Samsung Electronics has come under scrutiny from regulatory authorities for failing to disclose that the gaming performance of its Galaxy smartphones and tablets is limited when running high-spec games. In some cases, the maximum performance of the devices was found to be restricted by up to 30% for the central processing unit (CPU) and graphics processing unit (GPU).
On October 27, the Fair Trade Commission announced it would impose a corrective order and a provisional fine of 20.1 billion won (approximately $15 million) on Samsung for its misleading advertising practices. The sanctions apply to the Galaxy S21 and S22 series, as well as the Galaxy Tab S8 series, which were released and advertised between January 2021 and March 2022.
Samsung promoted these products by highlighting gaming performance as a key advantage through its website, promotional videos, and product launch events. The Galaxy S21 series was marketed with the phrase 'the fastest 5nm AP in Galaxy history,' emphasizing its capability for high-spec gaming. Similarly, the Galaxy S22 series was advertised as having 'the fastest chip in Galaxy history,' along with claims of quick touch response and smooth screen transitions.
However, it was revealed that when certain high-spec games are launched, the Game Optimization Service (GOS) immediately activates, limiting the CPU and GPU speeds to pre-set levels, regardless of the device's temperature. GOS is a system designed to manage heat in smart devices. While the general policy adjusts performance based on device temperature, the individual policy restricts maximum performance as soon as specific games are launched.
For instance, when running 'PUBG: New State' on the Galaxy S22 series, the CPU speed was limited from 2.99 GHz to 0.94 GHz, and the GPU speed was reduced from 818 MHz to 220 MHz, representing only 31.4% and 26.9% of their original maximum speeds, respectively.
In total, 82 games on the Galaxy S21 series, 47 games on the S22 series, and 8 games on the Tab S8 series experienced these performance limitations. The Fair Trade Commission explained that such restrictions could lead to issues like screen stuttering, delays, and reduced graphic quality during moments requiring high computational power.
Lee Soon-mi, a commissioner at the Fair Trade Commission, stated, 'Limiting the maximum clock speed means that even in moments requiring high performance, the device cannot exceed that limit. Consumers will notice a drop in screen smoothness, slower touch response, and degraded graphic quality.'
The commission determined that Samsung's actions constituted deceptive advertising under the Fair Labeling and Advertising Act. By emphasizing gaming performance while omitting crucial information about performance limitations when running specific high-spec games, Samsung hindered consumers' ability to make informed purchasing decisions. The issue was not merely the performance restrictions but the omission of significant information that could influence consumer choices.
Samsung argued that only a small portion of consumers would be affected by the limitations on high-spec games, but the commission rejected this claim. The commissioner noted, 'The advertisements were aimed at general consumers, not just those using specific high-spec games. We assessed the potential for misunderstanding from the perspective of consumers purchasing premium smartphones.'
However, the final fine was lower than the amount initially proposed by the investigators, who had suggested a fine in the range of 60 billion won due to the severity of the violations. The commission considered Samsung's voluntary corrective actions and deemed the violations to be of lesser severity. Consequently, a provisional fine of 20.1 billion won was calculated based on related sales of approximately 4.22 trillion won at a 0.5% penalty rate.
The commissioner remarked, 'We took into account Samsung's proactive measures, such as quickly updating software following the public outcry regarding GOS.' In March 2022, Samsung released a software update that lifted the CPU and GPU speed restrictions and removed the GOS bypass block, allowing users to set a game performance mode.
In a previous consumer lawsuit related to the GOS controversy, a lower court ruled in June that the advertising was misleading but did not accept the damages claim due to a lack of evidence for specific damages and causation. The case was concluded in February of this year after going through a mandatory mediation process.
The Fair Trade Commission clarified that civil liability for damages and violations of the Fair Labeling and Advertising Act are separate issues. The commissioner emphasized, 'If a product's specific performance is highlighted as a key feature in advertising, any significant limitations affecting that performance must be clearly communicated to consumers.'
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.