Law360, New York (March 03, 2010) – On Feb. 12, 2010, a class action was filed in New Jersey against Panasonic Consumer Electronics Company and Panasonic Corporation, alleging that Panasonic’s “Viera” plasma televisions manufactured in 2008 and 2009 do not retain the same image quality as advertised.
The plaintiffs, a national class of Panasonic “Viera” plasma television owners, are represented by Alabama resident Shane Hughes.
The plaintiffs claim that the televisions’ color detail, depth and tone degrade significantly after less than 400 hours of use. Panasonic markets its Viera plasma televisions as having industry-leading black levels and contrast ratios, which the complaint alleges is false.
Interestingly, in response to an inquiry from news outlet Cnet.com based on reports from affected users, Panasonic issued a statement confirming that it knew about this problem before it marketed and sold the televisions.
Apparently, the problem was due to an “automatic control which adjusts an internal driving voltage at predetermined intervals of operational hours … [and that] as a result of this automatic voltage adjustment, background brightness will increase from its initial value.”
What that means is that Panasonic knew that the picture quality of Viera plasma televisions degrades quickly, so it actually designed the televisions’ minimum luminance levels to automatically increase as the television is used. After less than a year of use, this results in lower contrast ratios and less desirable image quality.
Even though Panasonic knew this, it never disclosed this information to consumers in any fashion. Further, Panasonic has refused to issue refunds or provide replacement televisions to owners of Viera plasma televisions who have reported problems. Panasonic continues to represent that the televisions are functioning properly and as designed.
Even though every plasma television manufactured is designed to adjust “internal driving voltage” in order to maintain overall picture quality, no other company adjusts its televisions’ minimum luminance levels as rapidly and significantly as Panasonic.
The end result is that owners of Panasonic Viera plasma televisions will see the picture quality of their televisions degrade much faster than other plasma televisions, and much faster than advertised by Panasonic.
The question is, why does a multinational company like Panasonic do it? Why would Panasonic put out a product that it knows does not meet the standards it advertises?
In designing televisions that automatically and rapidly raise their minimum luminance levels after less than a year, Panasonic knows that it is providing consumers a product that is substandard. What is even more disconcerting is that by all accounts, Panasonic knew that it was going to get caught.
The plaintiff in the Panasonic class action used an X-rite Eye One Display LT calibration meter and Color HCFR calibration software to determine that the black levels and contrasts ratios on his television had degraded significantly.
For a lay person, that might sound like complex equipment requiring significant training and expertise to master. In fact, it is not. The X-rite meter is actually made for amateur video enthusiasts and costs only a few hundred dollars. Anyone with any interest at all in audio-visuals starts with an X-rite meter or a similar device.
In other words, Panasonic had to know that people like the plaintiff Mr. Hughes were going to determine that Panasonic Viera plasma televisions did not maintain their picture quality as advertised.
The testing that companies like Panasonic do on their televisions, on the other hand, can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The type of equipment required is often proprietary and not available to the public; it is incredibly sensitive to changes in black levels and contrast ratios and can only be operated by skilled personnel with PhDs.
So why does Panasonic manufacture a television when it knows it does not meet its own standards, and further, it knows that inevitably, the public is also going to find out that it is deficient?
Perhaps the cost of fixing the problem is too great? Perhaps the risk of class litigation or of alienating educated customers is not enough of a deterrent? Perhaps Panasonic is hoping that its loyal customers will simply buy the newer, brighter Panasonic technology a few years later?
Now that Panasonic has been sued, perhaps now is the time that the public gets some answers.
–By Richard M. Golomb and Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Golomb & Honik PC
Richard Golomb is a founding partner of Golomb & Honik in the firm’s Philadelphia office. He is also secretary of The American Association of Justice and will become vice president in July, 2010. Kenneth Grunfeld is an associate with the firm in the Philadelphia office.
Golomb & Honik PC is co-lead plaintiff’s counsel in the class action brought against Panasonic Consumer Electronics and Panasonic Corporation of North America filed in the U.S. District for the District of New Jersey.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of Portfolio Media, publisher of Law360.
