[HN Gopher] Family fight Samsung over fridge odour they say caus...
___________________________________________________________________
Family fight Samsung over fridge odour they say caused dizziness
and memory loss
Author : phs318u
Score : 24 points
Date : 2024-07-09 21:23 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.abc.net.au)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.abc.net.au)
| ryandrake wrote:
| > "As a consumer advocate, it's rare to see deeds of release with
| gag clauses -- which is what this is."
|
| I guess that offer is no longer valid since the fight hit the
| news. I wonder if we'll see more and more of these attempts to
| silence customers, as 1. companies get bigger and more powerful,
| and 2. regular people's ability to broadcast company wrongdoing
| over social media grows.
| glzone1 wrote:
| Some context.
|
| Refrigerator was 4 years old and out of stated warranty period
|
| Refrigerator not sold to them by samsung or installed by samsung
| but by another party ("JB Hi-Fi").
|
| Despite being out of warranty, family offered a refund - they
| declined it. An expert has called Samsungs behavior "concerning
| and unfair".
|
| Notes:
|
| Plenty of folks ignore almost all maintenance steps (cleaning
| coils, filter changes etc). Pulling the covers and looking around
| and cleaning even 1x per year would help longevity and catch
| problems earlier in many cases.
|
| Having purchased appliances both personally and for a business -
| first call is usually to the store that sold us the item. These
| things are the one thing we get an extended warranty on.
|
| The installers are absolutely not licensed plumbers or
| electricians! I wouldn't be surprised if a fair bit of damage is
| caused just in getting these items to their locations and
| installed. They are heavy and awkward.
|
| Ask the repair tech who comes for first repair what most common
| issue is they are repairing - they often know right away (because
| they stock the parts etc etc). Some are avoidable / manageable.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| The issue here isn't the cost of the fridge, it's the health
| impact. Declining a mere refund (that almost certainly comes
| with a waiver on other claims in addition to the gag clause) is
| the only reasonable thing to do, and I doubt that being out of
| warranty absolves Samsung from liability if they sold a
| dangerous product.
| ars wrote:
| How do you know there's a health impact, or that this is a
| dangerous product?
|
| The article has nothing supporting either of those claims in
| it.
|
| The oil they use in refrigerators stinks to high heaven, and
| that's about it. "POE that has been exposed to moisture can
| emit a strong odor which I would say is closer to dirty
| socks".
| throwaway346434 wrote:
| https://www.mountsinai.org/health-
| library/poison/refrigerant...
| ars wrote:
| Those symptoms are mixing refrigerants, fumigants, and
| the frostbite from refrigerants expanding.
|
| It means nothing in the context of this article. The
| refrigerant at hand here is R-134a and has zero health
| risks, in fact it's used in inhalers.
| gpm wrote:
| > the company wasn't able to tell him what the chemical was
| or whether it could be harmful.
|
| Odd how you are confident that you know what the chemical
| is when the company that manufactured the product doesn't.
|
| And you don't need to know that there's a health impact to
| decline this settlement, you need to not know that there
| isn't. If there's even a small risk it's an extremely
| lowball offer. Especially given that according to another
| commenter here Australian law likely entitles them to that
| much _without the NDA and release of liability_.
| zihotki wrote:
| The health impact they may have inflicted themselves when
| they went to take out the food.
|
| If there is a chemical smell - open all windows, ventilate
| the room and STAY AWAY. That's a very basic and simple rule.
| stemlord wrote:
| The whole article is about the lack of transparency on a
| situation involving a product Samsung designed which may or may
| not have serious health consequences, not about return policies
| glzone1 wrote:
| Is Samsung not using R-134a or R600a for refrigerant? This
| usually depends on market and regulations.
| throwaway346434 wrote:
| Australian consumer law means you generally don't need to
| bother with the "extended warranty" scam:
| https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advic...
|
| A fridge has to be of acceptable quality, safe, and one of the
| tests applied is durability - how long would an average
| consumer expect the product to last?
|
| Fridges are commonly expected to last 6-12 years (ATO, consumer
| group advice)
| astrec wrote:
| Correct. Strictly speaking Australian consumers don't really
| need a warranty, which is a voluntary undertaking by a
| business to guarantee certain rights, unless that warranty
| exceeds those guarantees provided for in Australian consumer
| law. In this case the family is automatically entitled to
| repair, replacement, refund or cancellation for a reasonable
| time, where "reasonable" depends on the product or service as
| determined by the ACCC or the courts.
| tomxor wrote:
| This is a safety issue, warranty is not relevant.
|
| Samsung also recalled a huge number of out of warranty phones
| due to significant safety risk of bad batteries. This should be
| investigated as a safety issue.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| This sounds pretty concerning: "Samsung's own compliance tool,
| used by retailers to check that stock complies with Australian
| standards, lists the model as being one that should be
| prioritised for sale because it could be non-compliant."
|
| I think Australia has somewhat working consumer protection
| agencies, and if this is true (Samsung knowingly selling non-
| compliant products, and trying to sell them faster to make sure
| they're all sold before the non-compliance is discovered), I hope
| the sanctions are something truly discouraging (e.g. a fine
| corresponding to all revenue from sales of that model).
| ars wrote:
| It's not likely as sinister as you make it out to be, I could
| not find out what "A2 regulation in June 2020" means, but I
| suspect they are phasing out older refrigerants, but allowing
| sale of existing stock.
|
| For example cars need to switch from r134A as of 2022, but
| before that it's fine, and home A/C's need to switch from R410a
| as of the end of this year, but they can sell existing stock
| for another year.
|
| So prioritizing for sale makes perfect sense, and doesn't
| indicate anything nefarious, just selling out of old stock,
| exactly as the law is suggesting.
|
| Edit: I'm virtually certain this is R-134a being phased out in
| Australia in June of 2020. And I figured out A1 and A2 which
| are flammability ratings of refrigerants. With R-134a being A1,
| and the new ones being slightly more flammable and are rated as
| A2.
| avsteele wrote:
| Hmm... "I explained to the poisons hotline it
| wasn't just refrigerant, it was something more sinister," she
| said.
|
| How would she know? Probably something electronic burnt out. Then
| the wife had a panic attack from over worry.
|
| Article is interesting because of the non-disclosure clause
| stuff. Which, while not totally surprising I guess, is pretty
| scummy.
| gpm wrote:
| Well,
|
| > "The [refrigerant] doesn't have a strong odour or flavour so
| the fact they could smell it, taste it, suggests there's
| something else that's been released," Professor Anderson said.
| avsteele wrote:
| That professor's statement was pretty silly.
|
| Burning electronics does have a strong, distinct odor. If
| they are unfamiliar with that, its totally plausible that's
| all that they smelled.
|
| Refrigerators are a few PCBs, a heat pump, a closed loop
| refrigerant, and a cooler. There really isn't anything
| especially exotic there.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-07-09 23:00 UTC)