CPSC Hails Samsung’s Note7 Recall ‘Energy,’ But Fears Consumers Won’t Listen

At CPSC, “we felt an obligation for U.S. consumers to be able to say with confidence once the recall came out that there was going to be a replacement phone that has a battery that we have assessed, and it’s safer” than the original, Wolfson said. “We reached a point on Thursday when we had that level of confidence, and did not want to wait any longer.”

What tipped CPSC’s confidence that replacement Note7s would be safer than the originals was the work of a staff electrical engineer “who has an extensive amount of experience when it comes to lithium-ion batteries,” Wolfson said. That engineer has a decade or more of background in the writing of lithium-ion-battery safety standards in smartphones, laptops and other consumer devices, he said. “He was able to take time to look at the root-cause analysis and the failure scenario for the SDI-brand battery” used in the recalled Note7s, “and what changes were made with the new supplier of the new battery,” he said of Samsung SDI, the sister subsidiary where Samsung Electronics sourced the battery. CPSC and Samsung haven't disclosed the manufacturer of the replacement batteries.

It was only after “he had done his assessment that the rest of us felt comfortable moving forward to announce the recall,” Wolfson said of the engineer he wouldn't identify for fear he would be inundated with phone calls and emails. The engineer is “widely known in the battery industry” and works at CPSC’s National Product Testing and Evaluation Center in Rockville, Maryland, Wolfson said.

Though Kaye had harsh words at the news conference for Samsung’s original decision to go it alone on a Note7 recall without CPSC’s involvement, Wolfson hailed Samsung’s level of cooperation once it engaged with the agency on a comprehensive recall effort. “There was constant communication between our staff and theirs” in the days before the recall announcement, Wolfson said of Samsung. “They took key steps to help us reach that point of feeling confident that the time was right to announce a joint recall. There was a lot of information-sharing between our agency and the company. They have a robust plan at this point to get the word out to consumers to carry out the recall. That is where our focus is at the moment -- making sure that this recall is as effective as possible.”

It’s “of deep concern” to CPSC that the “general warning to the public” the agency put out Sept. 9 to power down any Note7 devices and not recharge them (see 1609120044) went largely unheeded, Wolfson said, citing incident reports that kept flowing into the commission after the widely publicized warnings. “We understand that goes to human nature of how important our smartphones are to us,” he said. “But this was not some run-of-the-mill warning from the government. This was based on incidents that we were aware of and continue to be aware of. So we need to remain vigilant and hyperfocused throughout this week and beyond to get as high a response rate to this recall as possible.”

The Note7 recall ranks among the dozen or so recall notices that the agency puts out in an average year that involve a million or more units of products, Wolfson said. “What separates this product from others is its utility,” he said. “It’s not just a daily-used product, it is hourly, if not more frequent than that. We realize that the type of remedy that’s available for the consumer is key in terms of what it means for their business, for the type of communication they have with their family, with their friends, and it’s why we sought to have the best remedy possible.”

Though the Note7 recall notice has a refund option as well as a replacement component, refunds are “the least used option that companies agree to” in the 400 overall recall notices CPSC puts out in the average year, Wolfson said. Under federal statutes, “the company is allowed to put on the table their proposed remedy to the agency,” he said. “Traditionally, it’s replacement or repair.” Though there’s also a “growing number” of recall notices that involve refunds, “but we deal with many, many small companies, and they just simply can’t afford” widespread cash givebacks, he said. Wolfson wouldn’t say if Samsung or CPSC proposed the refund component in the Note7 recall notice. “That was a matter of discussion between the agency and Samsung,” he said. “That they were agreeable to that additional approach is a sign of how cooperative they were with the agency.”

Wolfson will leave it for others to speculate whether consumers who opt for Note7 refunds will do so because they're not confident the replacements are safer than the originals, he said. “Our approach in trying to make sure both options were available was not a reflection of widespread consumer opinion being shared with us,” he said. “We just wanted to make sure that the recall had the right options to it for the remedy so that the recall could be as successful as possible.”

Boosting consumer response rates to recalls has been a CPSC "priority" for decades, and the agency is making a “renewed push” for better results, Wolfson said. Average response rates of 15-30 percent “are just not acceptable,” he said. “What concerns us is, for a recall where the hazard is so serious -- so serious that we use the word ‘serious’ in the press release -- we need to be doing all we can to generate a high response rate. We really want to explore everything from the language we use in the press release, to a refund being another option, to give this recall its best chance.” Samsung shares that “same feeling with us,” he said. “They do not want these recalled units in the marketplace.” CPSC is “pleased to see the energy that Samsung is putting behind the recall,” he said. Samsung representatives didn’t comment Monday.