One line of fine print sits near the center of the new Samsung Mini LED TV lawsuit. According to the complaint, a Samsung ad for its 2026 M Series describes the TVs’ “Supreme Mini LED Dimming” as “software-based (not full-array hardware-based).” The plaintiff says that line gives the game away: the M70H, M80H and M90H, sold under a Mini LED name, allegedly have an ordinary LED backlight with no local dimming at all. Samsung has not responded in court, no class has been certified, and nothing can be claimed.
Status: lawsuit filed September 22, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey | No settlement — nothing to claim yet
What “Mini LED” Is Supposed to Mean
The case turns on a definition, and the complaint takes it from Samsung. It says Samsung’s own Mini LED vs. QLED buying guide describes Mini LED as a backlight made of many small LEDs split into zones that can be dimmed independently. That independent dimming, usually called local dimming, is what lets a screen keep dark areas dark while bright areas stay bright.
The plaintiff alleges the M Series has neither part of that definition: no smaller LEDs and no separately controlled zones. On that account the entire backlight brightens and dims as a single unit, as an entry-level LED TV’s does. The complaint does not claim the TVs are broken or unsafe. It claims they were sold as something they are not.
The Evidence the Complaint Lines Up
The filing leans on outside testing and teardowns rather than on Samsung documents alone. Three pieces carry most of the weight:
- Teardowns. Based on published teardown comparisons, the complaint alleges the M70H uses the same two strips of standard-size LEDs, the same processor and the same series wiring as Samsung’s entry-level Crystal UHD TV.
- Lab reviews. It cites RTINGS’ M70H review and M80H review, which it says found no local dimming in either model.
- Brightness testing. It cites a TechRadar side-by-side that it says measured the M80H’s peak HDR brightness at about 252–259 nits, compared with roughly 1,150 nits for Samsung’s Neo QLED QN80H.
Each of these is the plaintiff’s characterization of the sources. Samsung has not answered the complaint, and a court has not weighed any of this evidence.
The Price Gap at the Heart of the Damages Claim
The complaint frames the alleged harm as a price premium. It compares two 85-inch Samsung TVs as listed at Best Buy:
| Model | Listed price | Backlight, as the complaint describes it |
| 85-inch M70H | $999.99 | Ordinary LED, no local dimming |
| 85-inch QN80H (Neo QLED) | $3,299.99 | True full-array Mini LED with local dimming |
The argument is that the Mini LED name let Samsung present the cheaper line as a bargain within the premium Mini LED category. Buyers, the plaintiff says, paid for a technology they did not get. The damages sought are measured by that price premium or the lost value of the TV.
Who Is in the Proposed Class
The named plaintiff is a California buyer of an 85-inch M70H. The complaint proposes:
- A nationwide class of everyone in the United States who bought a new Samsung M70H, M80H or M90H Series television, in any screen size, from January 1, 2026 to the present.
- A California subclass of those who bought one in California.
Two groups are excluded: people who bought for resale, and people who already received a full refund. Neo QLED models are outside the case. These definitions are proposals only; the court has not certified any class.
The Legal Claims
For the nationwide class, the complaint pleads fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment. The California subclass adds claims under three state consumer laws: the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law and the Unfair Competition Law.
The relief requested includes damages measured by the price premium or lost value, restitution, punitive damages on the fraud claim, and an injunction that would bar Samsung from marketing the M Series as Mini LED and require corrective disclosures. The Consumers Legal Remedies Act count currently seeks only an injunction, not money.
Case Details
| Case | Flores v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. |
| Case number | 2:26-cv-12502-ES-CF |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, where Samsung’s U.S. headquarters is located |
| Filed | September 22, 2026 |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. |
What Happens Next for M Series Owners
Samsung has not yet filed a response. The usual sequence is a motion to dismiss or an answer, then discovery, then, if the case survives, a motion for class certification. That process usually takes a long time, and the case could be narrowed or dismissed along the way.
There is nothing for TV owners to file. Keeping the receipt or order confirmation costs nothing and could help if a settlement ever asks for proof of purchase. The lawsuit does not give anyone a right to return a TV; that still depends on the store’s or Samsung’s return policy. The OpenClassActions.com Samsung Mini LED lawsuit page embeds the full complaint and will track the case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a Samsung Mini LED TV settlement?
No. Flores v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. was filed on September 22, 2026 and is at the complaint stage. There is no settlement, no certified class and no claim form. Any money would come only from a future settlement or judgment, which would set its own claim process.
Which Samsung TVs are part of the lawsuit?
The 2026 M Series: the M70H, M80H and M90H, in every screen size, bought new in the United States since January 1, 2026. Samsung’s Neo QLED models such as the QN80H are not part of the case; the complaint describes them as TVs that do have Mini LED backlights with local dimming.
Is the lawsuit saying the TVs are broken?
No. The complaint does not claim the TVs are defective or unsafe. It alleges they were misdescribed as Mini LED televisions when they use an ordinary LED backlight without local dimming.
Can I return my M70H or M80H because of the lawsuit?
The lawsuit does not create a return right. Returns depend on the retailer’s or Samsung’s own return policy. The proposed class excludes buyers who already received a full refund of the purchase price.
What should I keep if I bought one?
Nothing has to be filed, but a receipt, order confirmation or retailer purchase record is worth keeping. The complaint says buyers could be identified through Samsung and retailer records along with receipts, and any settlement would set its own proof rules.
Sources
- Class action complaint, Flores v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-12502-ES-CF (D.N.J., filed September 22, 2026), ECF No. 1 (PDF)
- RTINGS, Samsung M70H review and M80H review, as cited in the complaint
- Samsung, Mini LED vs. QLED buying guide, as cited in the complaint
- OpenClassActions.com: Samsung Mini LED TV Class Action Says M70H, M80H and M90H Lack Mini LED Backlights
Source and credit: this report builds on our sister site’s coverage — OpenClassActions.com: Samsung Mini LED TV Class Action Says M70H, M80H and M90H Lack Mini LED Backlights — which follows the case and is updated as new filings, orders and payment news come in.
Legal Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. OpenClassActions.org is a consumer news site, not a law firm, and is not affiliated with any party to the matters described. Allegations are allegations until a court rules on them, and court schedules and outcomes can change.