Despite the hearing loss claim after the earbud “exploded”, Samsung insists it’s just “deformed.”
Samsung is under fire after a user said their Galaxy Buds FE blew up while being used, supposedly causing permanent hearing damage. This claim came from a Turkish user’s post on the Samsung Community forum, talking about an incident with their new wireless headphones.
Samsung’s response? A firm denial, chalking it up to external factors.
So, who’s telling the truth? Let’s go through all the details of the claims to find out.
The User’s Side of the Story
The alleged incident came to light through a Samsung community forum post. The OP, who is from Adana, Turkey, claimed that his brand new, never-been-charged Galaxy Buds FE exploded while being used by his girlfriend.
The post, when translated, said the headphones were only 36% charged when his girlfriend borrowed them. Within moments, the left earbud discharged, leaving her with serious hearing damage.
The OP claims to have extensive documentation of the incident. This includes the invoice, the date of the explosion, before and after images of the earbud, and the doctor’s report confirming hearing loss due to the explosion.
He also stated that this situation has been ongoing for months, suggesting a prolonged dispute with Samsung.
Images shared in the original post show significant damage to the left earbud, which appeared burnt or melted at the tip. But the whole device wasn’t completely ruined, making some people wonder if it really happened as described.
Samsung’s Denial
After the incident, a Samsung representative named İbrahim told the OP to take the earbuds to the Adana Cemalpaşa Samsung Technical Service.
The user said the staff initially seemed surprised by the condition of the earbud. Two days later, Samsung informed the OP that the earbud had not exploded but had just been “deformed” due to external factors.
Still, the company offered a replacement pair of earbuds as a gesture of goodwill.
Samsung’s official statement emphasized that their investigation found no evidence of an explosion:
“Samsung takes customer safety seriously. A thorough investigation into the incident has revealed that external factors were solely responsible for the occurrence.”
Unhappy with Samsung’s response, the user rejected the company’s offer of a replacement pair of Galaxy Buds FE. According to him, Samsung ignored the problem and didn’t offer real help.
In response, Samsung added that the couple could take their case to court if unsatisfied with this solution.
So, Who’s Telling the Truth?
While the user stands by their claim, there are several aspects of the story that raise questions about its plausibility.
Let’s examine the key points that cast doubt on the user’s version of events:
- Nature of the damage: The images show significant damage to the earbud’s tip, which appears burnt or melted. This doesn’t align with typical battery explosion damage, which would likely be more extensive and affect the entire device, not just the tip.
- Location of the damage: The battery in these earbuds is typically located on the opposite side from where the damage is visible in the images.
- Lack of reported physical injuries: Given how bad the explosion was supposed to be (enough to cause lasting hearing loss) it’s weird that there’s no talk of burns, cuts, or other visible injuries to the user’s ear. An explosion powerful enough to cause hearing damage would likely also cause some form of external injury.
- Magnitude of the damage: The electricity from a failed capacitor or battery would be unlikely to travel through the rubber tip of the earbud, where the damage is most visible.
Yet, while these points make us doubt the user’s story, it’s important to remember that no clear proof has come up to completely disprove the claim.
The situation remains a matter of the user’s word against Samsung’s denial and the physical evidence presented.
Another Side of the Coin
YouTuber Louis Rossmann brings an interesting perspective to this issue, in a video about the incident. Here, he focused on how companies use language to describe product problems.
“One of the things I found interesting about this is that there were customers who came to my store with this device, and they said that when they went to the Apple Store, they said it expanded. Then they would say, “No, it exploded,” because they weren’t allowed to use certain words,” Rossmann shared.
“If you work at the Genius Bar, there are certain words you are not allowed to use when speaking to customers, even if they factually represent what is happening to the device.”
Companies often use softer language, like “expanded” instead of “exploded,” to avoid potential legal risks, even if the problem seems worse. By downplaying the severity of the issue, they can limit the perception of danger. This means avoiding lawsuits, product recalls, or bad publicity. Using less alarming terms helps them control the narrative.