What Samsung’s Marketing Did to Real People

Anthony Ray Gonzalez was not trying to run a marathon or become a fitness influencer. He was a man dealing with sleep apnea — a condition that quietly stops your breathing while you sleep — and he wanted a tool to help him understand what was happening to his body at night. Samsung handed him exactly that tool, wrapped in the language of health, wellness, and safety. Their website told him the Galaxy Watch was designed to “improve sleep,” “guide consumers through healthier sleeping patterns,” and “help track progress.” Their Vice President of Digital Health called Samsung “a changing force in consumers’ health.” Their global marketing campaign invited him, personally, to “start your wellness journey.”

So he bought it. A Samsung Galaxy Watch 6, $270, at Sam’s Club in El Monte, California, on December 10, 2023. He strapped it to his wrist every night, as Samsung told him to do, monitor-side down against the inside of his wrist — the thin-skinned, vein-rich underside where Samsung’s sensors could best read his body. He trusted the company. He had no reason not to.

He wore it nearly all day, every day. After several weeks, he developed a burning rash at the exact site where the band pressed against his skin.

The lawsuit does not describe the rash in clinical terms. It does not need to. A man with a serious respiratory condition, who turned to a health company for help, ended up with a chemical injury on his body from the device that was supposed to protect his health. That is the transaction Samsung made with him. That is what their “wellness journey” delivered.

Gonzalez is one person. The class action he filed represents tens of thousands of people across the United States — and potentially many more — who wore these same bands on their wrists, including overnight, in good faith, believing Samsung’s repeated promises about health and safety. They are people who care about what goes into their bodies. The complaint notes that 92% of smartwatch users buy them specifically to track and improve their health. These are health-conscious consumers who chose Samsung because Samsung looked them in the eye — through every advertisement, every product page, every health-platform integration — and said: we care about your body. We designed this for you.

The compound found in Samsung’s bands, perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA), does not wash off your skin in the shower. Once PFAS enter the bloodstream, they bind to proteins and accumulate in tissues. The human body has no natural mechanism to flush them out on a reasonable timeline. They are, in the truest sense of the phrase, forever chemicals. Every day Gonzalez wore that watch while Samsung stayed silent about what was in it, the exposure compounded. The scientific record — from the EPA, the CDC, the WHO’s cancer agency, and dozens of peer-reviewed studies — is unambiguous about where that leads: cancer risk, immune suppression, thyroid damage, liver disease, reproductive harm.

Samsung knew or should have known all of this. PFAS absorption through the skin has been documented in scientific literature since at least 2011. The company had exclusive control over what material it used for its bands. Alternatives — silicone, recycled yarn as used by Google’s Pixel Watch, standard silicone as used by Fitbit — were available and in use by competitors. Samsung chose fluoroelastomer anyway, priced its bands in the “expensive” tier, slapped wellness branding on top, and said nothing about what was inside.

The people who bought these bands were not sold a product that merely underperformed. They were sold a product whose entire marketing identity was built on a lie about the one thing they cared about most: their health.

Samsung’s Own Words vs. What Was Actually in the Band

The following are verbatim statements pulled directly from Samsung’s marketing and from the class action complaint. These are the representations Samsung made to consumers, followed by what the science and the lawsuit say was actually true.

“Start your wellness journey.”
— Samsung, samsung.com/us/watches/ (accessed Dec. 27, 2024)

• This tagline appeared on the primary Samsung watches landing page and served as the entry point for consumers researching health-focused wearables. It positioned the watch band — the product later confirmed to contain toxic PFAS — as a tool for personal health improvement.
• The complaint argues this statement, combined with Samsung’s broader health marketing ecosystem, created a reasonable consumer expectation that the product was free from harmful chemicals. That expectation was false.

“Galaxy Watch Active2’s straps are made of a flexible fluoroelastomer that’s gentle on the wrist.”
— Samsung product page for Sport Band

• Samsung used the phrase “gentle on the wrist” as a direct reassurance about skin safety. This claim appeared on the specific product that independent testing later confirmed contains elevated levels of PFAS.
• The word “gentle” in this context is not a vague marketing flourish. It is a specific claim about the band’s interaction with the human body. The scientific study found median PFHxA concentrations of 773 ng/g in the exact category of bands this product falls into — described by the lawsuit as “very high in comparison to other recent studies.”

“[The D-Buckle Hybrid Eco-Leather Band] contains a blend of FKM and material partially derived from plant-based sources, making it both durable and environmentally conscious.”
— Samsung Galaxy Watch D-Buckle Hybrid Eco-Leather Band product page

• FKM is fluoroelastomer — the exact material identified as the source of elevated PFAS contamination in Samsung’s watch bands. Samsung chose to describe this material as “environmentally conscious” on its most expensive affected band ($79.99).
• The complaint documents that PFAS from products like this contaminate wastewater during manufacturing, washing, and disposal; cannot be removed by conventional water treatment; migrate into soil and groundwater; contaminate crops through biosolid fertilizer application; and persist in ecosystems for over 1,000 years. The “environmentally conscious” claim is documented in the lawsuit as demonstrably false.

“We don’t stop at ‘good enough’, because we care about our customers and employees’ health and their environments[.] We strive to minimize any potential adverse effects on the health of our customers, employees, or to the environment that may arise from products containing hazardous substances or chemicals used at our manufacturing sites[.] Reduc[e] the use of hazardous substances for the health of our customers and employees.”
— Samsung, Sustainability in Operations page

• This statement was part of Samsung’s public sustainability commitment — the same platform where Samsung promoted EPEAT and UL ECOLOGO certifications. It is not a throwaway tagline; it is a corporate promise about how Samsung manages chemical hazards in its products.
• The lawsuit directly contradicts each part of this claim: Samsung did not minimize adverse health effects from hazardous substances; it introduced a specific hazardous substance (PFAS) into a product designed for prolonged daily skin contact. Samsung did not reduce hazardous substances; it chose fluoroelastomer over available PFAS-free alternatives including silicone and recycled yarn.
• The complaint establishes that Samsung had exclusive control over material selection and that this choice provided Samsung with an unfair competitive advantage over companies that used safer materials without making equivalent health claims.

“The median concentration for samples with detectable PFHxA, 773 ng/g, is very high in comparison to other recent studies, which, combined, had observed PFHxA concentrations up to 199 ng/g.”
— Wicks, Whitehead, and Peaslee, Environmental Science & Technology Letters, Dec. 18, 2024

“Samsung’s desire to be a changing force in consumers’ health.”
— Dr. Hon Pak, Vice President and Head of Digital Health Team, Mobile eXperience Business, Samsung Electronics

• This statement, attributed to a named Samsung executive, elevated the company’s health commitments from marketing copy to a stated corporate mission. The lawsuit uses this as evidence that Samsung’s health positioning was deliberate, pervasive, and came from the highest levels of the company’s product division.
• The same division that promoted this mission oversaw the Galaxy Watch product line — the line at the center of this lawsuit. The lawsuit argues this executive-level messaging makes it implausible that Samsung was unaware of the health implications of the chemicals in its bands.

The Scale of Harm: Health, Economy, and Environment

Public Health

PFAS from Samsung’s watch bands enter the body through direct skin absorption, particularly accelerated by the thin skin and elevated temperature on the underside of the wrist. The documented health consequences span every major organ system.

• Cancer risk is directly tied to PFAS exposure. PFOA, one of the most studied PFAS compounds, is listed on California’s Proposition 65 registry as a chemical that “causes cancer” and “causes birth defects or other reproductive harm.” For each unit increase in PFOA exposure, the risk of testicular cancer increases by 34% and the risk of kidney cancer increases by 10%, per peer-reviewed research cited in the complaint.
• The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer declared PFAS a “possible human carcinogen” in 2017, based on documented correlations with kidney and testicular cancers in highly exposed populations.
• The CDC’s biomonitoring studies found that four PFAS compounds are likely present in the blood of nearly every American, a figure the Environmental Working Group argues understates actual contamination levels.
• Immune system damage is documented even at low exposure levels. Children with higher PFAS exposure show weaker immune responses to vaccinations and suffer more frequent childhood infections. This means Samsung’s bands worn by parents could affect not just the wearer but the health environment of their children.
• PFAS cause endocrine disruption, interfering with the body’s natural hormone cycles. Disruption to thyroid hormones — which govern cardiovascular health, fertility, metabolism, and fetal brain development — has been specifically documented in both pregnant mothers and their newborns.
• Reproductive harm is extensive. PFAS reduce fertility in both men and women, cause high blood pressure in pregnant women, are associated with low birth weight and infant mortality, accumulate in placentas, and produce behavioral changes in children exposed in utero.
• Liver disease risk increases with PFAS blood levels. A national health survey concluded that elevated PFAS concentrations increase risk of fatty liver disease and worsen overall liver function, raising the risk of chronic liver disease.
• Cholesterol disruption is measurable and significant. The CDC’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that individuals in the highest quartile of PFOS exposure had cholesterol levels 13.4 mg/dL higher than those in the lowest quartile, across participants aged 12 to 80.
• The smartwatch usage pattern amplifies all of these risks. The average smartwatch user wears their device for 11 hours per day; many wear it over 12 hours, including overnight. Samsung explicitly directed users to wear the watch during sleep. This means continuous PFAS skin exposure for the duration of a person’s sleep cycle — every night, compounding indefinitely.

“PFAS present an immediate health risk to consumers, and over time, that risk only grows as the PFAS accumulate in consumers’ bodies.”
— Gonzalez v. Samsung Electronics America, Case No. 2:24-cv-11234

Economic Inequality

This scandal does not distribute its harm evenly. The financial and health burdens fall hardest on the people least equipped to bear them.

• Samsung priced the affected bands between $30 and $79.99. These are not luxury items for the ultra-wealthy; they sit in the accessible-premium range specifically targeting working and middle-class consumers who want health-tracking technology. These buyers trusted Samsung’s wellness branding because they had no independent means to test for PFAS in their watch bands.
• The health consequences of PFAS exposure — cancer, liver disease, reproductive harm, immune dysfunction — are expensive to treat. Consumers who develop these conditions while wearing Samsung’s bands bear the full cost of that harm, while Samsung retains the profits from selling the bands. The lawsuit seeks disgorgement of those ill-gotten profits.
• The $50 billion global smartwatch market runs on the premise that health-conscious consumers will pay a premium for devices that support their wellbeing. Samsung exploited that premium by making health claims it knew or should have known were incompatible with its product’s chemical composition, extracting a price markup consumers would not have paid had they known the truth.
• Competitors who chose safer materials — Google, Fitbit — did so without the ability to make equivalent wellness claims while also hiding a toxic ingredient. Samsung’s deception gave it an unfair competitive advantage over companies that acted responsibly. The market rewarded the liar and penalized the honest competitors.
• Consumers with limited resources who cannot easily swap out a $50-$80 watch band faced a Hobson’s choice: continue wearing a product they’d already paid for, or absorb a loss and purchase a replacement from a safer brand. Many had no realistic way to make that switch. The people least able to absorb product replacement costs faced the longest exposure windows.

Environmental Degradation

PFAS from Samsung’s watch bands do not stay on the wrist. They enter the broader environment through every stage of the product’s lifecycle, from manufacturing to disposal.

• PFAS are released into water systems during the manufacturing process. The complaint cites a documented case where a fluorochemical facility discharged PFAS-laden wastewater into the Cape Fear River in North Carolina, resulting in detectable PFAS in blood samples from Wilmington residents, as well as PFAS contamination in striped bass and American alligators. Wildlife studies found PFAS to be immune toxicants in both species.
• Conventional wastewater treatment plants cannot remove PFAS. When consumers wash their watch bands or when bands eventually reach landfill, PFAS leach into runoff, enter lakes and streams, and contaminate groundwater. The complaint cites that PFAS from sewage sludge, recycled as agricultural fertilizer, enable crops to absorb the chemicals, introducing them into the food chain through biomagnification.
• Under normal environmental conditions, some PFAS take over 1,000 years to degrade. Every band Samsung has sold that contains these chemicals represents a contamination vector that will persist for generations in whatever ecosystem it enters.
• PFAS are absorbed by plants through contaminated irrigation water, industrial emissions, landfill leachate, and pesticide application. This means PFAS contamination from products like Samsung’s bands can spread from disposal sites into agricultural systems and ultimately into food consumed by people who never wore a Samsung watch.
• Samsung marketed the D-Buckle Hybrid Eco-Leather Band — its most expensive affected product at $79.99 — specifically as “environmentally conscious.” The UL ECOLOGO certification Samsung claimed for its Galaxy Watch 3 through 7 series explicitly requires the use of safe materials that do not cause harm to people or the environment. Both claims are directly contradicted by the documented environmental persistence and contamination pathways of PFAS.

The Price Tag on Samsung’s Choice

Who Is Accountable and What You Can Do About It

This lawsuit is active. The class has not yet been certified, discovery has not concluded, and no judgment has been issued. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. — headquartered at 85 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey — continues to sell the affected products. These are the corporate roles and structures driving the decisions at issue: the company’s Vice President and Head of Digital Health Team (identified in the complaint as Dr. Hon Pak), the marketing leadership responsible for the “wellness journey” campaign, and the product manufacturing teams who selected fluoroelastomer over PFAS-free alternatives.

Regulatory Watchlist

• EPA (Environmental Protection Agency): The EPA has proposed maximum contaminant level rules for PFAS in drinking water. They are the primary federal body with authority to regulate PFAS in consumer products and manufacturing. File a consumer complaint at epa.gov/pfas.
• FTC (Federal Trade Commission): Samsung’s “environmentally conscious” and wellness marketing claims are potential targets for FTC enforcement under its Green Guides, which prohibit deceptive environmental marketing. File a report at reportfraud.ftc.gov.
• CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission): The CPSC has jurisdiction over unreasonable hazards in consumer products. A product designed for prolonged daily skin contact that contains a confirmed carcinogen at 4x previously documented levels is within scope. Report at saferproducts.gov.
• California OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment): PFOA is already listed on California’s Proposition 65 registry. Consumers in California can file reports regarding products that may require Prop 65 warnings through OEHHA.
• DOJ (Department of Justice): The complaint alleges fraud, fraudulent concealment, and fraudulent misrepresentation. Federal fraud enforcement falls within DOJ jurisdiction when corporate misconduct crosses state lines, as it does here with a nationwide product line.

Mutual Aid, Organizing, and Resistance

• If you purchased any of the six named products: The Clarkson Law Firm (clarksonlawfirm.com) filed this lawsuit and represents the proposed class. Contact them to understand your rights as a potential class member. You do not need to have developed symptoms to have a valid claim — the lawsuit seeks recovery for the price premium paid for a falsely advertised product.
• Stop wearing the affected bands immediately. The six named products are the Galaxy Watch Fluoroelastomer Band, Sport Band (20mm), Sport T-Buckle Band, Rugged Sport Band, Extreme Sport T-Buckle Band, and D-Buckle Hybrid Eco-Leather Band. Replace with a silicone or recycled-material band confirmed to be PFAS-free.
• Pressure Samsung through consumer channels: Samsung operates under significant reputational pressure from its health-brand positioning. Public reviews on retail platforms, social media documentation of this case, and direct contact with Samsung customer service — referencing Case No. 2:24-cv-11234 — create documented record of consumer awareness that is useful in class litigation.
• Support PFAS-free product standards: Organizations including the Environmental Working Group (ewg.org) and Toxic-Free Future (toxicfreefuture.org) campaign for PFAS elimination in consumer products. Supporting their work and sharing their resources builds the infrastructure that makes the next lawsuit unnecessary.
• Demand PFAS disclosure on wearable technology: No federal law currently requires PFAS disclosure on consumer electronics or watch bands. Contact your congressional representatives and ask them to support legislation requiring chemical disclosure on wearable devices, particularly those marketed with health claims.