Samsung Smart TV Lawsuit (Tillery v. Samsung Electronics America), Putative Class Action Claims Viewing Habits Are Tracked Without Consent

Three California consumers have filed a putative class action against Samsung Electronics America, Inc., claiming Samsung Smart TVs track what people watch without real consent. The case is Tillery, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-11448, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It was filed on October 6, 2026.

The plaintiffs say Samsung’s Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) technology captures what is on the screen about twice per second, turns it into a digital fingerprint and uses it to support Samsung’s advertising business. Samsung’s public position is that ACR is optional, that users can turn it off, and that it does not record or watch the content on the TV.

These are allegations in a newly filed complaint. No court has ruled on them, and Samsung has not been found liable. There is no settlement, no claim form and no payout available in this case.

Samsung Smart TV Lawsuit: Quick Facts

Detail	What is known
Case name	Tillery, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America Inc.
Case number	3:26-cv-11448
Court	U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Filed	October 6, 2026
Size of complaint	88 pages, 14 claims (as reported)
Named plaintiffs	Danielle Tillery, Michael Walsh and David Rosenberg
Defendant	Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Purchase dates alleged	Plaintiffs say they bought Samsung Smart TVs between 2014 and 2021
Plaintiffs’ attorneys	Catherine E. Ybarra and Sonjay C. Singh of Siri & Glimstad LLP; Andrew R. Tate of Privacy Rights Law LLC
Technology at issue	Automatic Content Recognition (ACR)
Claims reported	Video Privacy Protection Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act (including the Wiretap Act), California Invasion of Privacy Act, California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, invasion of privacy, negligence, unjust enrichment
Relief sought	Statutory, actual and punitive damages, plus injunctive relief
Status	Newly filed; no class certified; no ruling
Settlement, claim form or deadline	None

What Does the Tillery Complaint Allege Against Samsung?

ACR Captures the Screen About Twice Per Second

According to reporting on the complaint by Courthouse News Service and the Metropolitan News-Enterprise, Samsung Smart TVs capture what is displayed roughly twice every second. That can include broadcast and cable TV, streaming apps, video games, and content from devices plugged in through HDMI. The TV reduces the image to a digital fingerprint and sends it to Samsung servers along with identifiers tied to the device, household and network, such as an IP address and advertising ID.

The plaintiffs allege Samsung matches those fingerprints to known content, builds household profiles and makes the data available for advertising. They plead some of these points on information and belief. Those are claims, not findings.

The “False Assurance” and Consent Allegations

The plaintiffs say Samsung’s setup notices tell buyers the TV does not collect video footage or the content displayed. The complaint calls that misleading. They also say “consent” was manufactured through design: users click “I Agree to all” on a bundle of notices, and ACR is described under harmless-sounding names across several setup screens.

Samsung’s published explanation says that when users enable Viewing Information Services, ACR can generate signatures of what is on screen and may involve viewing history, a Personalized Service ID and the TV’s IP address.

The Purchase-Price Theory

The plaintiffs say they never knowingly agreed to have Samsung or anyone else collect their viewing activity, and that they would not have bought their TVs, or would have paid less, had they known.

Prior Warnings Cited by the Plaintiffs

The complaint argues Samsung was on notice from earlier events:

• The 2017 Vizio case. The Federal Trade Commission and the New Jersey Attorney General settled with Vizio for $2.2 million over collecting viewing histories from about 11 million TVs without adequate disclosure.
• The Texas action. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Samsung and other TV makers over ACR. On February 26, 2026, his office announced an agreement under which Samsung stops collecting or processing ACR viewing data from Texas consumers without express consent and updates its disclosures and consent screens. That agreement covers Texas consumers and creates no payment program for the plaintiffs in this case.

Who Is Suing Samsung, and Who Would Be in the Class?

The named plaintiffs are Danielle Tillery, Michael Walsh and David Rosenberg, all California residents, according to published coverage. One report says Rosenberg is a senior citizen for purposes of California Civil Code § 1761(f), which can matter under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

The plaintiffs ask the court to certify:

• A Nationwide ACR Class of people who used a Samsung Smart TV with ACR enabled, with a proposed start date in 2013
• A Nationwide Identity Graph Class of people whose viewing data was allegedly combined with identity data
• Two California subclasses

These are the plaintiffs’ proposals. A judge has not certified any class, and the court may narrow or reject these definitions. Owning a Samsung TV does not by itself make someone a class member or give them a valid claim.

How Does Samsung’s Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) Work?

ACR identifies what is playing by analyzing signals from the screen and matching them to a reference library. Depending on the system and the user’s settings, the results can be used for viewing analytics, recommendations or advertising.

Samsung says ACR is optional and that it does not record or watch the content displayed. The plaintiffs dispute whether that description is complete. A system that creates a fingerprint instead of a full recording can still raise privacy issues if the data is linked to an identifiable person or household, and that is the question the court will eventually have to work through.

Which Laws Are Involved in the Samsung Smart TV Lawsuit?

Video Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 2710)

The Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA) limits when a “video tape service provider” can disclose personally identifiable information about a consumer’s viewing. It was passed in 1988 after a newspaper published Judge Robert Bork’s video rental history. The statute allows liquidated damages of at least $2,500 per plaintiff, plus possible punitive damages and fees. That number is not a payout in this case, and it should not be multiplied by an assumed number of TV owners.

Courts have been cautious about stretching the VPPA to device data. In an earlier smart TV case, White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (D.N.J.), a court initially held that identifiers like IP and MAC addresses were not personally identifiable information under the VPPA. Whether the Tillery court will agree is an open question.

Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 to 2523)

The Wiretap Act bars intentionally intercepting the contents of electronic communications. One-party consent is an exception (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)), which is why the consent dispute is so important. A person can sue under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 for actual damages or statutory damages, the greater of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, with possible punitive damages and fees.

Samsung can be expected to argue that it is itself a party to what its TV transmits. That argument has worked in some earlier smart TV rulings. In White v. Samsung, the court later allowed Wiretap Act claims to go forward in part, and the Third Circuit affirmed in 2023 that Samsung had waived its right to arbitrate. Those rulings are from a different court on different facts and do not decide this case.

California Invasion of Privacy Act (Cal. Penal Code §§ 630 to 638.55)

The California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) bars reading or learning the contents of a communication in transit without the consent of all parties (§ 631), and regulates recording confidential communications (§ 632). The civil remedy in § 637.2 is the greater of $5,000 per violation or three times actual damages. California’s all-party consent rule and that statutory amount are why CIPA appears so often in privacy suits. Courts have split on questions like who counts as a “party” and what counts as “contents.”

California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act (Cal. Penal Code § 502)

This law covers certain unauthorized access to computers and data and provides a civil action. Whether a connected TV’s data collection meets its requirements depends on how the court reads “without permission” and the facts alleged.

California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1770)

The Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) prohibits listed unfair or deceptive practices in consumer sales. The plaintiffs’ allegations about misleading setup notices and omissions fit into this framework. Remedies can be enhanced for seniors under Civil Code § 1780(b).

California Constitution, Article I, Section 1, and Common-Law Claims

California’s constitution lists privacy as an inalienable right. A plaintiff generally must show a protected privacy interest, a reasonable expectation of privacy and a serious invasion. The plaintiffs also plead invasion of privacy, negligence and unjust enrichment. Each has separate elements, and listing many claims does not prove any of them.

Laws That Are Not Private Claims Here

• FTC Act § 5 (15 U.S.C. § 45) bans unfair or deceptive practices, but only the government enforces it. The Vizio matter was brought on that authority.
• California Consumer Privacy Act. Its private right of action is limited to certain data breaches, so tracking disputes are generally handled by regulators.

What Might Samsung Argue in Response?

The reports reviewed did not include a Samsung response to this complaint, and Samsung’s public ACR page is not a court filing. Defendants in privacy cases commonly raise these arguments:

• Consent and disclosure. Users agreed to privacy notices, and ACR can be switched off.
• Standing. Federal courts need a concrete injury. See TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021).
• Arbitration and class waivers, depending on Samsung’s terms for each TV and year.
• Time limits. The proposed class goes back to 2013. A Wiretap Act claim generally must be filed within two years of when the plaintiff had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation (18 U.S.C. § 2520(e)).
• The party exception under the Wiretap Act and CIPA.
• Class certification. Different models, software versions and consent screens may defeat the common-question requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Any of these could narrow or end the case. None has been decided.

How Is the Tillery Case Different From the Earlier Samsung Smart TV Lawsuit?

In January 2026, a different group of consumers filed DiGiacinto, et al. v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00196, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Bloomberg Law reported that the complaint alleged ACR collected viewing data every 500 milliseconds and shared it with third parties, including Google and X Corp. Bloomberg Law later reported, on July 15, 2026, that the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed that case.

Tillery is a separate lawsuit with a different case number, court and plaintiffs. It is not a continuation or a settlement of the New York case. Our earlier coverage is here: Samsung Class Action Alleges TVs Illegally Track Viewing Data to Sell for Profit—Millions of Smart TV Owners Affected, No Consent Required.

Can Samsung TV Owners File a Claim or Get Paid?

No. This is a putative class action. A class has not been certified, and no settlement or fund exists.

Question	Current answer
Has Samsung agreed to settle?	No
Has the court certified a class?	No
Is there an official claim form?	No
Is there a payout amount?	No
Is there a claim deadline?	No

You do not need to do anything to be included right now. If a class is later certified or a settlement is reached, notice will go to class members, who can then file a claim, opt out or object. Do not pay anyone who promises access to a Samsung payout.

What Can Samsung TV Owners Do Now About ACR?

1. Open your TV’s Settings and look for privacy, terms and policy, or viewing information.
2. Check “Viewing Information Services” and any interest-based advertising settings. Menu names differ by model and software year.
3. Turn off ACR if you do not want it enabled.
4. Review what you accepted at setup and decline optional sharing.
5. Check connected devices and apps separately. They have their own data practices.
6. Keep your purchase records and the date you bought the TV, in case a settlement is announced.

Taking the TV offline can limit data sent over the internet, but it also disables smart features and does not cover separate streaming devices. These are general privacy steps, not a guarantee that tracking stops or that you qualify for the lawsuit.

What Happens Next in Tillery v. Samsung Electronics America?

1. Service and response. Samsung must be served and then responds, often with a motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration.
2. Motion practice. The court decides which claims can proceed, which can take many months.
3. Discovery. If claims survive, the parties exchange documents, technical details and testimony.
4. Class certification. The plaintiffs must satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
5. Resolution. The case could end in dismissal, a ruling or a court-approved settlement. None of these is certain.

You can follow new filings on the Justia docket for Tillery v. Samsung Electronics America Inc.. The docket lists the case as assigned to Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson.

Samsung Smart TV Lawsuit: Key Dates

Date	Event
2013	Proposed start of the nationwide class period
2014 to 2021	Years the named plaintiffs say they bought their Samsung Smart TVs
2017	FTC and New Jersey settle with Vizio for $2.2 million
January 2026	DiGiacinto v. Samsung filed in the Southern District of New York
February 26, 2026	Texas Attorney General announces agreement with Samsung on ACR
July 15, 2026	Bloomberg Law reports voluntary dismissal of DiGiacinto
October 6, 2026	Tillery v. Samsung Electronics America Inc. filed
October 13, 2026	No class certified, no settlement, no claim form or deadline

Frequently Asked Questions About the Samsung Smart TV Lawsuit

Is there a Samsung Smart TV class action settlement in October 2026?

No. Tillery is a putative class action with no settlement, claim form or deadline.

What is the Samsung Tillery lawsuit about?

It claims Samsung’s Smart TVs use Automatic Content Recognition to capture what is on screen, link it to household and device identifiers, and support advertising, without informed consent.

Which laws does the Tillery lawsuit rely on?

Reported claims include the Video Privacy Protection Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and Wiretap Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, invasion of privacy, negligence and unjust enrichment.

Does Samsung say it records everything on the TV?

No. Samsung says ACR is optional, can be turned off and does not record or watch the content on the screen.

Has Samsung been found liable?

No. The claims are allegations, and no court has ruled on them.

Is this the same as the Texas Samsung case?

No. Texas’s agreement was brought by the state and covers Texas consumers. The plaintiffs cite it as evidence Samsung was on notice.

Is this the same as the New York DiGiacinto case?

No. DiGiacinto was filed in the Southern District of New York in January 2026 and was reportedly dismissed voluntarily in July 2026. Tillery was filed in California in October 2026.

Can I join the class action?

You do not need to do anything now. If a class is certified, people who fit the definition are generally included unless they opt out.

How can I turn off ACR on my Samsung TV?

Open Settings, find the privacy or viewing information options, and disable Viewing Information Services. Menu names vary by model.

Where can I check the latest status?

Use the Justia docket page or the federal court’s official filing system.

What the Record Does Not Show

• No court finding that Samsung’s disclosures were misleading
• Samsung’s response to this complaint
• Any class certification
• Which Samsung models, software versions or purchase years the claims ultimately cover

Sources and Verification Notes

1. Federal court docket, Tillery et al. v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-11448: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3%3A2026cv11448/480471
2. Courthouse News Service, “Samsung faces class action over privacy concerns with smart TVs”: https://www.courthousenews.com/samsung-faces-class-action-over-privacy-concerns-with-smart-tvs/
3. Metropolitan News-Enterprise, “Putative Class Accuses Samsung of Breaching Privacy Laws by Spying on Smart TV Users,” October 8, 2026: http://www.metnews.com/articles/2026/secrettracking_100826.htm
4. Samsung, Smart TV Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) feature: https://www.samsung.com/us/support/answer/ANS10010616/
5. Texas Attorney General, agreement with Samsung on smart TV data, February 26, 2026: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-paxton-secures-major-agreement-samsung-ensure-texans-are-protected-smart-tvs
6. Bloomberg Law, “Samsung Electronics Hit With Suit Over Smart TV Data Snooping” (January 2026) and “Samsung Customer Drops Suit Over Data Collection From Smart TVs” (July 15, 2026), on DiGiacinto.
7. Statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 2710; 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511 and 2520; Cal. Penal Code § 631; § 637.2; § 502; Cal. Civ. Code § 1770; 15 U.S.C. § 45
8. Case law and rules: TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021); White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (D.N.J.); Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney about your own rights.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the federal court docket, published coverage of the complaint, Samsung’s ACR support page and the Texas Attorney General’s announcement, as of October 13, 2026. Last Updated: October 13, 2026.