•

Vizio settles for $3M after saying 60 Hz TVs had 120 Hz “effective refresh rate” | Vizio claimed backlight scanning made refresh rates seem twice as high.

Vizio settles for $3M after saying 60 Hz TVs had 120 Hz “effective refresh rate”

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/vizio-settles-for-3m-after-saying-60-hz-tvs-had-120-hz-effective-refresh-rate/

Vizio claimed backlight scanning made refresh rates seem twice as high.

Vizio settles for $3M after saying 60 Hz TVs had 120 Hz “effective refresh rate” | Vizio claimed backlight scanning made refresh rates seem twice as high.::Vizio claimed backlight scanning made refresh rates seem twice as high.

37 comments

draughtcyclist

•

Hell, I bought a 4k 60 hz TV from them and inputs are limited to 30 hz. I'll never buy a Vizio anything again, sounds like this is their business as usual.

just_another_person

•

Why would you ever? They don't make quality products.

LazaroFilm

•

I’m sticking to LG for TVs

GingeyBook

•

Had nothing with bad "luck" with LG.

Sony is the way

MetricIsRight

•

Not sure where you live but around here Sony isn't an option for TV's not financially anyway, 30-40% more than the competition for no damned reason.

Vqhm

•

There is a reason it's slightly more expensive tho. They don't even bother to force or nag you to connect to Wi-Fi / Internet so the manufacturer can start selling data on what you watch... Sony charges a little more because the TV is for profit, instead of your data being the profit product.

They aren't all that much more expensive at Costco anyway. Also it's not like I'm buying a TV ever few years.

Shit my Sony Trinitron CRT still works. That really is buy it for life. Less can be said about Walmart specials.

Nommer

•

Sony has always been more expensive compared to the competition. Even way back before data collection was a thing. It's why I don't really buy their products.

Fishytricks

•

I’ve always thought they were slightly more expensive because they used LG/Samsung panels for their TV.

I avoided Samsung and it was a no brainer for me to get LG. My LG has been treating me well and doesn’t prompt me to get on the internet. And I got them for discounted prices as well, a 65”GX and 42?” C3.

Psythik

•

Aren't Sony TVs using LG panels? At least their OLEDs are (or were). I have an LG C2 in the gaming room and a SONY A80J in the living room.

They both have the exact same panel, but the LG has more/better features for PC gaming and the SONY is better as a smart TV cause it runs on Android. But the picture quality is identical.

Gamoc

•

We have a 60" oled LG that is absolutely the best TV I've ever looked at. We only have it because my uncle, the previous owner, upgraded to a 65". It also plays basically every single video file I throw at it.

huquad

•

Bought a Vizio cause it was cheap. Ended up seeing vertical lines just outside of the warranty window.

You get what you pay for. Now I have a Sony, and no looking back

keyez

•

They have some snuck in there, I am still rocking a M55 from 2017 and with a lot of calibrating I don't see too much difference in 4K HDR to new under 1k TCLs and cheaper samsungs. Though next year I want an LG OLED.

Pika

•

I'll never go LG for OLED, they are suspectible to massive burn in. We had an OLED display at work, it had a moving picture that had a mostly static bottom bar, after awhile when you turned it off you could see the burn in spot and it was basically junk when the source was changed to not have the bar cause the burn in was still there.

pozbo

•

Who gets the 3m? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it isn't the people who were deceived/lied to.

GenderNeutralBro

•

Under the settlement terms [PDF] spotted by The Verge, people who bought a Vizio TV in California after April 30, 2014, can file a claim. They'll receive $17 or up to $50 if the fund allows it. The individual payout may also be under $17 if the claims exceed the $3 million fund. Vizio will also pay attorney fees. People have until March 30 to submit their claims. The final approval hearing is scheduled for June 20.

These class-actions are always peanuts in the end.

Nommer

•

Companies should not only pay out much more for a class action but also replace the product sold. It's insane how they can just constantly steal from us and just get a tiny fine.

pozbo

•

Yes for real, something tells me they pocketed more than $17 per victim.

QuadratureSurfer

•

The only one that's been amazing (that I can think of) so far was the class action settled against Toyota for a few years worth of the Prius.

They now have to cover the inverter under warranty for 20 years from the date that the car was first used. If your car fails because of the inverter they also pay for the tow, the car rental, and all of the repairs.

frezik

•

Ever read about the Iomega Zip Drive class action? Early Zip drives had a "click of death" that killed it early. The settlement was paid in coupons for more Iomega products.

paraphrand

•

It says in the article

pozbo

•

You and I both know I can't read!

currycourier

•

3M also seems like a pittance? From a quick look their revenue is like $1.7B. Granted their margins are small but still

pozbo

•

I feel like if they doubled the specs of their device to make sales they should have to pay back HALF of what they made from the sales. Not just the profit margin, a plain 50% of gross.

narc0tic_bird

•

I remember when TVs advertised bs like "600 Hz clear motion rate".

LazaroFilm

•

God I hated those smooth motion systems. Makes everything look like crap.

Donut

•

Wow I really thought I was the only one (okay not literally).

Any show would look like reality TV and the added interpolation just made movement a blurry mess. I steered clear of 60+Hz TVs until this very day because I hate them so much

Psythik

•

You know you can just turn the feature off if you don't like it, right? The refresh rate of the TV has nothing to do with it.

TVs have been operating at 50/60 Hz since they were invented. If you're in an NTSC region (like North America), every TV you've ever owned refreshes the screen at 60Hz+, no matter how old you are.

Refresh rate ≠ framerate

Donut

•

Sorry I wrote that in a bit of a hurry so I took some shortcuts in my words. Yes, refresh rate isn't the same as framerate.

You know you can just turn the feature off if you don't like it, right?

Not if it's the TV of a random person I am visiting. First time I noticed it.

The thing is, why buy a 600Hz TV if you're going to turn it off immediately? That's why I (as a rule of thumb) didn't bother with TVs that advertised with 200/400/600Hz modes.

Psythik

•

As someone who loves motion smoothing; I'll never understand this opinion. It doesn't make everything look like "crap", it makes it look more realistic. Motion looks closer to real life. Hell, I like it for the fact that it removes motion blur alone. Can't stand motion blur.

Trying to go back to watching films at 24Hz is nauseating for me (especially action movies with a lot of rapid camera momements). I can't stand it. It's like trying to go back to console gaming after getting used to 4K 144Hz PC gaming with a 4090.

Try leaving motion smoothing on for a week and then go back to having it off, and you'll see what I mean. You get used to it, and then suddenly you don't want to turn it off anymore.

keyez

•

I have had it on for a few hours at times and by looking like crap I would say it ruins the experience for me because it makes every scene and action look like a soap opera or a YouTube video and doesn't feel like a film anymore and doesn't carry the same weight. That's just my opinion obviously. Could see certain scenes and movies working well with that but most I don't want to feel like I'm on the set of a soap opera.

13617

•

Why only California? I was deceived by this too.

verdantbanana

•

was this not the same with all the tvs

always had to buy 120hz to get 60hz from most any brand except for element and a few other cheap ones

Patches

•

Yes but we have no consumer protection in the United States. This didn't even cover consumers outside of the state. And it absolutely doesn't cover the money they made lying.

Snowpix

•

Reminds me of UserBenchmark and their "Effective frames per second" nonsense.

frezik

•

Is money worth twice as much when viewed under a 120Hz strobe?

autotldr

•

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Vizio has agreed to pay $3 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that alleged the company misled customers about the refresh rates of its TVs.

Vizio was referring to the backlight scanning (or black frame insertion) ability, which it claimed made the TVs look like they were operating at a refresh rate that was twice as fast as they are capable of.

Under the settlement terms [PDF] spotted by The Verge, people who bought a Vizio TV in California after April 30, 2014, can file a claim.

Vizio also agreed to stop advertising their TVs with 120 and 240 Hz "effective" refresh rates but "will not be obligated to recall or modify labeling for any Vizio-branded television model that has already been sold or distributed to a third party," according to the agreement.

The settlement comes as tactics for fighting motion blur, like backlight scanning and frame interpolation (known for causing the "soap opera effect"), have been maligned for often making the viewing experience worse.

Class-action cases like Vizio's that end up having a negative cost for OEMs provide further incentive for them to at least stop using the ability as a way to superficially boost spec sheets.

The original article contains 539 words, the summary contains 198 words. Saved 63%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

LWD

•

deleted