this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2026
1164 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

85376 readers
4430 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
1164
Louis Rossmann is suing Samsung after firm offers $330 refund for defective SSD while selling the drives on Amazon for $949 — spat over 4TB 990 Pro SSD is headed to court (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 2 days ago by themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
148 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mbirth@lemmy.ml 22 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Read for yourself!

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.

[–] kevinsky@feddit.nl 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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.

[–] Prove_your_argument@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You too! Please read it all!

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.

[–] mbirth@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Liability ≠ Warranty

[–] Prove_your_argument@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

Remedy Description ≠ liability cap

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Prove_your_argument@piefed.social 0 points 1 day ago

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.