This will be the mobile phone industry's “Chernobyl” event?
The Chicago Tribune commissioned the relevant bodies of smartphone radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation levels were investigated, the results of the display section of the smartphone radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation is undesirable. Then, Apple and Samsung Electronics due to mobile phone radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation damage and related issues by the US consumer collective litigation.
The proceedings originated in the Chicago Tribune survey.
The Chicago Tribune in California San Marcos city hired an RF Exposure lab. RF Exposure is the United States Federal Communications Commission's approval of recognized testing laboratories testing 11 different kinds of radio-frequency radiation mobile phone model.
Wherein, the test phone comprises of four Apple iPhones, three Samsung Galaxy mobile phone, three Motorola Moto mobile phone and a Blu-ray the Vivo phone, and all of these phones are in-store, online or through the phone operator purchase. The head of the laboratory stated that all testing is in accordance with the FCC.
The test results show, including the iPhone 7, iPhone 8, iPhone X and the nearest Galaxy smartphone models, including the mobile phone RF radiation exceeds the federally mandated limit.
Then, Apple a result of this objection. Apple issued a statement saying the test set does not meet the correct assessment of the iPhone model of the desired program, so the test is inaccurate. And it also said including the iPhone 7, including all iPhone models, all of which got the FCC and other sales iPhone the national comprehensive certification.
Not only that, Apple also added, in a careful review and verification report test of all the iPhone models, Apple confirms the associated equipment complies with all applicable electromagnetic radiation exposure guidelines and restrictions. Coincidentally, Samsung also said in the US sales of Samsung devices in line with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission regulations, is based on the entire industry using the same test Protocol for the test.
For this, the FCC spokesperson to respond, they are very concerned about anything that does not comply with the RF radiation standard as a result, while they will achieve these through the test phone, and in the next few months to test, to learn whether compliance with FCC standards.
Following the report, the lawsuits pour in.
Although the mobile phone manufacturers to report the results of the explanations, the American consumer is not able to accept. According to foreign media reports, many consumers to the United States Northern District of California Federal district court submitted a complaint, said Apple and Samsung Electronics Design and manufacturing smartphone the release of radiofrequency radiation than the United States government, the FCC specified levels.
The lawsuit filed as a class action, the relevant consumers, including the iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8 and iPhone X the owner, and the Samsung Galaxy S8 and Galaxy Note 8 mobile phone of the owner, etc., can be added to the proceedings, the requirements of the claim.
The plaintiff noted that the two companies smartphone marketing material there is a problem, but claiming that their phones comply with regulatory provisions, and not only that, the two companies are not on the high radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation may have on health the negative impact of issuing a consumer warning.
It is noteworthy that, in the indictment mentioned, the RF electromagnetic radiation on the human body caused by effects, including increased cancer risk, cellular communication stress, the harmful free radicals that cause the genetic damage, reproductive system structure and function changes, learning and memory defects, neurological disorders, etc. In this regard, the plaintiff requested the court for violation of an injunction, the relevant manufacturers to consumers to provide compensation for damages, including medical monitoring expenses, damages and illegally obtained income.
It is worth mentioning that, in this time of collective proceedings, the plaintiff attorney is Fegan Scott LLP, the firm had previously worked on this event.