Samsung "SmartTV" Complaint |url=https://epic.org/documents/samsung-smarttv-complaint/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260208191503/https://epic.org/documents/samsung-smarttv-complaint/ |archive-date=2026-02-08 |access-date=2026-04-04 |publisher=Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)}}</ref> EPIC alleged that Samsung routinely intercepted private communications in the home & marketed its smart TVs to children under 13 without obtaining parental consent as required by COPPA.<ref name="epic-complaint" />
 
A security researcher then discovered that Samsung was transmitting some voice recordings unencrypted, in plain text.<ref name="computerworld-epic" /> Samsung later conceded it had not deployed the software necessary to encrypt these transmissions.<ref name="epic-complaint" />
 
In March 2017, WikiLeaks' "Vault 7" data dump revealed that the CIA had developed a hacking tool codenamed "Weeping Angel" that targeted Samsung Smart TVs.<ref name="cbsnews-weeping-angel">{{Cite web |title=WikiLeaks says CIA hacked Samsung smart TVs |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cia-hacked-samsung-smart-tvs-wikileaks-vault-7/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251229183626/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cia-hacked-samsung-smart-tvs-wikileaks-vault-7/ |archive-date=2025-12-29 |access-date=2026-04-04 |website=CBS News}}</ref> According to the leaked engineering notes, the tool was co-developed with MI5, installed via USB, & placed the TV into a "Fake-Off" mode where the screen appeared powered down but the microphone remained active, recording room audio.<ref name="wikileaks-weeping-angel">{{Cite web |title=Weeping Angel (Extending) Engineering Notes |url=https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_12353643.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260206153314/https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/cms/page_12353643.html |archive-date=2026-02-06 |access-date=2026-04-04 |publisher=WikiLeaks}}</ref>
 
===Post-purchase advertising===


Incidents affecting all of the product line/company's products can be found in the prouct line/company article: [[Product line title]]/[[Company article title]]
Samsung displays advertisements on smart TVs that consumers have already purchased.<ref name="flatpanelshd-ads">{{Cite web |title=Samsung TV owners complain about increasingly obtrusive ads |url=https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1583755244 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20251220035501/https://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?id=1583755244&subaction=showfull |archive-date=2025-12-20 |access-date=2026-04-04 |website=FlatpanelsHD}}</ref> Users have reported ads appearing on the home screen & during normal TV use.<ref name="flatpanelshd-ads" />
{{Placeholder box|* [[Example incident one]] (date): Short summary of the incident (could be the same as the summary preceding the article).
* [[Example incident two]] (date):
Incidents affecting the entire product line can be found in the product line article: [[Product line article, or company article if there is no product line]]}}


Samsung operates a dedicated advertising division, Samsung Ads, which sells targeted advertising across its TV ecosystem. Samsung Ads promotes access to "TV viewing data from the world's #1 Smart TV footprint" & first-party data from Samsung devices to help advertisers reach audiences.<ref name="samsung-ads">{{Cite web |title=Samsung Ads |url=https://www.samsung.com/us/business/samsungads/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260316121822/https://www.samsung.com/us/business/samsungads/ |archive-date=2026-03-16 |access-date=2026-04-04 |publisher=Samsung}}</ref>


==See also==
==See also==
{{Placeholder box|Link to relevant theme articles or products with similar incidents.}}


*[[Texas Attorney General sues multiple TV makers over ACR user data collection]]
*[[Vizio]]
*[[Right to Repair]]


==References==
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{Reflist}}


[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Samsung TVs}}
[[Category:Samsung]]
[[Category:Privacy]]
[[Category:Smart TVs]]

Latest revision as of 01:24, 23 April 2026

Samsung TVs
Basic Information
Release Year 2008
Product Type Television, Smart TV
In Production Yes
Official Website https://www.samsung.com/us/tvs/


Samsung TVs have been the subject of multiple lawsuits, regulatory complaints, & consumer backlash over data collection practices, benchmark manipulation, & post-purchase advertising. In December 2025, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Samsung & four other TV manufacturers, alleging their smart TVs collected detailed viewing data without consumers' knowledge or consent.[1] Samsung settled in February 2026, agreeing to halt data collection without express consent.[2]

Incidents

[edit | edit source]

Automatic content recognition surveillance

[edit | edit source]
Main article: Texas Attorney General sues multiple TV makers over ACR user data collection

Samsung smart TVs use automatic content recognition (ACR), which Samsung brands as "Viewing Information Services." According to the Texas AG's petition, the technology captures screenshots of the TV display every 500 milliseconds, regardless of the content source.[3] ACR doesn't just track Samsung apps. It also captures content routed through HDMI ports from cable boxes, game consoles, DVD players, & devices casting via Apple AirPlay.[3][1]

On 15 December 2025, Paxton filed separate lawsuits against Samsung, Sony, LG, Hisense, & TCL Technology under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA).[1][4] The Texas AG alleged that Samsung used dark patterns to prevent consumers from opting out, requiring consumers to navigate buried settings menus to disable data collection that took a single click to enable during setup.[3][5]

Samsung became the first of the five manufacturers to settle, on 26 February 2026.[2] The settlement required Samsung to halt all ACR data collection without express consent & rewrite its consent screens to be "clear and conspicuous."[2] Samsung stated it "shares the Texas Attorney General's goal of promoting transparent and consumer-friendly privacy practices" while maintaining that its TVs "do not spy on customers."[2] Sony, LG, Hisense, & TCL had not settled as of the IAPP's January 2026 report.[4]

A separate federal class action, DiGiacinto v. Samsung Electronics America Inc. (Case No. 1:26-cv-00196, S.D.N.Y.), was filed on 09 January 2026, by five Samsung TV owners alleging the company collected & disclosed their viewing data without consent.[6]

In 2017, the FTC settled with Vizio for $2.2 million after Vizio collected second-by-second viewing data on 11 million TVs without consent & sold it to advertisers with demographic information appended.[7] The FTC required Vizio to delete the data & obtain affirmative express consent for future collection.[7]

Benchmark manipulation

[edit | edit source]

In June 2022, reviewers at HDTVTest & FlatpanelsHD discovered that Samsung's S95B QD-OLED & QN95B Neo QLED TVs were programmed to detect standard reviewer test patterns & artificially inflate performance measurements.[8][9]

Professional TV calibrators use a standardized 10% window to measure HDR brightness & color accuracy. Samsung's firmware detected this specific window size & altered the TV's output.[9] On the QN95B, the TV boosted its peak brightness by approximately 80%, from a sustainable 1,300 nits to 2,300 nits, by sending short bursts of power into the miniLED backlight that couldn't be maintained without damaging the panel.[8] On both models, the Electro-Optical Transfer Function (EOTF) & luminance tracking were adjusted to appear accurate to testing equipment.[8][9]

Reviewers bypassed the cheat by switching to a non-standard 9% window. The firmware didn't recognize it, & the TV displayed its actual performance.[9] Vincent Teoh of HDTVTest first identified the issue during his S95B review; Rasmus Larsen of FlatpanelsHD confirmed it on the QN95B.[8][9]

Samsung denied cheating, stating: "Samsung Electronics does not use any algorithm for the purpose of yielding specific test results."[10] Samsung then pushed firmware update version 1211 for the S95B, which eliminated the discrepancy between 9% & 10% window measurements.[9]

This wasn't Samsung's first benchmark manipulation. Samsung was previously caught artificially boosting processor performance on the Galaxy Note 3 & Galaxy S4 smartphones when they detected benchmarking software was running.[11] Samsung settled the resulting class action in 2019 for $13.4 million, paying Galaxy S4 owners $10 each.[12] The settlement required Samsung to stop using benchmark-manipulating code in its smartphones for three years, after which Samsung was free to resume the practice.[12]

Voice recording privacy controversy

[edit | edit source]

In February 2015, CNET's Chris Matyszczyk reported that Samsung's smart TV privacy policy warned: "Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of Voice Recognition."[13] The third-party contractor processing the voice data was Nuance Communications, a voice-to-text company.[14]

Samsung published a blog post on 10 February 2015 titled "Samsung Smart TVs Do Not Monitor Living Room Conversations."[15] Samsung clarified that voice data was only transmitted when users pressed an activation button on the remote control to perform a search, & updated its privacy policy to explain this mechanism.[15]

EPIC (the Electronic Privacy Information Center) filed a formal complaint with the FTC on 24 February 2015, alleging Samsung violated the FTC Act, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), & the Cable Communications Policy Act.[16] EPIC alleged that Samsung routinely intercepted private communications in the home & marketed its smart TVs to children under 13 without obtaining parental consent as required by COPPA.[16]

A security researcher then discovered that Samsung was transmitting some voice recordings unencrypted, in plain text.[14] Samsung later conceded it had not deployed the software necessary to encrypt these transmissions.[16]

In March 2017, WikiLeaks' "Vault 7" data dump revealed that the CIA had developed a hacking tool codenamed "Weeping Angel" that targeted Samsung Smart TVs.[17] According to the leaked engineering notes, the tool was co-developed with MI5, installed via USB, & placed the TV into a "Fake-Off" mode where the screen appeared powered down but the microphone remained active, recording room audio.[18]

Post-purchase advertising

[edit | edit source]

Samsung displays advertisements on smart TVs that consumers have already purchased.[19] Users have reported ads appearing on the home screen & during normal TV use.[19]

Samsung operates a dedicated advertising division, Samsung Ads, which sells targeted advertising across its TV ecosystem. Samsung Ads promotes access to "TV viewing data from the world's #1 Smart TV footprint" & first-party data from Samsung devices to help advertisers reach audiences.[20]

See also

[edit | edit source]

References

[edit | edit source]
  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 "Texas sues 5 smart TV manufacturers over data collection practices". The Record. Archived from the original on 2026-01-17. Retrieved 2026-04-04.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 "Samsung updates ACR privacy practices after Texas sues TV manufacturers". The Record. Archived from the original on 2026-03-12. Retrieved 2026-04-04.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 "State of Texas v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Original Petition" (PDF). Office of the Texas Attorney General. December 15, 2025. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2026-03-18. Retrieved 2026-04-04.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 "Automated content recognition technology takes privacy enforcement spotlight". IAPP. Archived from the original on 2026-02-17. Retrieved 2026-04-04.
  5. ↑ "Samsung Forced to Halt Data Collection in TVs in Texas Without "Express Consent"". Privacy Guides. 2026-03-02. Archived from the original on 2026-03-12. Retrieved 2026-04-04.
  6. ↑ "DIGIACINTO et al v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc". PACER Monitor. Archived from the original on 2026-04-07. Retrieved 2026-04-04.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 "VIZIO to Pay $2.2 Million to FTC, State of New Jersey to Settle Charges It Collected Viewing Histories on 11 Million Smart Televisions without Users' Consent". Federal Trade Commission. 2017-02-06. Archived from the original on 2026-03-17. Retrieved 2026-04-04.
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 Larsen, Rasmus (2022-06-03). "Samsung caught cheating in TV benchmarks, promises software update". FlatpanelsHD. Archived from the original on 2026-03-06. Retrieved 2026-04-04.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 "Samsung caught using algorithms to mislead reviewers about display accuracy". HDTVTest. Archived from the original on 2025-10-06. Retrieved 2026-04-04.
  10. ↑ "Samsung TV benchmark brouhaha: Scandalous cheating, or tempest in a teapot?". TechHive. Archived from the original on 2023-06-09. Retrieved 2026-04-04.
  11. ↑ "Samsung accused of cheating on hardware benchmarks -- again". The Register. 2022-06-15. Archived from the original on 2026-02-19. Retrieved 2026-04-04.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 "Ever own a Galaxy S4? Congrats, you're $10 richer as Samsung agrees payout over dodgy speed tests". The Register. 2019-09-30. Archived from the original on 2025-12-27. Retrieved 2026-04-04.
  13. ↑ Matyszczyk, Chris (2015-02-08). "Samsung's warning: Our Smart TVs record your living room chatter". CNET. Archived from the original on 2026-03-10. Retrieved 2026-04-04.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 "EPIC files FTC complaint about Samsung's Smart TV 'surveillance'". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2025-10-03. Retrieved 2026-04-04.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 "Samsung Smart TVs Do Not Monitor Living Room Conversations". Samsung Newsroom. 2015-02-10. Archived from the original on 2026-02-24. Retrieved 2026-04-04.
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 "Samsung "SmartTV" Complaint". Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). Archived from the original on 2026-02-08. Retrieved 2026-04-04.
  17. ↑ "WikiLeaks says CIA hacked Samsung smart TVs". CBS News. Archived from the original on 2025-12-29. Retrieved 2026-04-04.
  18. ↑ "Weeping Angel (Extending) Engineering Notes". WikiLeaks. Archived from the original on 2026-02-06. Retrieved 2026-04-04.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 "Samsung TV owners complain about increasingly obtrusive ads". FlatpanelsHD. Archived from the original on 2025-12-20. Retrieved 2026-04-04.
  20. ↑ "Samsung Ads". Samsung. Archived from the original on 2026-03-16. Retrieved 2026-04-04.
Retrieved from "https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=Samsung_TVs&oldid=52113"