Supreme Court Confirms Loss in Samsung Electronics Air Purifier False Advertising Fine Cancellation Lawsuit

Supreme Court in Seocho-dong, Seoul. Photo by Mun Ho-nam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that the Fair Trade Commission's decision to impose a fine on Samsung Electronics for advertising air purifier test results obtained under limited conditions as if they reflected real-life performance was not unjust.

On the 30th, the Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) announced that it upheld the appellate court's ruling, which partially dismissed Samsung Electronics' appeal against the Fair Trade Commission's corrective order and other measures.

From 2011 to 2016, Samsung Electronics promoted on its website that its air purifiers had a "99.99% removal rate of avian influenza virus" and a "99.6% removal rate of coronavirus."

In response, in 2018, the Fair Trade Commission stated that "(the experiments) were conducted on some components of the finished product under limited environments and conditions, which was not clearly indicated," pointing out that Samsung Electronics violated the Act on Labeling and Advertising by inducing consumer misunderstanding. The Commission issued corrective orders, publicized the correction in newspapers, and imposed a fine of 488 million KRW.

Samsung Electronics, on the other hand, argued that the removal rates were clearly stated as being under laboratory conditions with possible differences in actual usage conditions in the fine print of the advertisement, and filed a lawsuit requesting the cancellation of the Fair Trade Commission's measures.

The Seoul High Court, which handled the first trial, stated, "The formal disclaimers in the advertisement are insufficient to eliminate the possibility of consumer misunderstanding." It largely upheld the Fair Trade Commission's judgment and ruled that the fine of 472 million KRW was lawful.

The Supreme Court also agreed with this judgment. The bench stated, "The appellate court did not err in its understanding of the legal principles regarding 'deceptive advertising' as defined in the Act on Labeling and Advertising," dismissing both the Fair Trade Commission's and Samsung Electronics' appeals.