FTC's Samsung penalty revives questions over regulatory consistency

The Fair Trade Commission imposed a tentative fine of around 20 billion won on Samsung Electronics in South Korea on Tuesday over allegedly deceptive advertising for its Galaxy devices’ gaming performance. The penalty concerns ads for the Galaxy S21 and S22 series and Galaxy Tab S8 that did not disclose performance restrictions linked to the game optimizing service. The case has drawn questions about the timing of the FTC’s action after consumer claims and related lawsuits were withdrawn, although the regulator can pursue administrative action independently. Samsung disputes the deceptive-advertising finding, while the FTC says its four-year review was needed to verify technical issues.

The FTC ordered Samsung to stop similar advertising, saying it promoted gaming capabilities without disclosing GOS-related restrictions.

Samsung released a software update in March 2022 to address user complaints about GOS.

A lower court dismissed consumers’ damage claims, and the Seoul High Court said Samsung’s advertising was difficult to classify as deceptive in a compulsory mediation decision.

None of the 1,690 plaintiffs and participating consumers challenged the mediation decision, which became final in March.

FTC Chairman Ju Biung-ghi said fines for obstructing investigations should reach around one percent of a company’s sales.

Published Oct 28, 2026 3:35 pm KST

Antitrust watchdog's belated Samsung sanction risks undermining regulatory credibility: expert

Samsung Electronics' Galaxy S21 flagship smartphone series / Courtesy of Samsung Electronics

The Fair Trade Commission's (FTC) latest sanction against Samsung Electronics is reviving questions over the consistency of its enforcement, as controversy persists over the timing and validity of the penalty.

The dispute came shortly after the antitrust watchdog imposed a tentative fine of around 20 billion won ($15 million) on Samsung, Tuesday, for allegedly deceptive advertising related to its smart devices’ game optimizing service (GOS), which regulates processor performance to control heat and battery consumption during demanding gaming sessions.

The regulator ordered Samsung to stop similar advertising, saying the company promoted the gaming capabilities of its flagship Galaxy S21 and S22 smartphone series and Galaxy Tab S8 tablets without disclosing GOS-related performance restrictions.

The controversy dates back to 2022, when users accused Samsung of overstating gaming performance while restricting device capabilities through GOS. The company released a software update in March that year to address the complaints.

The move, however, has raised doubts, as it came after the controversy appeared to have been resolved through software updates and the withdrawal of legal complaints. Industry and legal observers have questioned why the FTC reopened the matter years after the original dispute, particularly when no court has ruled Samsung legally liable for the alleged misconduct.

Choi June-sun, professor emeritus at Sungkyunkwan University Law School, said it is “highly unusual” for such a case to take four years to complete legal reviews.

“Even cases involving complex technical issues and legal reviews typically take around three years to reach the Supreme Court these days,” Choi explained.

“Companies would understandably be taken aback and question whether this case warranted such a lengthy process. Pursuing the case this late could undermine companies’ trust in the policy authorities.”

Last year, a lower court dismissed consumers’ damage claims, finding insufficient grounds to conclude that they had suffered losses.

The Seoul High Court also issued a compulsory mediation decision, saying Samsung’s advertising was difficult to classify as deceptive. The court noted that device performance depends on multiple factors, including heat management, battery life and frame rates rather than processor clock speeds alone.

Fair Trade Commission Chairman Ju Biung-ghi speaks during an annual audit at the National Assembly in Seoul, Oct. 21. Yonhap

None of the 1,690 plaintiffs and participating consumers challenged the mediation decision, which became final in March. The complainants subsequently withdrew their FTC complaints, while lawsuits in the United States and Israel also ended through withdrawals.

However, such developments do not legally prevent the FTC from pursuing administrative action. The regulator can independently determine whether advertising misled consumers, regardless of whether individual buyers established grounds for compensation.

Samsung argues GOS is an optimization feature designed to improve users’ gaming experience, so the company cannot accept the decision to classify its advertising as deceptive on the grounds that it did not disclose the specific details of how the optimization feature operates.

Samsung’s legal representative, Jipyong LLC, argued that the software was designed to maintain smooth gameplay in a limited number of titles that generated excessive heat, making it difficult to characterize the feature as inherently deceptive.

An FTC official, however, defended the lengthy process, saying the case required years of review to be thorough.

“Although the incident occurred in 2022, it took us four years to verify the technical issues and establish grounds for imposing a fine on Samsung Electronics for deceptive advertising,” the official said.

The penalty also comes amid mounting scrutiny of the FTC’s tougher enforcement stance toward major companies, including Coupang and Hanwha. The regulator is showing clear signs of expanding its punitive approach to the nation's business circle, backed President Lee Jae Myung's strong regulatory stance.

FTC Chairman Ju Biung-ghi recently said that fines for obstructing investigations should reach around one percent of a company's sales to improve enforcement effectiveness.

FTC’s costly crackdown on conglomerates generates little return

FTC to slap $15.1 mil. fine on Samsung Electronics for misleading gaming ads

韩国公平交易委员会周二对三星电子处以约200亿韩元的暂定罚款，原因是该公司涉嫌就其Galaxy系列设备的游戏性能进行虚假宣传。此次罚款涉及Galaxy S21和S22系列以及Galaxy Tab S8的广告，这些广告未披露与游戏优化服务相关的性能限制。尽管消费者投诉和相关诉讼均已撤回，但该监管机构仍可独立采取行政措施，因此，在消费者撤诉后，公平交易委员会的这一决定引发了人们对时机的质疑。三星否认存在虚假宣传，而公平交易委员会则表示，其历时四年的审查是为了核实技术问题。

美国联邦贸易委员会 (FTC) 责令三星停止类似广告宣传，称其在宣传游戏功能时没有披露与 GOS 相关的限制。

三星于 2022 年 3 月发布了软件更新，以解决用户对 GOS 的投诉。

下级法院驳回了消费者的损害赔偿请求，首尔高等法院在强制调解裁决中表示，三星的广告很难被认定为欺骗性广告。

1690 名原告和参与的消费者中，无人对调解决定提出异议，该决定于 3 月份生效。

美国公平交易委员会主席朱炳基表示，妨碍调查的罚款应达到公司销售额的百分之一左右。

发布于2026年10月28日下午3:35（韩国标准时间）

专家称，反垄断监管机构对三星的迟来制裁可能损害监管公信力。

三星电子Galaxy S21旗舰智能手机系列 / 图片由三星电子提供

公平交易委员会（FTC）对三星电子的最新制裁再次引发了人们对其执法一致性的质疑，因为关于处罚的时机和有效性的争议仍然存在。

就在不久前，反垄断监管机构周二对三星处以约 200 亿韩元（1500 万美元）的暂定罚款，原因是三星涉嫌就其智能设备的游戏优化服务 (GOS) 进行欺骗性广告宣传。该服务可以调节处理器性能，以在高强度游戏过程中控制发热量和电池消耗。

监管机构命令三星停止类似的广告宣传，称该公司在宣传其旗舰 Galaxy S21 和 S22 系列智能手机以及 Galaxy Tab S8 平板电脑的游戏功能时，没有披露与 GOS 相关的性能限制。

这场争议可以追溯到2022年，当时用户指责三星夸大游戏性能，同时通过GOS系统限制设备功能。该公司于同年3月发布了软件更新以解决这些投诉。

然而，此举引发了质疑，因为此前这场争议似乎已通过软件更新和撤回法律诉讼得到解决。业内人士和法律界人士质疑，为何联邦贸易委员会在最初纠纷发生数年后重启此案，尤其是在没有任何法院裁定三星对所谓的违规行为负有法律责任的情况下。

成均馆大学法学院名誉教授崔俊善表示，此类案件耗时四年完成法律审查“非常不寻常”。

“如今，即使是涉及复杂技术问题和法律审查的案件，通常也需要大约三年时间才能到达最高法院，”崔解释说。

“企业对此感到震惊并质疑此案是否值得耗时如此之久，这是可以理解的。在如此晚的时候才提起诉讼可能会削弱企业对政策制定机构的信任。”

去年，下级法院驳回了消费者的损害赔偿请求，认为没有足够的证据证明他们遭受了损失。

首尔高等法院也发布了强制调解裁决，称三星的广告难以被认定为欺骗性广告。法院指出，设备性能取决于多种因素，包括散热管理、电池续航时间和帧速率，而不仅仅是处理器时钟频率。

10月21日，公平交易委员会委员长朱炳基在首尔国会举行的年度审计会议上发表讲话。（韩联社）

1690名原告和参与消费者中无人对调解裁决提出异议，该裁决于3月生效。随后，投诉人撤回了向联邦贸易委员会提出的投诉，而美国和以色列的诉讼也因撤诉而终止。

然而，此类事态发展并不妨碍联邦贸易委员会采取行政措施。无论个别买家是否提出赔偿理由，监管机构均可独立裁定广告是否误导消费者。

三星辩称，GOS 是一项旨在改善用户游戏体验的优化功能，因此该公司无法接受将其广告定性为欺骗性广告的决定，理由是该公司没有披露该优化功能的具体运作细节。

三星的法律代表 Jipyong LLC 辩称，该软件旨在维持少数会产生过热的游戏的流畅运行，因此很难将该功能定性为本质上具有欺骗性。

然而，联邦贸易委员会的一位官员为这一漫长的程序辩护，称该案件需要数年的审查才能彻底解决。

“虽然这起事件发生在 2022 年，但我们花了四年时间才核实技术问题，并找到了对三星电子进行虚假广告宣传处以罚款的理由，”该官员表示。

此次处罚正值外界对美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）针对包括Coupang和韩华在内的大型企业采取更严厉的执法立场日益关注之际。监管机构已明显显露出将惩罚措施扩大至韩国商界的迹象，而李在明总统也支持其强硬的监管立场。

美国联邦贸易委员会主席朱炳基最近表示，为提高执法效率，对妨碍调查行为的罚款应达到公司销售额的百分之一左右。

联邦贸易委员会对企业集团耗资巨大的打击行动收效甚微。

美国联邦贸易委员会将对三星电子处以1510万美元罚款，原因是其游戏广告存在误导性。