User:Louis/Samsung 990 PRO 4TB warranty dispute: Difference between revisions

== The facts ==

=== Documented facts ===

The failed unit is a Samsung SSD 990 PRO 4TB, PCIe 4.0 NVMe M.2, model code MZ-V9P4T0B/AM, serial S7KGNU0Y109402M, manufactured January 2025 in Vietnam, running firmware 4B2QJXD7 on a Samsung S4LV008 (Pascal) controller.<ref>Drive-label photograph (rma1.jpeg) and Total Tech Solutions Repair Statement, Service Ticket 4185124158, June 3, 2026.</ref> The surviving mirror drive carries serial S7KGNU0Y109392T on the same firmware.<ref>Diagnostic log file (samsung_drive_dead.txt), captured May 22, 2026, lines 119, 138, 307-315.</ref>

Samsung's own business-to-business service desk confirmed that diagnosis in writing. On May 22, 2026, the desk wrote:

That same day the author asked Samsung directly, ''What would the amount of the refund be in this case?''<ref>Email from Louis Rossmann to Samsung Memory Support, June 11, 2026, ticket 29372498.</ref> As of June 12, 2026 that question is unanswered; the last item in the record is an automated acknowledgment dated June 12, 2026.<ref>Automated acknowledgment from Samsung Memory Support, June 12, 2026, ticket 29372498.</ref>

=== The author's bench account ===

=== The disputed Test Pass ===

<blockquote>''We are pleased to inform you that the service on your Samsung product is complete. Based on the test results, the returned drive was verified as good.''</blockquote><ref>Total Tech Solutions Repair Statement (RepairStatement.jpeg), Service Ticket 4185124158, June 3, 2026.</ref>

After the ''Test Pass'', Samsung Memory Support disclosed why no replacement would issue. On June 8, 2026 the agent wrote:

Two clauses cut the other way. A liability cap states: ''IN NO EVENT WILL SAMSUNG'S LIABILITY EXCEED THE AMOUNT PAID BY YOU FOR THE PRODUCT.''<ref name="warranty" /> And a consequential-damages exclusion provides that Samsung will not be liable for indirect, consequential, incidental, or special damages, ''NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF ANY LIMITED REMEDY.''<ref name="warranty" />

== Market context ==

The drive that cost about $300 in February 2025 sits in a memory market that has roughly tripled in price. In August 2025 the 990 PRO 4TB with heatsink was advertised at $279.99 shipped.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Samsung 990 PRO 4TB SSD deal |publisher=9to5Toys |date=2025-08-14 |url=https://9to5toys.com/2025/08/14/samsung-4tb-990-pro-heatsink-ssd-one-of-its-lowest-prices/ |access-date=2026-06-12}}</ref> By June 2026, price-history tracking showed the same drive around $949, with an all-time high of $2,199.98 recorded April 22, 2026.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Samsung 990 PRO 4TB price history |publisher=Pangoly |url=https://pangoly.com/en/price-history/samsung-990-pro-4tb |access-date=2026-06-12}}</ref>

Against that backdrop, Samsung's warranty text is more generous on its face than several competitors' policies, which makes its conduct harder to defend on its own terms. Crucial (Micron) refunds the ''original purchase price''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Crucial limited warranty FAQ |publisher=Micron Technology |url=https://www.crucial.com/warranty-home |access-date=2026-06-12}}</ref> SK hynix refunds ''the original purchase price or the fair market value, whichever is lower''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=SK hynix SSD limited warranty |publisher=SK hynix |url=https://ssd.skhynix.com/warranty/ |access-date=2026-06-12}}</ref> Silicon Power has said it will give a full refund of the original purchase price during a shortage.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Silicon Power warranty during DRAM and NAND shortage |publisher=Tom's Hardware |url=https://www.tomshardware.com/desktops/pc-building/silicon-power-us-rma-policy-now-hedges-against-ai-driven-ram-and-ssd-shortages-company-says-it-will-refund-the-original-purchase-price-if-there-is-a-shortage-of-replacement-products |access-date=2026-06-12}}</ref> During a 3.5x to 4x rise in DDR5 prices, the Australian retailer Umart offered a Corsair customer store credit rather than a replacement.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Corsair DDR5 RMA denied during price surge |publisher=Tom's Hardware |url=https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/ddr5/retailer-denies-memory-return-due-to-4x-increase-in-ddr5-pricing-says-price-increase-would-mean-an-upgrade-for-the-customer-australian-retailer-refuses-to-replace-faulty-corsair-kit |access-date=2026-06-12}}</ref> Seagate has historically upgraded 3TB RMA claims to 4TB drives when the original capacity was unavailable.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Seagate upgraded a 3TB RMA to a 4TB drive |publisher=XDA Developers |url=https://www.xda-developers.com/smr-hdds-are-bad-avoid-them/ |access-date=2026-06-12}}</ref> Samsung promised current market value in writing; the competitors who promise less have not been accused of refusing what their warranties say.

== Claims under Texas and federal warranty law ==

''The theory.'' Samsung made an express promise. The warranty text promises a refund at ''the then current market value'' when Samsung cannot repair or replace, and the June 11 email repeats that promise in the agent's own words. Under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 2.313(a)(1), ''Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty.''<ref name="s2313">{{Cite web |title=Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Sec. 2.313 |publisher=Texas Legislature |url=https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/GetStatute.aspx?Code=BC&Value=2.313 |access-date=2026-06-12}}</ref> Paying less than current market value breaches that express term.

''Damages.'' The Texas measure for breach of warranty is the difference between the value as warranted and the value as delivered. The Fort Worth Court of Appeals stated it in ''Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. v. Dickenson'': ''The common law measure of damage for a case such as this one is the difference between the market value of the property as warranted and the market value of the property as delivered.''<ref name="dickenson">{{Cite court |litigants=Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. v. Dickenson |reporter=720 S.W.2d 844 |court=Tex. App.-Fort Worth |date=1986 |pinpoint=848 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1525891/}}</ref> Here the value as warranted is a working 4TB SSD, whose replacement cost is roughly $949, and the value as delivered is zero, a dead drive. ''Dickenson'' is an intermediate Texas appellate decision; it binds within its appellate district and is strong persuasive authority elsewhere in Texas.

''The theory.'' The statutory damages measure tracks ''Dickenson''. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 2.714(b) provides: ''The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the difference at the time and place of acceptance between the value of the goods accepted and the value they would have had if they had been as warranted, unless special circumstances show proximate damages of a different amount.''<ref>{{Cite web |title=Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Sec. 2.714 |publisher=Texas Legislature |url=https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/GetStatute.aspx?Code=BC&Value=2.714 |access-date=2026-06-12}}</ref> Value as warranted (a working 4TB SSD, replacement cost about $949) minus value as delivered ($0) is the make-whole figure.

''The honest weakness.'' Section 2.714(b) ends with ''unless special circumstances show proximate damages of a different amount'', and no Texas case values the goods ''as warranted'' at a mid-life, inflated replacement price. The argument runs from the statute's make-whole purpose rather than from a case on all fours, and that is acknowledged below.

''The theory.'' Where a limited remedy fails its essential purpose, the buyer is not confined to it. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 2.719(b) provides: ''Where circumstances cause an exclusive or limited remedy to fail of its essential purpose, remedy may be had as provided in this title.''<ref name="s2719">{{Cite web |title=Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Sec. 2.719 |publisher=Texas Legislature |url=https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/GetStatute.aspx?Code=BC&Value=2.719 |access-date=2026-06-12}}</ref> Samsung's limited remedy has failed twice over: repair failed (the drive was returned with a false ''Test Pass'' while still dead), and replacement is admittedly unavailable (no stock, no comparable model). When the repair-or-replace remedy collapses, the ''amount paid'' cap built into that remedy structure falls with it.

=== Implied warranty of merchantability and the Magnuson-Moss disclaimer bar ===

''Why Samsung cannot disclaim it.'' Because Samsung gave a written warranty, federal law bars it from disclaiming the implied warranty. Under 15 U.S.C. 2308(a), no supplier may disclaim or modify any implied warranty to a consumer if it makes any written warranty.<ref>{{Cite web |title=15 U.S.C. Sec. 2308 |publisher=Cornell Legal Information Institute |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2308 |access-date=2026-06-12}}</ref> The Fifth Circuit applied that bar in ''Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc.'': ''Section 2308 forbids disclaimers of implied warranties and Sec. 2304(a)(2) prohibits full warrantors from limiting the duration of implied warranty coverage.''<ref name="boelens">{{Cite court |litigants=Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc. |reporter=748 F.2d 1058 |court=5th Cir. |date=1984 |pinpoint=1061 |url=https://openjurist.org/748/f2d/1058/}}</ref>

''The theory.'' Magnuson-Moss gives a damaged consumer a private right of action ''in any court of competent jurisdiction in any State'', and authorizes recovery of costs and fees, including attorney fees, if the consumer ''finally prevails''.<ref name="s2310">{{Cite web |title=15 U.S.C. Sec. 2310 |publisher=Cornell Legal Information Institute |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/2310 |access-date=2026-06-12}}</ref> ''Boelens'' confirms the consumer remedy: a consumer damaged by a warrantor's failure to comply with a written or implied warranty ''may bring suit for damages and other legal and equitable relief''.<ref name="boelens2">{{Cite court |litigants=Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc. |reporter=748 F.2d 1058 |court=5th Cir. |date=1984 |pinpoint=1061 |url=https://openjurist.org/748/f2d/1058/}}</ref>

== Weaknesses in the case ==

First, the dispute may be largely moot if Samsung honors its own words. Both the warranty text and the June 11 email promise current market value, so if Samsung pays that, the author recovers roughly $949 and there is little left to litigate. The feared $299.99 refund is the worst case, not Samsung's stated written position. As of June 12, 2026 the dollar amount was never confirmed; the entire fight may turn on a number Samsung has not yet named.