1. Introduction

When self-described fitness enthusiast Anthony Gonzalez bought his Samsung Galaxy smartwatch to track his heart rate and sleeping patterns, he never imagined that the very band meant to promote healthy living could contain substances potentially harmful to both his body and the environment. Yet, according to a class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, these watchbands allegedly contain harmful levels of “forever chemicals”—a category of synthetic toxins commonly known as PFAS.

If true, the revelation that certain Galaxy Watch bands may be permeated with “forever chemicals” is particularly shitty because Samsung’s marketing has long emphasized health, wellness, and even environmental consciousness. Potentially toxic PFAS on a device literally strapped to one’s wrist day and night—often for the express purpose of improving health—poses profound questions about corporate ethics, corporate social responsibility, and the systemic incentives that may embolden corporations to value cost savings or short-term profit over consumer safety. After all, PFAS have been linked by scientific studies to organ damage, endocrine disruption, pregnancy complications, and even various types of cancer. These chemicals also wreak havoc on local ecosystems, infiltrating soil, groundwater, and wildlife with a persistence that has earned them the ominous moniker “forever chemicals.”

Samsung widely advertises its Galaxy Watch series for fitness tracking, step counting, heart-rate monitoring, and improved sleep habits. Simultaneously, Samsung underscores environmentally responsible design—particularly with marketing claims suggesting that some watchbands are “eco-leather” or incorporate “FKM” (fluoroelastomer) materials purported to be “safe,” “gentle on the wrist,” or “environmentally conscious.” However, the complaint alleges that the bands in question—such as the Sport Band, T-Buckle Band, Rugged Sport Band, Extreme Sport T-Buckle, and D-Buckle Hybrid Eco-Leather Band—are demonstrably laced with perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

The lawyers from the Clarkson Law Firm rely on third-party scientific research indicating that certain fluoroelastomer watchbands (including Samsung’s) may exhibit extremely high levels of a toxic PFAS type called perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA). Worse still, these elevated PFAS levels would rest directly against the skin for many hours each day—even overnight if the user follows Samsung’s guidance on tracking sleep. From the vantage point of consumer advocacy, corporate accountability, and broader themes such as neoliberal capitalism and regulatory capture, the story evokes how large organizations under shareholder-driven, profit-maximizing pressures can, wittingly or not, cut corners and externalize the risks of corporate pollution onto everyday people and the environment.

This article sets out to explore the factual foundation of these allegations and to situate them within a broader social, economic, and political context. The Samsung complaint thus offers a potent case study on the intersection of corporate social responsibility, consumer health, and government oversight (or lack thereof). Indeed, while Samsung’s marketing emphasizes a brand identity steeped in wellness, sustainability, and design excellence, the lawsuit challenges whether these public-facing claims are merely part of a corporate PR playbook—an effort to capture eco-conscious and health-focused markets without doing the costly work of eliminating toxic substances in supply chains.

Below, in eight sections, we will examine the allegations in detail, delve into how they align with or reflect typical patterns of corporate misconduct, and assess the ramifications for communities, workers, regulators, and the broader environment. We begin by shining a light on the alleged wrongdoing. We then move through themes of corporate profit motives, regulatory failures, and historical patterns of corporate abuse under neoliberal capitalism. Finally, we end with a discussion of consumer activism, the push for corporate accountability, and how this scandal may galvanize renewed scrutiny of corporate ethics in a world where corporations’ dangers to public health are too often externalized.

If these allegations are accurate, the potential impacts are sweeping. Individuals purchasing these watches may have unwittingly placed toxic materials in constant contact with their skin. Meanwhile, local communities face the economic fallout of PFAS contamination—such as increased water treatment costs and public health burdens—while a global brand reaps billions in revenues. Such is the tension at the heart of neoliberal capitalism: a landscape of deregulation, corporate corruption, and wealth disparity, where balancing “shareholder value” and genuine corporate responsibility proves difficult indeed.

---

2. Corporate Intent Exposed

The crux of the class action complaint is straightforward yet alarming: The very watchbands Samsung touts as durable, comfortable, and in some cases “environmentally conscious” may contain high levels of PFAS. Specifically, the lawsuit describes multiple bands made of fluoroelastomer materials, an umbrella category that has historically relied on the introduction of fluorinated chemicals for improved heat-resistance, water-resistance, and stain-resistance. According to the complaint, however, third-party testing revealed the presence of a specific PFAS chemical called PFHxA in amounts that exceed typical consumer-product thresholds.

Marketing “Health,” Selling Toxins?

In the official marketing for its Galaxy Watch lines, Samsung emphasizes that these devices help users “start their wellness journey,” “get a better night’s sleep,” or “live a healthy lifestyle.” The complaint cites ads proclaiming that the watch is safe and gentle on the skin, or that its “Eco-Leather” band offers improved environmental stewardship. It also highlights Samsung’s repeated references to minimizing “the use of hazardous substances for the health of our customers and employees.”

Taken at face value, these claims build a brand image consistent with corporate social responsibility. People seeking to improve their well-being might see the Galaxy Watch as an obvious choice, especially when faced with marketing that implies the company embraces eco-friendly design. But the complaint suggests a much darker reality: that Samsung, while aware of the toxic nature of PFAS, did not adequately disclose the presence of these forever chemicals to consumers—or, worse, that it used them to reduce manufacturing costs, enhance product durability, or maintain water-resistance, all at the expense of fully transparent labeling.

“Forever Chemicals” Under the Radar

PFAS are known colloquially as “forever chemicals” because they do not readily degrade in the environment. They migrate through water, soil, and living organisms—persisting for centuries. The complaint specifically underscores the danger to watch-wearers because of direct contact with the underside of the wrist, which has relatively thin skin and can absorb chemicals at a higher rate. The lawsuit also points to scientific literature indicating that PFAS can enter the bloodstream via dermal absorption—particularly when in contact with human skin for prolonged periods, such as wearing a watch all day and night.

Moreover, the complaint notes that Samsung deliberately chose certain marketing slogans—“Buckle up for all-day action,” “This sporty band … daily activities,” or “Straps are … gentle on the wrist”—to emphasize the band’s “healthy” attributes, all while allegedly concealing the presence of PFAS. If it is proven that Samsung’s marketing intentionally sidestepped or suppressed mention of PFAS, it could lay the groundwork for a serious claim of misleading advertising or fraudulent concealment.

Alleged Knowledge and Willful Omission

Essential to the lawsuit is the notion of corporate intent. The complaint suggests Samsung knew—or should have known—that manufacturing watchbands with fluoroelastomer materials (and touting them as “safe” or “environmentally conscious”) was misleading. Indeed, the presence of PFAS is not an unknown phenomenon. Numerous scientific studies have flagged the toxicity of PFAS going back decades, raising ethical questions for any company that might continue using them without informing the public.

Why would a corporation take the risk of embedding these substances in consumer products, especially if those products come into daily contact with human skin? While the suit does not (and need not) present an in-depth internal corporate memo confirming willful wrongdoing, it does highlight a consistent pattern: a large corporation apparently ignoring or obscuring known risks for the sake of cost minimization and product performance. As with other corporate scandals, from lead paint to BPA in plastics, the impetus often boils down to profit-seeking, brand preservation, and a desire to avoid the expense of safer alternatives or more thorough consumer disclosures.

Amplifying the Harm

Beyond the direct impact on watch-wearers, PFAS contamination has a broader scope. The suit notes that PFAS leach into wastewater during manufacturing, disposal, and even daily washing of the watchband. Once in the environment, PFAS can enter groundwater, rivers, lakes, and eventually drinking water supplies—imposing substantial public health costs on communities who will have to fund advanced water treatment processes. Particularly under neoliberal capitalism, the externalization of these costs from the corporation to society at large is common. In simpler terms, the public foots the bill for a private company’s contamination.

By spotlighting these issues, the lawsuit aims not only to obtain refunds or damages for watch buyers but also to call attention to the broader system that enables corporate greed and environmental pollution to go unchecked. Samsung’s alleged conduct is thus emblematic of a deeper crisis: corporations operate in an environment that encourages them to quietly incorporate dangerous chemicals into everyday products, trusting that most regulators won’t intervene decisively, and that consumers won’t discover the deception in time to meaningfully shift their purchase decisions.

---

3. The Corporate Playbook / How They Got Away with It

Alleged corporate corruption in the PFAS space is nothing new. Indeed, the history of these substances is littered with cases where manufacturers either failed to disclose or outright downplayed the hazards, only to face massive liability decades later. While the allegations against Samsung are narrower than, say, the lawsuits that have dogged major chemical makers for PFAS groundwater contamination, the fundamental pattern is similar. Large organizations, driven by profit maximization, sometimes bury inconvenient facts or offer marketing narratives that obscure real risks.

Step 1: Exploit Consumer Trust in the Brand

Samsung is among the largest and most recognizable electronics corporations in the world. Consumers naturally assume that a household brand invests in robust R&D and quality control, especially for consumer-facing goods. Indeed, the Galaxy line is perhaps second only to Apple in terms of brand loyalty and global market share for smartphones, wearables, and other consumer tech. By leveraging this trust, Samsung can introduce new products—like the Galaxy Watch or accessories—and expect a built-in customer base to adopt them, especially if the marketing hits the right notes about health and eco-friendliness.

The class action complaint specifically alleges that consumers purchased the Galaxy Watch bands under the impression they were safe for routine wear, or even beneficial for overall well-being. The brand’s authority and repeated claims about “environmentally conscious” materials formed a key part of the marketing. This is reminiscent of typical PR tactics where a brand’s reputation is used as a shield, dissuading consumers from digging deeper into product composition or environmental impacts.

Step 2: Invoke “Health” and “Wellness” to Justify Premium Pricing

The complaint asserts that watch owners overpaid for the product, effectively paying a “price premium” for attributes they never received. Why might a corporation push a particular angle, such as “start your wellness journey”? Because it appeals to a demographic of consumers actively seeking to better their lives. In an era of heightened interest in exercise, calorie tracking, and personal metrics, marketing that ties a product to well-being is a powerful sales driver.

In classic neoliberal capitalism, corporations are always searching for ways to differentiate themselves and justify higher prices. They do so by tapping into consumer sentiment, from environmental consciousness to self-improvement. Yet, if the underlying product fails to match these claims—or actively contradicts them, as PFAS-laden watchbands might—then the corporation has effectively defrauded the public while enjoying inflated margins.

Step 3: Omit Key Facts in Advertising

An essential strategy alleged in the complaint is Samsung’s omission of critical information about product composition. According to the plaintiff, nowhere in the marketing materials did Samsung disclose that the watchbands contained excessive levels of PFAS. Instead, the marketing repeated phrases like “gentle on the wrist” or “water-resistant” without clarifying that such water-resistance is achieved via potentially harmful fluorinated substances.

This omission sets up a scenario of fraudulent nondisclosure, which is, in many jurisdictions, a serious offense. But as with so many corporate omissions, the impetus is presumably to maintain a veneer of safety and sustainability, thereby maximizing consumer demand and brand goodwill.

Step 4: Downplay or Remain Silent on Environmental Impact

In the modern marketplace, companies often tout “green” or “eco-friendly” features while relegating potential downsides to the fine print—if they mention them at all. This is part of the broader phenomenon known as “greenwashing.” The lawsuit points out that Samsung used language like “environmentally conscious,” particularly for the “D-Buckle Hybrid Eco-Leather Band,” urging consumers to believe the product meets certain green standards or avoids hazardous chemicals. In reality, say the plaintiffs, the watchbands allegedly contain PFHxA, widely classified as a toxic “forever chemical.”

While the complaint does not include explicit internal memos, the pattern is consistent with corporate marketing teams that highlight minimal or tangential environmental features (e.g., partially plant-based content in the watchband) while sidestepping major criticisms such as PFAS content. Over time, these half-truths accumulate into a cohesive narrative that confers undue brand loyalty and wards off deeper consumer scrutiny.

Step 5: Lean on Regulatory Gaps

In the U.S. and many other countries, PFAS remain loosely regulated at the consumer product level. While the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been pushing new guidelines to limit PFAS in drinking water, it does not comprehensively regulate the presence of PFAS in wearables or consumer electronics accessories. Corporations can, therefore, rely on a patchwork system of incomplete rules, effectively marketing their products as safe so long as they remain in compliance with minimal guidelines or avoid direct attention from consumer safety agencies.

Because advanced toxicity testing or labeling requirements for watchbands is either absent or rarely enforced, corporate accountability frequently relies on private lawsuits such as Gonzalez v. Samsung. In this sense, the lawsuit is part of a broader pattern: large-scale corporate pollution or public health crises often come to public attention through lawsuits, not through immediate regulatory interdiction.

Step 6: Keep Supply Chain Details Opaque

Fluoroelastomer production and PFAS usage typically happen deep within global supply chains—often in specialized chemical facilities in Asia or other regions. By the time the final product lands in a U.S. store, the manufacturer may disclaim direct responsibility for “unknown” chemicals introduced earlier in the supply chain. If tested, the watchband might just pass basic safety checks. That said, the complaint cites independent scientific research indicating dangerously high PFAS levels—levels arguably inconsistent with a “safe” or “responsible” product.

From a consumer perspective, supply chain opacity keeps them in the dark: it takes a specialized test to uncover the presence of PFAS. For Samsung, complexity in global production can be an advantage if no one invests the resources to run these tests. Indeed, that the alleged wrongdoing was only exposed after a third-party study is indicative of the typical corporate approach: remain silent, provide minimal data, and let the burden of proof rest with outsiders.

Step 7: Rely on the Slow Pace of Litigation

Even with a well-documented complaint, class actions move slowly. From initial filing to resolution can take years. Many consumers remain unaware of potential hazards during that time and continue purchasing. Even if Samsung eventually changes its watchband composition or modifies its marketing, it may do so quietly or as part of a confidential settlement. By then, hundreds of thousands—if not millions—of watchbands might already be on the market, continuing to pose health and environmental concerns. Thus, the slow pace of the legal system, combined with the labyrinthine nature of consumer protection regulations, can give corporations a window to profit while reputational or legal liabilities remain uncertain.

In short, the lawsuit depicts a meticulously orchestrated “corporate playbook.” Step by step, from brand trust and persuasive marketing to omissions about the product’s real nature, Samsung allegedly perpetuated a system that let them capture a health-conscious consumer base. Whether Samsung’s leadership intentionally sanctioned such strategies for the sake of maximizing revenue, or whether these decisions emerged from organizational inertia and cost-saving measures, the net effect is the same: consumers purchased watchbands under the assumption of safety and sustainability, only to discover that the product might be laced with dangerous forever chemicals.

---

4. Crime Pays / The Corporate Profit Equation

From a purely financial standpoint, the alleged misconduct might be part of a larger profit-maximizing calculus. Incorporating PFAS-based fluoroelastomers could, in principle, save manufacturing costs, enhance certain functional qualities like water- and stain-resistance, and help the product stand out in a crowded smartwatch accessory market. The lawsuit also contends that consumers paid a “price premium” for these watchbands because they believed the marketing about health and eco-conscious benefits.

The Lucrative Market for Wearable Tech

Wearable technology is big business. Global estimates for the smartwatch market hover around $50 billion in 2024, with projections for exponential growth in the next few years. Health monitoring is often touted as the number-one selling point. By advertising the Galaxy Watch and its various band options—particularly the T-Buckle, Sport, and Eco-Leather versions—as integral to a “wellness journey,” Samsung positions itself to capture not just a hardware sale but also an aura of trust.

Within the logic of shareholder-driven capitalism, every brand wants to differentiate and optimize profit margins. If a chemical, even a toxic one, can improve the watch’s water-resistance or durability at a lower cost, and if the law does not explicitly prohibit its use, the short-term incentive is to incorporate it. As the complaint underscores, safer alternatives (like silicone) are available but might be more expensive or less profitable.

Manufacturing Efficiencies and Cost Savings

Fluoroelastomers can be cheaper or easier to process in certain manufacturing lines. Although not explicitly spelled out in the complaint, the typical reason for using PFAS-laden materials in consumer goods is the robust, easy-to-clean surface that resists sweat, oils, and everyday wear. Furthermore, PFAS-based coatings or polymers can deliver consistent performance on automated assembly lines.

Hence, if Samsung’s supply chain was already geared toward employing PFAS-laden chemicals, or if it had negotiated bulk contracts, it might have locked in a cost advantage. The complaint alleges that choosing these chemicals (while claiming that the product is safe, eco-friendly, or health-promoting) is tantamount to corporate deception, letting Samsung reap the economic benefits while shifting environmental and health costs onto unsuspecting consumers and municipalities.

Revenues from Premium Branding

The complaint states that Samsung’s marketing allowed it to sell the watchbands at premium prices: many are $30 or above, with some approaching $80. If the product had been honestly advertised—i.e., with disclaimers revealing that PFAS were used and acknowledging potential toxicity—there is little doubt that sales would have suffered. Consumers might have chosen alternative watchbands, or even decided to purchase a different brand entirely. In this sense, the alleged deception inflated sales revenue, leading to “ill-gotten gains.”

Because the central allegations revolve around false advertising and fraudulent omissions, the remedy sought by the lawsuit includes restitution or disgorgement of profits. In other words, plaintiffs want Samsung to return the money consumers spent under false pretenses. This potential liability could be substantial. And yet, from the vantage point of pure profit-and-loss, some corporations calculate that the expected penalties or settlements may still be lower than the cost of reengineering the supply chain or disclosing the full truth. Critics of corporate accountability worry that such a system implicitly rewards unscrupulous behavior, because “crime pays” if the economic upside outweighs likely legal consequences.

Externalized Costs to Communities

For local communities, the presence of PFAS imposes massive costs. Increased water filtration is expensive; removing PFAS from a municipal water system can cost millions. Local businesses might suffer if contamination levels become known publicly. Potential health impacts—ranging from endocrine disruption to increased risks of certain cancers—can create a cascade of medical expenses for individuals. If the allegations against Samsung and other tech manufacturers are proven, many would argue that the corporations themselves should bear these expenses. But, historically, obtaining direct compensation from large corporations for environmental cleanup is a long and difficult path, entangled in protracted litigation and a patchwork of corporate defenses.

That reality offers a sobering perspective on the intangible benefits corporations reap from polluting with impunity. By continuing to use PFAS-laden watchbands, Samsung allegedly avoided (or minimized) the cost of adopting safer materials, circumvented expensive product redesign, and still marketed an image of healthy living. Meanwhile, environmental or health damages are often discovered after many years, by which time the brand may have moved on to new product lines, leaving the public to foot the bill for cleanup.

Disparities in Legal Leverage

On one side of the class action stands an international electronics giant with deep coffers for legal defense. On the other side stands the plaintiff, who, while represented by capable law firms, cannot compete with the same resources or brand power. Class actions function precisely to mitigate such power imbalances; they aggregate thousands (if not millions) of similarly harmed consumers and place them under one lawsuit. Should the court certify the class, Samsung could face substantial financial exposure. Still, the length and complexity of such litigation mean that the brand can continue collecting revenue in the interim.

If the past is any guide, even if Samsung loses or settles, the settlement amounts might only nibble at the margins of the corporation’s annual profits. This dynamic effectively renders wrongdoing a manageable cost of doing business—a line item in corporate budgets. Critics of neoliberal capitalism frequently point to this phenomenon as a structural failing: the legal system is reactive and slow, while corporate misrepresentations can be quick, widespread, and profit-laden.

Harm to the Brand?

Corporate accountability often hinges on reputational damage. If allegations go mainstream—particularly in a news cycle increasingly attuned to environmental and health hazards—Samsung may face consumer backlash, lost market share, and calls for stricter government oversight. Ironically, for a brand built partly on technological innovation and design, a tarnishing of the “health and wellness” image could have far-reaching effects on other product lines as well.

In sum, the complaint illustrates the financial calculus that might embolden a multinational to proceed with questionable product formulations. The potential short-term gains—a higher margin, a streamlined supply chain, a more durable band—can dwarf the probable costs, which might only come later in the form of litigation or negative publicity. From the vantage point of corporate greed, it is rational. From the vantage point of society, it exacts a grave toll, fueling wealth disparity and raising dire questions about corporations’ dangers to public health.

---

5. System Failure / Why Regulators Did Nothing

If PFAS are so notoriously harmful, why is it that corporations can apparently sell consumer products containing these chemicals with little to no regulatory backlash? Here we enter the broader tapestry of neoliberal capitalism—an economic paradigm that values deregulation, privatization, and free-market solutions. In such a system, governments often refrain from aggressive oversight, trusting in market forces or “self-regulation” to sort out consumer safety concerns.

A Patchwork of Weak Rules

PFAS regulation in the U.S. is typically managed piecemeal. The EPA has spent years establishing health advisories for PFAS in drinking water but has yet to finalize comprehensive restrictions on PFAS in consumer goods. States differ wildly in their approaches: some have adopted PFAS-related laws targeting firefighting foam or food packaging, while others remain silent. On an international scale, the EU has begun considering more stringent PFAS bans in various product categories, but it is still a work in progress.

When it comes to a smartwatch band, there is no standard labeling requirement that instructs companies to disclose PFAS usage, let alone require them to use an alternative. Samsung can thus claim compliance with the letter of the law while arguably violating the spirit, especially if the courts find that the marketing crosses the line into false or misleading territory.

Regulatory Capture

One of the hallmarks of neoliberal capitalism is “regulatory capture,” where agencies meant to oversee public health often find themselves influenced or even co-opted by the very industries they are meant to regulate. Sometimes, the biggest donors to political campaigns are corporate conglomerates. Sometimes, high-level staff move freely between public agencies and private-sector roles in a “revolving door.”

While there’s no direct evidence in the complaint that Samsung specifically manipulated regulators, the broader environment is conducive to minimal enforcement. The burden often falls on consumer advocacy groups to raise alarms, and on private litigants to file lawsuits. Thus, the official guardians of public health are frequently playing catch-up, hindered by limited budgets, political pressure, and competing priorities.

Underfunded Enforcement

Even if a state or federal agency wished to intervene, it might lack the resources to undertake mass testing of consumer products for PFAS content or to mount a robust legal challenge. In many ways, the success of the Samsung brand in distributing its watchbands across the globe underscores the scale of the problem: regulators are outnumbered, outspent, and often reliant on voluntary corporate disclosures.

This “light-touch” regulatory environment is precisely what fosters situations in which a well-heeled tech giant can introduce products containing toxic substances—potentially for years—before a private lawsuit exposes the issue. Meanwhile, corporate leaders can claim compliance with existing product safety standards, effectively shifting the burden of proof onto activists and plaintiff attorneys.

Historical Precedents of Delay

The PFAS controversy is far from the first time regulators have been slow to respond. From lead in gasoline to asbestos in building materials, the pattern is familiar: warnings from scientists are dismissed or minimized by corporate interests, regulatory agencies are slow to act, and harmful substances remain in circulation, often for decades. By the time legal redress arrives, the damage is done.

In the context of PFAS, multiple states have begun imposing limits on PFAS in firefighting foam or have phased out PFAS from certain food packaging. Yet consumer goods like watchbands, sports apparel, or high-performance electronics largely slip through the cracks. Given that the public meltdown over PFAS in drinking water only started in earnest over the last decade, regulators are racing to develop frameworks that address a class of thousands of chemicals. With each PFAS variant requiring specialized testing, it is all too easy for corporations to hide behind the complexity.

Incentives Aligned Against Consumer Safety

Fundamentally, the complaint contends that Samsung capitalized on the lack of strict enforcement by marketing an outwardly healthy product while failing to reveal the hidden PFAS content. A central question remains: how could an entire consumer product category avoid significant scrutiny from agencies tasked with safeguarding health? The short answer is that regulators focus on the biggest hazards with the greatest historical record of harm—like controlling PFAS in industrial effluents or drinking water. Wearable watchbands, by comparison, are overshadowed by more obvious sources of PFAS contamination, such as major factories or landfill leachate.

Thus, we see a system failure: what looks like a relatively benign product category (watchbands) might end up exposing the user to daily PFAS contact. Meanwhile, the brand invests in marketing touting environmental sustainability. The net effect is to lull consumers into a false sense of security, while the state—through inaction, underfunding, or a legal vacuum—does little to stop it.

Legal Fallout

Class actions like Gonzalez v. Samsung can serve as a shadow regulatory mechanism. If the suit is successful, it may force Samsung to pay damages or, at minimum, restructure how it markets and manufactures its watchbands. This might subsequently send a warning to other corporations in the wearable technology space. Over time, such private litigation can expand precedents about what constitutes “unfair and deceptive practices,” fostering a sort of de facto regulation.

But from a consumer safety perspective, litigation is a blunt and slow instrument. People have already purchased these watchbands, worn them for months or years, and possibly disposed of them into landfills—where PFAS can further pollute soil and water. By the time accountability or injunctive relief arrives, the horse is already out of the barn. The complaint is thus both a legal arrow aimed at recovering financial remedies and a plea to the broken state of oversight that allowed these forever chemicals to slip through the cracks, again.

---

6. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

The alleged conduct in the Samsung watchband case is not some one-off aberration. It sits squarely in a much longer history of corporate pollution, defective product controversies, and under-disclosure of health hazards. Crucially, it is not merely an outcome of “rogue” corporations. Rather, it reflects the structural logic of neoliberal capitalism, in which deregulation, corporate greed, and wealth disparity create an environment where large firms can externalize risks at minimal immediate cost to themselves.

Neoliberal Capitalism and the Endless Growth Mandate

In a neoliberal framework, companies face intense shareholder pressure to deliver constant growth. This pressure can come from financial analysts, board members, and investment funds that measure a corporation’s health by quarterly earnings or year-on-year profit expansions. Because labor, raw materials, and energy typically constitute the highest costs, companies search for corners to cut.

Enter PFAS: if these chemicals offer frictionless manufacturing advantages or impart coveted product features—like water-resistance or a smooth “premium” finish—while only incurring a small or uncertain risk of litigation, the short-term logic is to use them. If no immediate regulatory or consumer blowback arises, all the better. The externalization of potential pollution or health hazards onto communities is just the outcome of the system’s fundamental operating logic.

Wealth Disparity and the Consumer

Wearable devices often cost hundreds of dollars, with specialized watchbands themselves fetching $30 to $80. This pricing restricts the user base, though Samsung’s brand tends to capture a broad middle-class to upper-middle-class demographic. Even so, among that demographic, the promise of advanced health tracking is alluring. The alleged deception is that the product might ironically degrade that very health in the long term.

Meanwhile, poorer communities—likely those living near manufacturing sites or downstream from industrial discharge—bear the brunt of PFAS contamination. Even if the lawsuit leads to restitution for direct consumers, these broader “externalities” remain largely uncompensated. If local governments have to build advanced filtration plants to handle PFAS-laden wastewater, that cost is passed to taxpayers. Thus, wealth disparity increases as corporate shareholders profit from polluting technologies, while local residents—who might not even purchase these devices—face the environmental and health consequences.

Corporate Ethics vs. Reality

Some might argue that in the age of corporate social responsibility (CSR), large firms like Samsung have entire sustainability departments. Their websites are replete with statements about supply chain responsibility, the environment, and community engagement. The class action complaint suggests these statements might function as marketing illusions or “virtue-signaling” if the actual product lines continue to incorporate harmful chemicals. In other words, the rebranding of a corporation as “green” or “committed to health” can conceal deeper ethical lapses.

This gap between stated corporate ethics and on-the-ground practice speaks to a pattern of “CSR theater,” in which polished public-relations campaigns overshadow minimal or nonexistent changes to manufacturing processes. If the allegations hold true, Samsung’s portrayal of these PFAS-laced watchbands as eco-friendly is a classic example of greenwashing. Rather than being an isolated instance of marketing exaggeration, the complaint frames it as part of a systemic pattern wherein corporations cynically exploit eco-conscious consumer demands without incurring the cost of truly eliminating toxic materials.

Consumers’ Role in Perpetuating the Cycle

While the complaint is focused on Samsung’s alleged misconduct, it also implicitly critiques the culture of consumption that prioritizes brand image over thorough research. Few consumers read beyond top-level marketing slogans. Many assume that if a product is sold by a well-known global brand, it must be safe. Meanwhile, in the watchband context, verifying chemical composition would require specialized lab tests—clearly impractical for everyday buyers.

This dynamic underscores how consumer behavior, shaped by carefully engineered marketing, can inadvertently perpetuate harmful production methods. People who want to “do the right thing”—buying a watch that helps them stay healthy—end up fueling corporate practices that might degrade public health. It is a vicious cycle sustained by corporate secrecy, insufficient regulation, and consumer trust in brand promises.

Historical Echoes: From Big Tobacco to Big PFAS

The allegations around these watchbands echo earlier controversies in which major corporations hid or downplayed the dangers of their products. One can recall how Big Tobacco spent decades advertising cigarettes as glamorous while concealing evidence of addiction and cancer. Chemical giants similarly withheld information about the environmental devastation wrought by PCBs or certain pesticides. In each instance, the pattern was clear: if the corporation can avoid or delay full disclosure, it can profit mightily in the near term.

PFAS have become the new frontier, with an expanding library of lawsuits alleging damage to water, soil, and human health. While these watchbands may not cause the scale of contamination as a chemical plant dumping PFAS into a river, the principle is the same. It’s a microcosm of the same corporate incentives and lackluster oversight that plague the entire PFAS debate.

Societal Toll

For local communities, the impact can be manifold. Workers in factories producing these bands might face direct, unprotected exposure to fluorochemicals. Neighbors of those factories may see their water contaminated. And the general public potentially inherits an environmental time bomb that could persist for thousands of years. The complaint underscores this systemic injustice: The plaintiff purchased a watchband expecting health benefits and minimal environmental harm; instead, he alleges that not only is the product itself toxic, but also it was sold under false pretenses that enabled Samsung to escape accountability.

Hence, the alleged misconduct is not an outlier. It’s arguably baked into a profit-driven system that treats environmental stewardship and public safety as optional or “nice to have” rather than fundamental. The PFAS-laced watchband is simply one more data point in a broader pattern of predatory behavior, where corporations shift the negative externalities of their production onto everyone else.

---

7. The PR Playbook of Damage Control

As the lawsuit gains public attention, Samsung may be forced to respond. Historically, large corporations use a range of tactics to deflect blame, minimize perceived wrongdoing, and maintain a positive brand image. While the complaint itself does not detail Samsung’s official PR response, it is instructive to consider how a typical damage-control script might unfold:

1. Partial Denial or Ambiguity: A common first step is to issue a vaguely reassuring statement, claiming that the product meets all “relevant safety standards” and that the company “takes consumer health seriously.” This tactic tries to highlight compliance with existing regulations, which, as we have seen, may be minimal or outdated.
2. Emphasis on “We Are Investigating”: Corporations often announce an internal review, promising to cooperate fully and “address any issues.” This can buy time by shifting the spotlight away from the immediate allegations. An internal review can take months, if not years.
3. Framing the Harm as Theoretical: The PR team might claim that even though the product tested positive for PFAS, the real risk to consumers is negligible. They might highlight the absence of large-scale epidemiological data linking watchband usage to direct health outcomes. This rhetorical approach dismisses the fact that PFAS exposure is cumulative and can combine with other sources, raising overall risk.
4. Deflecting Responsibility to Suppliers: Samsung could argue that it relies on global suppliers who might have introduced PFAS. Historically, this approach tries to portray the brand as a victim of unscrupulous third parties rather than the orchestrator of product composition. However, in a typical chain of liability, the entity whose name appears on the product is still culpable for ensuring its safety.
5. Token Remedies or Minor Revisions: If forced to settle or quietly address the problem, the company might revise product marketing language (e.g., removing explicit references to “eco-friendly” features) or pivot to a different watchband material. However, it may do so without admitting legal liability or wrongdoing, effectively insulating the brand from broader accountability.
6. Green Marketing Pivot: Ironically, after or during a scandal, some corporations rebrand with a new sustainability drive, launching marketing campaigns about “eliminating PFAS” and “improving chemical management.” This can help recast them from alleged polluters into industry leaders “driving innovation.” The question remains whether these changes are cosmetic or truly address the root problem.

Critiques of Corporate PR

Critics of corporate PR in cases like these say the aim is not genuine problem-solving but rather brand preservation. By using tested scripts and focusing on ephemeral gestures, a company can maintain investor confidence, quell consumer outrage, and avoid major structural reforms. Another problem is that even if some improvements occur, such as substituting one PFAS compound for another, the net risk might remain if the alternative is also toxic or insufficiently studied.

In a best-case scenario, negative press coverage and class actions exert enough pressure that the company truly invests in safer materials. Indeed, many corporations facing PFAS controversies have begun phasing them out of certain product lines. However, these transitions usually happen only under intense external pressure—something that the complaint suggests must again be placed on Samsung.

Wider Lessons

Within the ecosystem of consumer electronics, the watchband fiasco is a reminder that “trusted brands” can fail the public. PR alone is rarely a reliable indicator of corporate ethics. Whether Samsung continues to tout environmental stewardship or consumer well-being, the presence of these allegations—and the real possibility that PFAS are present in large volumes—should prompt more critical scrutiny. The watchword for consumers is to remain skeptical of marketing claims unless verified by independent bodies or transparent supply chain disclosures.

That the lawsuit highlights explicit sustainability claims, including references to UL ECOLOGO Certification and other green branding, is key. The credibility of such certifications might also be called into question. In short, the alleged PFAS scandal thrusts open the door to a far wider critique about how corporations engage in damage control when faced with potential liability or reputational harm.

---

8. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

Ultimately, the lawsuit against Samsung underscores an ever-present tension: how can the public interest—particularly regarding health, environmental integrity, and consumer advocacy—be protected when corporate behavior is driven by profit maximization under neoliberal capitalism? The watchband allegations place this tension in great relief. Samsung’s alleged inclusion of PFAS in a product specifically marketed for health and wellness epitomizes a system where contradictory incentives can lead to corporate corruption.

Economic Fallout and Community Impacts

If watchbands across the country are found to leach PFAS, it is not just consumers who might suffer rashes or long-term health consequences. Communities already dealing with PFAS pollution from other industrial sources could see rising contamination levels that eventually necessitate advanced (and expensive) water treatment upgrades. In an economy already rife with wealth disparity, these costs do not fall evenly: smaller municipalities or vulnerable communities may be forced to shoulder disproportionately high costs to protect drinking water quality.

Nor can we overlook the workers involved. If these PFAS-laden watchbands are produced in factories where employees handle fluoroelastomer materials, they might face greater exposure than the end consumer. Corporate accountability is not just about a brand’s marketing claims; it is also about how that brand’s supply chain operates. Again, the complaint does not delve into labor conditions, but historically, PFAS-laden manufacturing lines have put workers at risk for industrial diseases and have occasionally led to lawsuits seeking medical monitoring or compensation for chronic illness.

A Call for Structural Reform

One might wonder whether tighter regulations or different legal frameworks could prevent such scenarios. In an economy that fosters corporatism, where large multinational entities hold outsize influence, the impetus to enact strong chemical safety laws can be politically difficult. Some critics argue for the precautionary principle: if a chemical has a plausible risk of harm (especially as serious as PFAS toxicity), it should be restricted or prohibited in consumer products until proven safe. But that principle collides with the entrenched practices of deregulation and cost–benefit analyses that often undervalue potential health risks.

Nonetheless, the outcry from this complaint and others like it may lead to heightened consumer awareness, potentially spurring legislative proposals. In states like California, robust consumer-protection laws, including the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the state’s Proposition 65, already act as partial backstops. In the present suit, the plaintiff also alleges violations of the Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law, seeking to hold Samsung accountable under statutes that disallow deceptive marketing. These are among the toughest consumer protection measures in the U.S., so a successful outcome could reverberate across the industry.

Consumer Advocacy and Social Justice

Beyond litigation, consumer advocacy groups can raise awareness, push for retailers to remove suspect products, and call on Samsung to produce watchbands free of PFAS. In the best scenarios, public pressure can be a catalyst for real corporate introspection, compelling entire industries to reevaluate supply chains. That is, if enough consumers demand PFAS-free alternatives—and if they are alerted to the problem—manufacturers may adapt more quickly than if they were to rely on judicial rulings alone.

For environmental justice advocates, the allegations exemplify a pattern in which corporate pollution predominantly harms marginalized groups—those with fewer resources to protect themselves from contamination or to pursue legal recourse. If PFAS from production sites or disposal ends up in rural or low-income areas, the economic fallout can be devastating, from property devaluation to increased rates of disease. Put simply, these chemicals do not remain politely in a watchband; they seep out, linger for centuries, and accumulate in the environment.

Corporate Accountability in a Neoliberal World

Skeptics of large-scale corporate reform highlight that as long as the global economy prioritizes growth and minimal regulation, corporations will continue to push the envelope of acceptable risk. Lawsuits such as Gonzalez v. Samsung may occasionally result in settlements or changes in product design, but the overall system remains tilted toward profitability. Indeed, critics argue that multinational corporations have too much power, overshadowing the ability of national governments to impose real constraints—especially given global supply chains and labyrinthine corporate structures.

From that vantage point, the watchband controversy could be a footnote in an ongoing saga, in which the next iteration of consumer electronics might quietly incorporate yet another questionable chemical. Real change, say some policy experts, requires not just punishing one corporation through civil litigation but also reimagining how chemical approvals and labeling work, how marketing claims are enforced, and how corporations answer to the broader public interest rather than merely to investors.

The Way Forward

For now, the lawsuit stands. Consumers who purchased Samsung Galaxy Watch bands might eventually receive compensation if a court or settlement finds in their favor. There could be injunctive relief forcing Samsung to revise its marketing or remove PFAS from future product lines. Observers note that such a case, if well-publicized, might also deter other tech manufacturers from employing PFAS-laden materials—or at least encourage more transparency.

But whether these watchbands are the tip of an iceberg remains an open question. The future may see expansions of PFAS litigation to countless other products, from yoga pants to stain-resistant shoes. If the public grows more aware, a grassroots push against PFAS might gain traction. Over time, we might see global consensus forming around phasing out entire classes of these chemicals.

If nothing else, it underscores that profit-driven corporate structures may continue to default to risk-taking, greenwashing, and secrecy unless faced with robust oversight and the real threat of legal or financial consequences. It remains to be seen whether the lawsuit will yield a transformative moment for corporate accountability or simply fade into yet another settlement overshadowed by the next wave of product hype.

---

Conclusion

At stake is more than a few watchbands. PFAS contamination ravages local communities, possibly leading to higher treatment costs for drinking water and imposing unknown cumulative health risks on watch-wearers and the public. Over the long term, these alleged practices reflect a broader pattern—one in which corporations, motivated by profit maximization, systematically externalize costs onto society. The wealth disparity grows, ecosystems suffer the consequences of corporate pollution, and everyday consumers lose faith in corporate ethics.

The lawsuit calls for restitution, damages, and injunctive relief to rectify Samsung’s alleged misrepresentations. Whether it can deliver lasting change may hinge on broader consumer activism and political resolve to rein in toxic substances. As PFAS controversies continue to escalate globally, each lawsuit, each exposé, builds momentum for potential reforms. Indeed, as more consumers demand safer products, the economic calculus can shift, forcing companies to eliminate PFAS in favor of genuinely benign alternatives.

The real question, then, is whether this fiasco becomes a turning point in the drive for corporate accountability. For a brand as influential as Samsung, the implications resonate across the tech sector. Will the threat of litigation and reputational harm prompt not just a quick fix for the watchbands but also a deeper look at supply chain ethics, environmental stewardship, and transparent labeling of consumer goods? Or will corporate lobbying, opaque supply chains, and slow-moving courts allow business as usual to continue, as yet another group of “forever chemicals” finds its way into our daily routines?

For now, those questions remain open. The legal process will unfold, and watchers of corporate social responsibility, consumer protection, and environmental health will follow each development closely. Whatever the outcome, the allegations illustrate that systemic issues run deep—and that the promise of health technology can be tragically undone if the pursuit of profit trumps transparent, responsible product design.