Samsung Samsung Mobile USA Samsung withheld the truth and lost me as a customer. Ridgefield, New Jersey

On February 6, 2013, I sent my Samsung Galaxy Note to Samsung's authorized repair facility in Plano, Texas, for a warranty repair. 

On February 12, 2013, Samsung reported to me via my online account at its website that my Galaxy Note had been damaged by liquid and was "beyond economic repair."  The phone was deemed out-of-warranty.

On February 13, 2013, I called Samsung's customer service line and requested evidence confirming that the phone was damaged by liquid, such as a photograph.  The first- and second-level representatives both told me that the written comments by the repair technician were the evidence upon which I would have to rely and that they could not provide me a photograph of the damage.  I stated that if I wanted to confirm the damage by disassembling the phone myself that I would void any warranty that was in effect up until I took that action.

I asked the second-level representative for contact information of someone at Samsung's corporate office with whom I could correspond.  He provided me the "president's" e-mail (listed at the top of this report).  I asked the "president" for independent evidence of the liquid damage, which the "president" provided to me 22 minutes later by reply to my e-mail.  My inquiry was in the spirit of Ronald Reagan's "trust-but-verify" principle.

I see the liquid damage in the photo and concur with the repair technician's assessment. 

However, Samsung's two separate statements that it would not be possible for me to receive a photo of the damage constitute grounds for my decision to never buy another Samsung product again.  

For maintenance of healthy relationships between customers and vendors, I believe that the truth is of utmost importance.