Vizio settles for $3M after saying 60 Hz TVs had 120 Hz “effective refresh rate” , get your $17!

MrGuvernment

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
21,823
Wow, a whole $17, maybe up to $50...for a TV that was sold under false info? Way to get consumers justice! Only in California..

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/202...-60-hz-tvs-had-120-hz-effective-refresh-rate/

Vizio has agreed to pay $3 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that alleged the company misled customers about the refresh rates of its TVs.

In 2018, a lawsuit [PDF], which was later certified as a class action, was filed against Vizio for advertising its 60 Hz and 120 Hz LCD TVs as having an "effective" refresh rate of 120 Hz and 240 Hz, respectively. Vizio was referring to the backlight scanning (or black frame insertion) ability, which it claimed made the TVs look like they were operating at a refresh rate that was twice as fast as they are capable of. Vizio's claims failed to address the drawbacks that can come from backlight scanning, which include less brightness and the potential for noticeable flickering. The lawsuit complained about Vizio's language in marketing materials and user manuals.

The lawsuit read:
Click to expand...
 
What does "Only in California" even mean here? lol LG settled with the class' counsel. Maybe keep your misguided soapboxing in soapbox?

I do agree that $17-$50 is stupid low. Class actions being what they are here, I'm not surprised though. It should be a % of their revenue from those models, or something similar. This is just a "Cost of doing business" settlement for LG, not a deterrent from doing it or something similar again at any point.
 
Eulogy said:
What does "Only in California" even mean here? lol LG settled with the class' counsel. Maybe keep your misguided soapboxing in soapbox?

......
Click to expand...

Or how about you actually read said article before jumping down people's throats.. there's a concept

...people who bought a Vizio TV in California after April 30, 2014, can file a claim..
Click to expand...
 
MrGuvernment said:
Or how about you actually read said article before jumping down people's throats.. there's a concept
Click to expand...

That's what I got from it without reading the article. Only applies in California... Some people are looking for a problem where none exists...

I know my TCL for the bedroom has a similar thing. It's not an actual 120Hz, but it's an "effective" refresh rate. It was super cheap, I didn't expect much. I'd probably get $1.75 from any class action lawsuit. Of course, it'd have to be California only cause that's how they do it there (zing!... I'm just kidding on the California part. I bought mine in Oregon!).
 
Ur_Mom said:
That's what I got from it without reading the article. Only applies in California... Some people are looking for a problem where none exists...
Click to expand...
I read it as a sarcastic thing, hence my reply :) But yeah, that's how... lawsuits work. If some class wants it for other states or national, it'd need filed to do that.
 
Eulogy said:
I read it as a sarcastic thing, hence my reply :) But yeah, that's how... lawsuits work. If some class wants it for other states or national, it'd need filed to do that.
Click to expand...
My bad, i took it literal :D (was one of those days at work dealing with people where face palm's were running out!
 
Class-action suits are always such bullshit. Offenders get a slap on the wrist, consumers get nothing meaningful (if anything at all). Lawyers make bank at everyone else’s expense.
 
Funny that so few companies are part of this. Totally lying about refresh rates is standard practice across the industry. I've posted pics on [H] in the past of my old "120hz" 43" Asus screen that was actually 24hz.

I'd love to see the companies really get railed for this by the federal govt. It's not a 120hz screen if the four previous frames are still present when the fifth gets pushed. That's just a 24hz comet mess.
 
Eulogy said:
What does "Only in California" even mean here? lol LG settled with the class' counsel. Maybe keep your misguided soapboxing in soapbox?

I do agree that $17-$50 is stupid low. Class actions being what they are here, I'm not surprised though. It should be a % of their revenue from those models, or something similar. This is just a "Cost of doing business" settlement for LG, not a deterrent from doing it or something similar again at any point.
Click to expand...
VIZIO - not LG. YGWYPF. Don't buy a Walmart Black Friday TV when you may have to live with that purchase for a long time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top