Is Samsung&#39;s &quot;bricking&quot; of Note 7 devices legal?
<p>Last week Samsung <a href="http://gizmodo.com/samsung-is-about-to-brick-every-galaxy-note-7-in-americ-1789913643" rel="nofollow noreferrer">announced their intention</a> to push a software update to all (recalled) Galaxy Note 7 devices in the United States that will effectively <strong><em>disable ("brick") those devices.</em></strong> The update will happen automatically and without the customer's prior consent.</p>

<p>I'm having a very hard time believing this could be legal in any jurisdiction. It's as if a car manufacturer, after issuing a model recall, sent out squads to destroy the vehicles not returned thus far.</p>

<p>What are the legal aspects of mass-bricking mobile phones without prior consent? How is this not simply willful destruction of people's property? What if the bricking prevents someone from making an emergency call, resulting in loss of life or limb?</p>

<p>First of all, you own the mobile phone, you <strong>do not</strong> own the software on it - you have a licence to that software that almost certainly includes terms allowing Samsung to change the software and/or revoke your license.</p>

<p>Second, changing the software does not destroy the phone - the hardware is completely intact. You can present that hardware and, in exchange, receive a brand new working phone which has the added advantage that it won't spontaneously explode. Alternatively, if you are an idiot, you can install a non-Samsung OS and cause your bomb, sorry, phone, to work again.</p>

<p>Third, Samsung is probably not liable for any consequences that flow from an inability to make phone calls in any event - their contract will almost certainly exclude it and a case in negligence would probably fail for lack of both a duty of care and/or lack of foreseeability.</p>

<p>Alternatively, Samsung is aware of a real risk to the users of their phone and have gone to great lengths to get them back. Having reached a 93% return rate they have identified a way to make the remaining 7% completely harmless. It is arguable that if they can do this and don't, <em>then</em> they are being negligent.</p>

<p>You may own the phone, consisting of it's hardware. And the software it runs might be licensed and not owned, but the hardware without the firmware and software likely does not fulfill the intended purpose of which the customer may have bought the phone.</p>

<p>When Samsung renders the hardware nearly worthless they are effectively removing nearly all of the value from the hardware.</p>

<p>Simply offering a refund does not always make the buyer whole in that they are out the time and effort it took to research, buy and maintain the phone, and they might not want any other phone.</p>

<p>I can foresee that Samsung might be liable civilly for more than just the amount of the refund for those customers that want more than a simple refund. But it probably would not be worth it to pursue Samsung.</p>

united-states property