Cover glass on the back camera module of the Galaxy S20 smartphone is prone to sudden shattering “under normal use, with no external force applied,” rendering the camera “unusable,” but Samsung “did nothing to actually address or resolve” this despite hundreds of consumer complaints, alleged a complaint (in Pacer) Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Newark seeking class-action status. “Samsung has consistently denied responsibility, instead blaming consumers and refusing to repair or refund the devices,” while continuing to deny warranty claims, it said. “Having represented to consumers that the Galaxy S20 had a high-quality, professional-grade camera, Samsung was obligated to disclose that the exact opposite was true -- that the phone had a known material defect in the hardware.” No “reasonable consumer” would have bought or leased the phone “had they known of this glass shattering defect,” it said. The suit accuses Samsung of violating the 1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and breaching New Jersey consumer protection laws and other statutes. Samsung didn’t comment.

Apple misrepresents iPhones as water-resistant under International Electrotechnical Commission “ingress protection” (IP) standards, alleged a complaint (in Pacer, case No. 1:21-cv-03657) Saturday in U.S. Southern District Court in Manhattan. This seeks class-action status on behalf of iPhone owners in New York. Apple promoted the iPhone 8 as IEC-compliant for water resistance when exposed to or immersed in liquids at depths up to 1 meter for 30 minutes, said the lawsuit. The iPhone 11 is IEC-rated for water resistance at depths up to 4 meters, and the iPhone 12 at up to 6 meters, said the complaint. Bronx resident Antoinette Smith said her phone's "exposure to water of the type and manner contemplated by the device’s IP level caused damage to her device” under routine use. Apple denied her such warranty coverage, it said. She alleged fraud, unjust enrichment and violating the 1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Apple didn’t respond to questions Monday.

The Supreme Court should review a lawsuit against “warrantless, suspicionless” searches of electronic devices at U.S. airports and ports of entry, the American Civil Liberties Union and Electronic Frontier Foundation filed Friday. Merchant v. Mayorkas, filed in 2017, challenges the Department of Homeland Security's warrantless searches of electronic devices. A federal court ruled in 2019 that border agencies’ policies violate the Fourth Amendment; the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision in February.

Maryland got an extension until April 30 to respond to business and tech industry groups’ lawsuit against the state’s digital ad tax (see 2102180053). In a Wednesday order, U.S. District Judge Deborah Chasanow in Greenbelt, Maryland, granted (in Pacer) state Comptroller Peter Franchot’s motion seeking more time due to the General Assembly's enacting a bill (SB-787) Monday delaying the disputed tax, exempting news media and banning tech companies from passing costs from the tax to small businesses. Plaintiffs told Franchot (D) they will file an amended complaint to account for SB-787, the comptroller said (in Pacer). Chasanow directed parties to file a joint status report with a proposed schedule by April 30.

The U.S. District Court in Oakland set a July 7 initial management conference on a complaint that accuses Sony of unjust enrichment for marketing defective DualSense controllers with its PlayStation 5 consoles, said a scheduling order (in Pacer) Wednesday that completed the transfer of the case from U.S. District Court in Manhattan. Virginia resident Lmarc Turner bought his PS5 and DualSense controller Feb. 5 and sued Sony a week later in New York because that’s where Sony America is headquartered. Turner acknowledged through his attorneys that when setting up his PS5 account, he agreed to Sony’s terms of conditions requiring any litigation against the company to commence in federal court in Northern California. Sony Interactive Entertainment's San Mateo headquarters is based within the district. DualSense controllers for the PS5 “contain a defect that results in characters or gameplay moving on the screen without user command or manual operation of the joystick,” said the Feb. 12 complaint (in Pacer) that seeks class-action status. “This defect significantly interferes with gameplay.” Sony didn’t comment.

Facebook unlawfully maintained a monopoly through exclusionary conduct in violation of antitrust law, alleged New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) and a bipartisan group of AGs Thursday in response to Facebook’s motion (in Pacer) to dismiss their lawsuit. “Facebook has successfully squashed, suppressed, and deterred competition, harming millions of consumers and small businesses with its illegal behavior,” said James. “Facebook’s scheme of predatory acquisitions and exclusionary conduct entrenches its monopoly power.” The states failed to “plausibly allege” Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp violated the Clayton Act, the company argued in its motion to dismiss. The AGs failed to show Instagram and WhatsApp were “uniquely situated to compete with Facebook,” the platform argued.

The three-judge panel in the Section 301 litigation inundating the U.S. Court of International Trade granted Akin Gump’s March 19 "coordinated proposal" designating the first-filed HMTX Industries-Jasco Products complaint as the sole sample case (see 2103220035), said a procedural order (in Pacer) Wednesday. Judges also stayed the roughly 3,700 other cases and approved seating a 15-member plaintiffs steering committee, also as Akin Gump proposed. The panel ordered the steering committee and DOJ to confer on a joint status report due April 12 that will include a proposed briefing schedule and list “any additional issues requiring early case management intervention,” plus a “joint proposal for addressing any such issues to the extent possible,” it said. If the steering committee and DOJ “are unable to agree on a proposal, the status report should identify the position of each side and the basis for any disagreement,” it said. The two sides also are ordered to “continue their consultations” on the thorny issue of refund relief, said the panel. The joint status report should summarize “any issues regarding relief upon which they agree and identify areas of disagreement, including the basis for such disagreement,” it said. The court won’t issue an “advisory opinion” on the issue of relief but is “clear-eyed regarding its role in managing the extensive number of Section 301 Cases and the challenges and importance of providing timely, effective, and administrable relief should Plaintiffs establish their right to such relief,” it said.

The FCC asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to reject a petition by Children’s Health Defense and four individuals asking for a stay of the revised rules for over-the-air reception devices OK’d by commissioners in January (see 2101070068). The group hasn’t shown that its members are at risk or that the case is likely to succeed, said Tuesday's posting (in Pacer) in docket 21-1075. “Children’s Health does not challenge the FCC’s radiofrequency exposure limits in this case, or dispute that the antennas at issue comply with those limits,” the FCC said: “It nevertheless contends that, by expanding the permissible uses of the hub or relay antennas covered by the [OTARD] rule, the FCC has injured its members who wish to avoid exposure to radiofrequency-emitting antennas.” The group sought a stay (in Pacer) last week. The group responded (in Pacer) Wednesday that the individuals who sought review were either sick as a result of RF exposure, or their family members were: “Exposure from a new OTARD system will make them sicker, over their objection and despite extraordinary efforts to avoid exposure. It will utterly destroy their lives and may even kill them. This is clearly irreparable harm.”

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's rejection of a lawsuit brought by a California pastor and his religious organization claiming discrimination by Vimeo when it deleted a series of the plaintiffs' videos promoting sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE). In a decision Thursday (docket 20-616) by Judges Rosemary Pooler, Richard Wesley and Susan Carney, penned by Pooler, the 2nd Circuit said the video hosting service deletion of the church's account fell squarely in good-faith content policing immunity of Communications Decency Act Section 230. Vimeo "is statutorily entitled to consider SOCE content objectionable and may restrict access to that content as it sees fit," the panel said. Outside counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants didn't comment. Santa Clara University Director-High Tech Law Institute professor Eric Goldman blogged the ruling was a win for internet services, but both Democrats and Republicans have proposed Section 230 amendments that would overturn the ruling. He said the court's reliance on Section 230(c)(2)(A) opens the door for a motion to dismiss.

More Wi-Fi advocates defended the FCC's April 6 GHz order, in an amicus brief (in Pacer) Tuesday at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in docket 20-1190. Commission "engineers spent years assessing technical analyses and arguments from parties on all sides,” said Apple, Broadcom, Cisco, Google, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Intel, Microsoft, NCTA and the Wi-Fi Alliance. “The [6 GHz] Order embodies a careful, conservative decision, based on a massive technical record, to unlock the benefits of next-generation unlicensed technologies while protecting licensed users from harmful interference.”