Case 2:21-cv-10238-WJM-AME Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 1 of 107 PageID: 1
`
`
`
`James E. Cecchi
`Lindsey H. Taylor
`CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI
`OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
`5 Becker Farm Road
`Roseland, New Jersey 07068
`(973) 994-1700
`
`Christopher A. Seeger
`SEEGER WEISS
`55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
`Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660
`(973) 639-9100
`
`Steve W. Berman
`HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98101
`(206) 623-7292
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`and the Proposed Class
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT and
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`JEAN VASADI, DANIELLE MOYER, JOSH
`SHEPHERD, LINDSEY STONEBRAKER,
`GREG TREACY, and SCOTT TEITSCH,
`individually and on behalf of all others
`similarly situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-10238-WJM-AME Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 2 of 107 PageID: 2
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 
`
`PARTIES .............................................................................................................................8 
`
`A. 
`
`Plaintiffs ...................................................................................................................8 
`
`1. 
`
`South Carolina Plaintiff ...............................................................................8 
`
`a. 
`
`Jean Vasadi ......................................................................................8 
`
`2. 
`
`Washington Plaintiffs .................................................................................10 
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`Danielle Moyer ..............................................................................10 
`
`Josh Shepherd ................................................................................14 
`
`3. 
`
`Ohio Plaintiff .............................................................................................15 
`
`a. 
`
`Lindsey Stonebraker ......................................................................15 
`
`4. 
`
`Virginia Plaintiff ........................................................................................16 
`
`a. 
`
`Greg Treacy ...................................................................................16 
`
`5. 
`
`New York Plaintiff .....................................................................................18 
`
`a. 
`
`Scott Teitsch...................................................................................18 
`
`B. 
`
`The Defendant ........................................................................................................20 
`
`VENUE AND JURISDICTION ........................................................................................20 
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................21 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`The glass camera panel in the Samsung Galaxy S20 .............................................21 
`
`Consumer complaints and press response regarding the Samsung
`Galaxy S20 .............................................................................................................26 
`
`Gorilla glass, the fragile phone design, and previous S7 screen
`shattering issues .....................................................................................................32 
`
`Samsung’s knowledge that the glass camera panel was susceptible
`to shattering. ...........................................................................................................34 
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-10238-WJM-AME Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 3 of 107 PageID: 3
`
`
`
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`Samsung’s Response to the Galaxy S20 Defect(s) ................................................34 
`
`Samsung’s Warranty ..............................................................................................37 
`
`Any supposed “arbitration” terms and conditions were hidden from
`purchasers of the Samsung Galaxy S20 by deliberate design and
`should not limit the rights of Plaintiffs and Class members. .................................38 
`
`TOLLING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ........................................................43 
`
`CHOICE OF LAW ............................................................................................................43 
`
`VII.  CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ..................................................................................43 
`
`VIII.  CAUSES OF ACTION ......................................................................................................48 
`
`A. 
`
`Claims brought on behalf of the Nationwide Class ...............................................48 
`
`COUNT I VIOLATIONS OF 15 U.S.C. § 2301, ET SEQ. THE MAGNUSON-
`MOSS WARRANTY ACT ...............................................................................................48 
`
`COUNT II VIOLATIONS OF NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT
`(N.J.S.A. § 56:8-1 ET SEQ.) ..............................................................................................50 
`
`B. 
`
`Claims brought on behalf of the New York Subclass ............................................54 
`
`COUNT I VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW §
`349 (N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW § 349) ..................................................................................54 
`
`COUNT II FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT (BASED ON NEW YORK LAW) ..........................58 
`
`COUNT III BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY ...................................................................61 
`
`COUNT IV BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
`(N.Y. U.C.C. § 2-314)........................................................................................................62 
`
`C. 
`
`Claims brought on behalf of the Ohio Subclass.....................................................63 
`
`COUNT I VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES
`ACT (OHIO REV. CODE § 1345.01, ET SEQ.) ...............................................................63 
`
`COUNT II FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT (BASED ON OHIO LAW) .....................................67 
`
`COUNT III BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY ...................................................................70 
`
`COUNT IV BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
`(OHIO CODE § 1302.27) ..................................................................................................71 
`
`D. 
`
`Claims brought on behalf of the South Carolina Subclass ....................................73 
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-10238-WJM-AME Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 4 of 107 PageID: 4
`
`
`
`COUNT I VIOLATIONS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA UNFAIR TRADE
`PRACTICES ACT (S.C. CODE ANN. §§ 39-5-10, ET SEQ.) .........................................73 
`
`COUNT II FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT (BASED ON SOUTH CAROLINA
`LAW) .................................................................................................................................76 
`
`COUNT III BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY ...................................................................79 
`
`COUNT IV BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
`(S.C. CODE § 36-2-314) ...................................................................................................80 
`
`E. 
`
`Claims brought on behalf of the Virginia Subclass ...............................................82 
`
`COUNT I VIOLATIONS OF THE VIRGINIA CONSUMER PROTECTION
`ACT (VA. CODE ANN. §§ 59.1-196, ET SEQ.) ..............................................................82 
`
`COUNT II FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT (BASED ON VIRGINIA LAW) .............................85 
`
`COUNT III BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY ...................................................................89 
`
`COUNT IV BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
`(VA. CODE § 8.2A-212) ...................................................................................................90 
`
`F. 
`
`Claims brought on behalf of the Washington Subclass .........................................91 
`
`COUNT I VIOLATIONS OF THE WASHINGTON CONSUMER
`PROTECTION ACT (WASH. REV. CODE ANN. §§ 19.86.010,
`ET SEQ.) ............................................................................................................................91 
`
`COUNT II FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT (BASED ON WASHINGTON LAW) ....................95 
`
`COUNT III BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY ...................................................................98 
`
`COUNT IV BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
`(WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 62A.2-314) ......................................................................99 
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF ..............................................................................................................101 
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ...................................................................................................103 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-10238-WJM-AME Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 5 of 107 PageID: 5
`
`
`
`Jean Vasadi, Danielle Moyer, Josh Shepherd, Lindsey Stonebraker, Greg Treacy, and Scott
`
`Teitsch, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (collectively “Plaintiffs”), file
`
`this Class Action Complaint against Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”).
`
`This lawsuit is based upon the investigation of counsel and upon information and belief as noted.
`
`In support thereof, Plaintiffs state as follows:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`In the first quarter of 2020, Samsung captured 20% of the global smartphone market
`
`share.1 Samsung achieved this in great part by recognizing that a smartphone’s functionality as a
`
`camera is critically important to consumers.2 The Samsung Galaxy S20 and S20 Ultra phones were
`
`released on March 6, 2020, and the S20 FE (Fan Edition) was released on October 2, 2020.3 The
`
`phones have a prominent back camera module that encases multiple camera lenses. The S20 and
`
`S20 FE have three back camera lenses, and the S20 Ultra has an even larger back camera module,
`
`and an additional camera lens, for a total of four “quad” back cameras. The S20 is a “camera-
`
`focused” phone, marketed by Samsung as the “The Complete Pro-Grade Camera Solution.” The
`
`phones command a premium price of up to $1,600.00.4
`
`2.
`
`Unfortunately, the S20’s back camera module’s glass can shatter suddenly (“the
`
`Shattered Defect”), under normal use, with no external force applied and render the camera
`
`unusable. This issue became apparent just days upon release of the phone on the U.S. market on
`
`
`1
`https://www.counterpointresearch.com/global-smartphone-share/.
`2
`A chart created by Samsung’s marketing department, based on data from a study conducted
`by the Pew Research Center, shows that 92% of smartphone users worldwide use their devices for
`taking photos, and 80% for sending photos. Originally cited in Complaint, No. 2:17-cv-00082-LA.
`3
`The Galaxy S20 model line includes the Galaxy S20, Galaxy S20+, Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G,
`Galaxy S20+ 5G, Galaxy S20 5G, Galaxy S20 Ultra/LTE, Galaxy S20 FE, and Galaxy S20 FE
`5G.
`The base S20 Ultra with 12GB of Ram and 128 GM of storage is $1399.00 and the
`4
`16GB/512GB version is $1549.00. The S20 FE is an expensive option at $699.00, but more
`affordable than the other S20 models.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-10238-WJM-AME Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 6 of 107 PageID: 6
`
`
`
`March 6, 2020. On March 10, a consumer posted on Samsung’s community website: “I had an
`
`unfortunate accident with my phone yesterday. I managed to crack and damage my camera lens.
`
`It wasn’t dropped. Something I had in my pocket cracked the lens. Any idea when Samsung will
`
`be sending camera parts out to the repair facilities? Guess I could always send it back to Samsung
`
`for repair.”5 Then, on April 4, 2020, the topic “S20 Ultra camera crack” appeared on Samsung’s
`
`community website.6 That day, a consumer posted that he discovered that his S20 Ultra, housed in
`
`a protective case, had a shattered back screen, and could no longer zoom more than 5X due to the
`
`damage.7 On April 20, another user wrote:
`
`Bought my galaxy s20 plus two weeks ago and today noticed a
`horizontal hairline cracked across the rear camera glass. The phone
`has been in a good case from day one. Never had this issue before.
`Phone sat on my desk most of the time, no drops or accidents...I have
`noticed quite a lot of people raising this same issue. Is this a design
`fault or material defect / issue and is there a resolution to this issue
`samsung? Very disappointed with this and a shame Samsung seem
`to have lowered there normal high standards.8
`
`3.
`
`The shattering is a known defect that has also plagued other previously released
`
`Samsung phone models. The shattering leaves behind a tell-tale “bullet hole” pattern, depicted in
`
`these photos:
`
`
`username
`consumer with
`by
`post
`5
`March
`10,
`2020
`https://us.community.samsung.com/t5/Galaxy-S20/S20-Ultra-camera-crack/m-
`p/1144596#M12875.
`6
`https://us.community.samsung.com/t5/Galaxy-S20/S20-Ultra-camera-crack/m-
`p/1184833.
`7 Id., April 4, 2020 post by user “Oneblackwing.”
`8
`Post by consumer with username “userom21qGRpHf,” https://us.community.
`samsung.com/t5/Galaxy-S20/S20-Ultra-camera-crack/m-p/1210784#M12867.
`- 2 -
`
`“dasingleton,”
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-10238-WJM-AME Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 7 of 107 PageID: 7
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`10
`
`
`9
`https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/309931-some-galaxy-s20-ultra-owners-claim-
`camera-glass-spontaneously-shatters.
`10
`https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulmonckton/2020/04/30/galaxy-s20-ultra-users-report-
`serious-unfixable-problem-shattered-camera-lenses/?sh=15631ce57892.
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-10238-WJM-AME Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 8 of 107 PageID: 8
`
`
`
`11
`
`12
`
`
`11
`April 4, 2020 post by “Oneblackwing,” https://us.community.samsung.com/t5/Galaxy-
`S20/S20-Ultra-camera-crack/m-p/1184833.
`12
`https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/04/28/growing-reports-of-galaxy-s20-ultra-camera-
`glass-shattering.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-10238-WJM-AME Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 9 of 107 PageID: 9
`
`
`
`13
`
`4.
`
`As of the date of this Complaint, there have been over 660 comments on just one
`
`of Samsung’s community website posts on this topic.14 A consumer also wrote an open letter to
`
`Samsung regarding the issue, asking the company to step up and take responsibility on behalf of
`
`its consumers.15 In addition to scores of posts on Samsung’s own websites, there are countless
`
`
`13
`Id.
`14
`https://us.community.samsung.com/t5/Galaxy-S20/S20-Ultra-camera-crack/m-
`p/1144596#M12875.
`15
`The post has been removed from Samsung’s website where it was originally posted at
`https://us.community.samsung.com/t5/Galaxy-S20/Open-letter-to-Samsung-Regarding-Broken-
`rear-camera-glass-on-S20/td-p/1217740, but is retrievable via another user’s Reddit post at
`https://www.reddit.com/r/samsung/
`comments/g8j9gq/s20_ultra_camera_design_flaw_breaks_easily/.
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-10238-WJM-AME Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 10 of 107 PageID: 10
`
`
`
`complaints posted elsewhere, including on Twitter and Reddit.16 There have also been numerous
`
`articles devoted to the issue.17 These complaints demonstrate that a high volume of customers
`
`report the exact same defect, manifesting under similar conditions. Customers have also been
`
`injured by the shattered glass, including one of the plaintiffs in this case.
`
`5.
`
`For purchasers or lessees of this particular phone, the frustration is compounded by
`
`the fact that Samsung released the phone just as the nation began to face pandemic lockdowns,
`
`social distancing, and job loss. Consumers who had paid an exorbitant price for a phone expecting
`
`a professional-grade camera experience (and perhaps more for a protective case) have been left
`
`with a device whose camera functionality has been diminished or disabled just at the time they
`
`needed it the most. In addition, due to the pandemic, customers are unable or significantly
`
`constrained in their ability to bring phones into brick-and-mortar stores for service and repair. The
`
`pandemic has also caused a shortage of replacement stock of the product. Moreover, the issue was
`
`entirely avoidable, as evidence suggests that Samsung has known of the defect since 2016 or even
`
`earlier, given that a similar issue plagued the company’s Samsung’s Galaxy S7, S7 Edge, and S7
`
`Active smartphone models, and led to a class action lawsuit.18 At the time, Samsung acknowledged
`
`
`16
`e.g.,
`https://twitter.com/Robin07160663/status/1252302723892097024?s=20;
`See,
`https://www.reddit.com/r/Galaxy_S20/comments/fxaa2z/cracked_my_s20_
`ultra_screen/?utm_source=BD&utm_medium=Search&utm_name=Bing&utm_content=PSR1;
`https://www.reddit.com/r/samsung/comments/g8j9gq/s20_ultra_
`camera_design_flaw_breaks_easily/.
`17
`See, e.g., https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulmonckton/2020/04/30/galaxy-s20-ultra-users-
`report-serious-unfixable-problem-shattered-camera-lenses/?sh=7d9d7b6f7892;
`https://petapixel.com/2020/05/04/samsung-galaxy-s20-ultras-camera-glass-is-shattering-for-
`some-users/; https://www.sammobile.com/news/galaxy-s20-ultra-design-flaw-rear-camera-glass-
`break/;
`https://piunikaweb.com/2020/12/23/samsung-galaxy-s20-ultra-userts-complain-about-
`broken-rear-camera-lens;
`https://www.androidpolice.com/2020/04/28/growing-reports-of-
`galaxy-s20-ultra-camera-glass-shattering.
`18
`Kessler v. Samsung, No. 2:17-cv-00082-LA.
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-10238-WJM-AME Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 11 of 107 PageID: 11
`
`
`
`the “growing frustration and concern” to consumers due to the issue, but did nothing to actually
`
`address or resolve the issue.19
`
`6.
`
`Despite receiving numerous customer complaints pre-release and post-release
`
`describing this issue, Samsung has consistently denied responsibility, instead blaming consumers
`
`and refusing to repair or refund the devices, and/or charging an exorbitant amount of money for
`
`consumers to send back a defective device. Consumers have even reported that Samsung has told
`
`them that by reporting the issue, they have “voided the warranty.”20 Samsung only recently
`
`admitted that a pattern of complaints exists and that the issue is not the consumer’s fault. Yet
`
`Samsung has not recalled the phone and continues to deny warranty claims.
`
`7.
`
`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 of the phone, independent of the
`
`phone’s software, that manifests immediately upon use and which can render the camera unusable
`
`or would limit its functionality and potentially cause physical harm as well. No Plaintiff or
`
`reasonable consumer would have purchased or leased these smartphones and/or paid the price they
`
`paid for these smartphones had they known of this glass shattering defect. Samsung omitted
`
`information about this material defect and has completely failed its customers by continuing its
`
`pattern of putting profits over safety. Like every vendor, Samsung has duties of truthfulness and
`
`candor to its customers, including the duty to not conceal material information that the Galaxy S20
`
`has inferior performance relative to its other models and the models of its competitors. Samsung
`
`
`19
`Id., original cite at https://us.community.samsung.com/t5/Galaxy-S-Phones/s7-edge-rear-
`camera-glass-broken/m-p/14883#M6305.
`20
`See, e.g., October 8, 2020 post by consumer with userame “userivAKvDecjP,”
`https://us.community.samsung.com/t5/Galaxy-S20/S20-Ultra-camera-crack/m-p/
`1144596#M12875.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-10238-WJM-AME Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 12 of 107 PageID: 12
`
`
`
`has violated these duties of truthfulness and candor by designing, manufacturing, and selling their
`
`Galaxy S20 with a defect that Samsung was aware of.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of all other current and former
`
`owners of the Shattered Products as defined herein. Plaintiffs and the Class seek monetary
`
`damages, business reforms, and injunctive and other equitable relief for Defendant’s misconduct
`
`related to the design, manufacture, marketing, and sale of the Shattered Products, as alleged in this
`
`complaint.
`
`II.
`
`PARTIES
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs
`1.
`
`South Carolina Plaintiff
`a.
`Plaintiff Jean Vasadi (“Plaintiff Vasadi”) is a domiciled South Carolina citizen
`
`Jean Vasadi
`
`9.
`
`residing in Paris, Tennessee.
`
`10.
`
`In or about March 2020, Plaintiff Vasadi purchased a new Samsung Galaxy S20
`
`Ultra phone (for the purpose of this subsection, the “Shattered Product”) for approximately
`
`$1,200.00 from a Verizon store in South Carolina. At the time of purchase, the Shattered Product
`
`had a one-year warranty. Plaintiff purchased the Galaxy S20 Ultra because of the camera quality
`
`and because he wanted a phone that operated faster.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff reviewed marketing materials and advertisements concerning the Galaxy
`
`S20 Ultra prior to purchasing it. None of the representations received by Plaintiff contained any
`
`disclosure relating to any defect in the camera glass. Plaintiff was not made aware of any features
`
`of the Galaxy S20 Ultra that would render it less durable than other models. Had Defendant
`
`disclosed the inferior durability of the Galaxy S20 Ultra, preventing the full use of the Galaxy S20
`
`Ultra and posing safety risks, Plaintiff would not have purchased it or would have paid less for it.
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-10238-WJM-AME Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 13 of 107 PageID: 13
`
`
`
`12.
`
`At the time of purchase, Plaintiff’s phone was activated for him by a salesperson at
`
`the Verizon store and he no longer has his product packaging. Plaintiff is not familiar with the
`
`arbitration agreement and has never seen it.
`
`13.
`
`In April 2020, Plaintiff dropped his Galaxy S20 Ultra and the screen broke. He then
`
`paid $250.00 for a replacement Galaxy S20 Ultra. He placed a LifeProof protective case on his
`
`phone.
`
`14.
`
`In approximately May or June 2020, Plaintiff placed the phone down on the table
`
`and heard a loud pop. When he picked the phone up, he noticed the camera glass was shattered.
`
`With the glass broken, Plaintiff could still take pictures, but the pictures were not very good
`
`because the glass was cracked over the lens.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff contacted Verizon right after the glass broke and was referred to the
`
`insurance company. Plaintiff did not wish to pay another $250 to replace the phone, so he took it
`
`to an independent repair shop and had the camera glass fixed. He paid $100 out of pocket for the
`
`repair.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff continues to possess his shattered phone but is worried that the glass will
`
`shatter again. Additionally, Plaintiff has observed that his Galaxy S20 Ultra camera has difficulty
`
`focusing on objects that are close since the camera glass was fixed.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff has suffered ascertainable loss as a result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct
`
`associated with the camera glass including, but not limited to, overpayment and diminished value
`
`of the Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra. Plaintiff would not have bought this phone or paid the price he
`
`did if Samsung had disclosed the Shattering Defect.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-10238-WJM-AME Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 14 of 107 PageID: 14
`
`
`
`2. Washington Plaintiffs
`a.
`Plaintiff Danielle Moyer (“Plaintiff Moyer”) is a domiciled Washington resident
`
`Danielle Moyer
`
`18.
`
`residing in Olympia, Washington.
`
`19.
`
`In or about March 2020, Plaintiff Moyer purchased a new Samsung Galaxy S20
`
`Ultra phone (for the purpose of this subsection, the “Shattered Product”) for approximately
`
`$1,600.00 from a Verizon store in Lacey, Washington. At the time of purchase, the Shattered
`
`Product had a one-year warranty. She also paid for additional insurance for the phone.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff Moyer reviewed marketing materials and advertisements concerning the
`
`Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra prior to purchasing it. None of the representations received by Plaintiff
`
`contained any disclosure relating to any defect in the camera glass. Plaintiff was not made aware
`
`of any features of the Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra that would render it less durable than other
`
`Samsung models. Had Defendant disclosed the inferior durability of the Samsung Galaxy S20
`
`Ultra, preventing the full use of the Samsung Galaxy S20 and posing safety risks, Plaintiff would
`
`not have purchased it or would have paid less for it.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff paid off her Note 9 phone early and paid a fee to do so in order to buy the
`
`Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra. She purchased the Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra because it was supposed
`
`to be the best camera on the market. She specifically purchased the Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra
`
`because of the advertised camera and video quality. It was important to her that she be able to take
`
`clear photos and videos.
`
`22.
`
`Immediately upon purchase, Plaintiff Moyer placed a Pelican protective case on
`
`her Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra, and at all times during use, this protective case was on her phone.
`
`23.
`
`On July 4, 2020, Plaintiff Moyer noticed that her back camera panel was shattered
`
`after her phone fell in the grass as she was standing up from a sitting position:
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-10238-WJM-AME Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 15 of 107 PageID: 15
`
`
`
`21
`
`Plaintiff Moyer contacted Verizon right after the glass broke and was told by Verizon that Samsung
`
`would require her to pay $250 for a replacement phone, despite the fact that her phone was still
`
`within the one-year warranty period. The procedure for returning the phone and getting a
`
`replacement was also confusing and disorganized due to the COVID-19 pandemic. She was told
`
`by Verizon that Samsung required her to return the phone and be without any phone for a period
`
`of time before receiving a replacement.
`
`24.
`
`Another member of Plaintiff Moyer’s household has also purchased a Samsung
`
`Galaxy S20 Ultra phone that experienced the back camera glass shattering issue. The back glass
`
`on the phone broke first, then the front glass, then the camera glass got a hole that looks as if a
`
`needle poked from the inside as the hole pokes outward.
`
`
`21
`Photo provided by Plaintiff Danielle Moyer.
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-10238-WJM-AME Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 16 of 107 PageID: 16
`
`
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff Moyer continues to possess her shattered phone. The phone does not take
`
`clear pictures anymore and Plaintiff cannot fully zoom in for a photo because of the crack over the
`
`lenses. She does not feel safe using the phone with the broken camera glass panel. She has also
`
`been physically injured as a result of the defect, as the sharp edge debris of broken glass has cut
`
`her finger when she picked up the phone and continues to periodically poke her when she handles
`
`her phone. Her hair also gets caught in the sharp debris of broken glass when she attempts to use
`
`her phone.
`
`26.
`
`At the time of purchase, Plaintiff’s phone was activated for her by a salesperson at
`
`the Verizon store and she was provided the box that the phone came in:
`
`22
`
`
`22
`Photo provided by Plaintiff Danielle Moyer.
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-10238-WJM-AME Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 17 of 107 PageID: 17
`
`
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff was not aware of and did not view the bottom of the box where the
`
`arbitration agreement was hidden in small print until after her shattering experience:
`
`23
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff has suffered ascertainable loss as a result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct
`
`associated with the camera glass, including but not limited to, overpayment and diminished value
`
`of the Samsung Galaxy S20. Plaintiff would not have bought this phone or paid the price she did
`
`if Samsung had disclosed the Shattering Defect.
`
`
`23
`Id.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-10238-WJM-AME Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 18 of 107 PageID: 18
`
`
`
`Josh Shepherd
`
`b.
`Plaintiff Josh Shepherd (“Plaintiff Shepherd”) is a domiciled Washington citizen
`
`29.
`
`residing in Auburn, Washington.
`
`30.
`
`On or about March 2020, Plaintiff Shepherd leased a new Samsung Galaxy S20
`
`Ultra phone (for the purpose of this subsection, the “Shattered Product”) from a Sprint/T-Mobile
`
`store in Auburn, Washington. At the time of the lease, the Shattered Product had a one-year
`
`warranty.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff Shepherd reviewed marketing materials and advertisements concerning
`
`the Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra prior to leasing it. None of the representations received by Plaintiff
`
`contained any disclosure relating to any defect in the camera glass. Plaintiff was not made aware
`
`of any features of the Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra that would render it less durable than other
`
`Samsung models. Had Defendant disclosed the inferior durability of the Samsung Galaxy S20
`
`Ultra, preventing the full use of the Samsung Galaxy S20 and posing safety risks, Plaintiff would
`
`not have purchased it or would have paid less for it.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff’s phone was activated for him by a salesperson at the Sprint/T-Mobile
`
`store and he no longer has his product packaging. Plaintiff is not familiar with the arbitration
`
`agreement and has never seen it.
`
`33.
`
`On approximately December 14, 2020, Plaintiff Shepherd noticed that his phone’s
`
`back camera module was shattered. In April 2021, Plaintiff Shepherd presented his phone to Sprint
`
`for repair. Despite the fact that he purchased insurance on his phone, he believes he will have to
`
`pay approximately $31.00 out of pocket for the repair.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff has suffered ascertainable loss as a result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct
`
`associated with the camera glass, including but not limited to, overpayment and diminished value
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-10238-WJM-AME Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 19 of 107 PageID: 19
`
`
`
`of the Samsung Galaxy S20. Plaintiff would not have bought this phone or paid the price he did if
`
`Samsung had disclosed the Shattering Defect.
`
`3.
`
`35.
`
`Ohio Plaintiff
`a.
`Plaintiff Lindsey Stonebraker (“Plaintiff Stonebraker”) is a domiciled Ohio citizen
`
`Lindsey Stonebraker
`
`residing in Steubenville, Ohio.
`
`36.
`
`On or about January 2021, Plaintiff Stonebraker purchased a new Samsung Galaxy
`
`S20 FE phone (for the purpose of this subsection, the “Shattered Product”) from a Verizon store
`
`in Steubenville, Ohio. At the time of the purchase, the Shattered Product had a one-year warranty.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff Stonebraker reviewed marketing materials and advertisements concerning
`
`the Samsung Galaxy S20 FE prior to leasing it. None of the representations received by Plaintiff
`
`contained any disclosure relating to any defect in the camera glass. Plaintiff was not made aware
`
`of any features of the Galaxy S20 FE that would render it less durable than other Samsung models.
`
`Had Defendant disclosed the inferior durability of the Galaxy S20 FE, preventing the full use of
`
`the Galaxy S20 FE and posing safety risks, Plaintiff would not have purchased it or would have
`
`paid less for it.
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff purchased the Galaxy S20 FE because of the camera capabilities. It was
`
`important to her that she be able to take clear photos and videos. Plaintiff and her husband run a
`
`tattoo magazine website and use the Galaxy S20 FE to take pictures for the website.
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff’s phone was activated for her by a salesperson at the Verizon store.
`
`Plaintiff was unaware that there was an arbitration agreement and did not see it hidden in small
`
`print on the bottom of the box until after her shattering experience.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-10238-WJM-AME Document 1 Filed 04/27/21 Page 20 of 107 PageID: 20
`
`
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff Stonebraker placed a protective case on the phone after purchase. She also
`
`acquired an additional camera protector case. In February 2021, Plaintiff Stonebraker placed the
`
`camera protector on the phone.