> Are you talking about Samsung Fold? Because they didn't sold not even 1 of that.
Eh, true - but only because the test units sent out to media outlets and tech journalists started breaking[0].
> You should be careful what you wish for. If companies were fined billions of dollars for faulty products, in a couple of years you'll have nothing to complain about. And not because everything will be amazing.
> Just imagine if Microsoft/Apple/"Linux" was fined 1 billion for every major flaw in their OS. Are you personally willing to accept $1 mil liability for any major flaw in the software you wrote in the past?
I don't think that's what the parent commenter was asking for, they specifically called out the marketing claims. Which, I think, is completely fair. re: folding and waterproof devices, Samsung intentionally marketed those features of the devices and well, they don't really work. True, they never actually sold the folding devices, but it was because of the feedback from testers, not something their internal quality control caught.
I definitely don't think every software/hardware company should be fined $1M-1B for major flaws, but if you're deliberately marketing a feature which either doesn't exist (salt-waterproofing) or doesn't work (folding) either intentionally or due to QA/QC negligence on your part... I definitely think you should be fined for misleading consumers.
I won't comment on their batteries - Samsung never marketed their phones based on how safe their batteries are.
But Samsung has been repeatedly caught using stock photos from a DSLR and representing those as images captured by the cameras on their phones[1]. I'd certainly say they should be fined for that - that's intentionally misleading consumers re: the capability of the product.
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/22/18510871/samsung-galaxy-f...
[1] https://petapixel.com/2018/12/05/samsung-caught-using-dslr-p...