Find a Question:
Consumers’ captures bone Case for Samsung update policy
An Amsterdam judge has ruled that the Consumers enough has been able to demonstrate that there is an urgent interest in the lawsuit against Samsung. This is the case not substantively addressed and rejected the complaint.
Marieke Neervoort, counsel for the Consumers, late Tweakers that it is disappointed in the judgment of the court. “The judge simply did not dare to take this matter interim relief pending, because the consequences would have a major impact on Samsung,” said Neervoort.
The judge sets the sentence that “the assignment of receivables to have significant technical implications for Samsung whose consequences are particularly large. That adds to the judge that a verdict “could lead to possible Samsung to huge costs that can not be overlooked sufficient in summary proceedings’ in favor of the Consumer.
Neervoort can not say anything about whether there arrives a new case, for example in the form of substantive proceedings. The substantive arguments put forward by the Consumer in the case are not addressed as first among other assessed in a lawsuit if there is indeed an urgent interest. This was lacking in the present case. In the words of the judge ‘claims do not lend themselves to a lawsuit.
The Consumentenbond also progressed in the case that Samsung would inform its customers about its update policy. The company already has a number of changes to its site in December implemented , so more information is available. However, the Consumer Association was of the opinion that this information is incomplete. On that says the court can not be assumed from the position based on the current facts that Samsung would violate its obligation to provide information.
The Consumers began in January the lawsuit against Samsung, because the organization wanted to oblige the company has enabled its devices to provide more updates. Without these updates would of user devices remain vulnerable to vulnerabilities as’ Stage Fright ‘and’ Certifigate. In the current proceedings, the judge ruled, however, that the Consumentenbond has sufficiently plausible that actually emanates an acute threat for users of these vulnerabilities.Viewing:-146
Answer this Question
You must be Logged In to post an Answer.
Not a member yet? Sign Up Now »
Star Points Scale
Earn points for Asking and Answering Questions!