Class action says Samsung Smart TVs captured viewing data twice a second for advertisers

A putative class complaint filed October 6, 2026 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California accuses Samsung Electronics America of using its smart televisions to capture second-by-second details of viewing history and transmit them to advertisers. California residents Danielle Tillery, Michael Walsh and David Rosenberg allege the TVs capture what is displayed on screen — every program, game, home video and connected device — roughly twice every second, reduce it to a fingerprint, and send it with identifiers tied to the person, household, device and home network.

The claims rest on the federal Wiretap Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act — whose section 631 reaches learning communications without all-party consent, with $5,000 statutory damages per violation or treble actual damages — and the California Constitution's privacy right. The plaintiffs say buyers are shown an 'I Agree to all' bundle at setup while Automatic Content Recognition hides behind 'benign-sounding feature names and dense, multi-screen setup flows', and the proposed classes reach every Smart TV owner whose ACR captured or transmitted screen information since 2013.

The complaint anchors its argument in prior enforcement: VIZIO paid $2.2 million in 2017 to settle FTC and New Jersey charges that it collected viewing histories from 11 million TVs, and in 2025 a Texas action produced a permanent injunction requiring Samsung to disclose its ACR technology and obtain users' express consent. Samsung allegedly continues to operate its own ACR data-collection program anyway, feeding what the plaintiffs call a multi-billion-dollar advertising business.

Wiretap Act and CIPA claims seeking $5,000 per violation or treble damages for Smart TV classes reaching back to 2013.

The complaint alleges the ACR system captures the screen roughly twice every second and matches fingerprints to IP, MAC and advertising identifiers for real-time ad targeting.

Samsung allegedly promised consumers it collects nothing displayed on the device while burying the collection behind bundled consent flows.

VIZIO's 2017 $2.2 million settlement with the FTC and New Jersey over the same practice put the industry on notice, the plaintiffs argue.

A 2025 Texas enforcement action already enjoined Samsung to disclose ACR use and obtain express consent — yet the collection allegedly continued.

A privacy promise is a spec: if the product captures the screen it displays, no bundled consent or benign feature name will survive a wiretap statute built on all-party consent.

The case, Tillery v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., 3:26-cv-11448, is pending; the plaintiffs seek certification of a Nationwide ACR Class, a Nationwide Identity Graph Class and two California subclasses, plus injunctive relief and statutory, actual and punitive damages. Samsung had not filed a response at the time of the report, and the allegations remain unadjudicated.