Hellopeter
Share Your Experience
JV
Jan V

1 reviews | Active since Jun 2025

10 Jun 2026, 05:47

Samsung Galaxy S21: marketed around water resistance, yet moisture behind the lens without being submerged

South African consumers should be very careful about how they understand Samsung’s water-resistance claims on Galaxy phones.

I have a Samsung Galaxy S21. On the evening of 9 June 2026, the phone was in a bathroom. It was not dropped in water. It was not placed in a bath, basin, sink, bucket, pool, shower, or any other body of water. It was not submerged for even one second.

Despite that, I can now visibly see moisture / dampness behind one of the camera lenses.

That is the problem.

The Samsung Galaxy S21 is not some unknown bargain phone. It is part of Samsung’s flagship Galaxy S-series range. Public product information associates the S21 with IP68 water/dust resistance — up to 1.5 metres for 30 minutes.

That is the devastating part.

If a premium Samsung Galaxy S21 is represented to ordinary consumers in water-resistance and submersion-depth language, how is an ordinary consumer supposed to accept visible moisture behind the camera lens when the phone was never submerged at all?

Not 1.5 metres.

Not 30 minutes.

Not 30 seconds.

Not even one second.

Age cannot simply be used as the blanket excuse. That cannot be the reasonable test. If Samsung’s position is that normal age, normal household use, bathroom presence, humidity, steam, seal wear, or some technical limitation can defeat what ordinary consumers understand from “water resistant” and “up to 1.5 metres”, then that must be stated plainly and prominently to consumers — not hidden behind technical language after the fact.

The ordinary consumer does not walk around decoding IP ratings like a laboratory technician. The ordinary consumer sees “water resistant” and “up to 1.5 metres for 30 minutes” and reasonably understands that a phone which was never underwater should not suddenly show moisture behind a camera lens from ordinary bathroom presence.

Before this, I used a Samsung A07, an entry-level Samsung phone, and never experienced this type of issue under ordinary household use. It would not cross the mind of a reasonable consumer that a premium Samsung S-series phone could be less tolerant of ordinary bathroom conditions than an entry-level Samsung device.

Samsung’s water-resistance representations are not a small issue. They affect how consumers understand the product, how they use it, and what level of ordinary durability they believe they are getting.

Samsung has already faced regulatory action overseas relating to water-resistance representations on Galaxy phones. South African consumers deserve clear, honest, plain-language answers too.

So the public question is simple:

If a Samsung Galaxy S21 is associated with IP68 water resistance up to 1.5 metres for 30 minutes, how can visible moisture behind a camera lens be acceptable where the phone was never submerged for even one second?

South African consumers should take note.

0
Replies (3)
Samsung South Africa
Samsung South Africa's reply10 Jun 2026, 05:49
Official
Good day Jan

Thank you for bringing your query to our attention, we apologize for any inconvenience that this may have caused. 
  
We have noted your concerns, and we are currently investigating the matter further. 
  
Your complaint has been assigned to our escalations department and we will be in contact with you. 
  
 Kind Regards, 
 Samsung ZA
^NM 
JV
Jan V's update10 Jun 2026, 05:53
Reviewer Update
Samsung’s reply above is exactly the problem.
A response appears at 05:49 in the morning, almost immediately after the complaint, and it reads like a generic automated template: “sorry for the inconvenience”, “we are investigating”, “escalations department”, “we will be in contact”.
That is not a real answer. That is reputation-management wording.
South African consumers should notice how quickly serious complaints can be covered with polite corporate language that says absolutely nothing.
Whether it was automated or copied from a script, the result is the same: generic, empty, and non-substantive.
Samsung, please do not dress up a template reply as care. Consumers deserve better than that.
JV
Jan V's update10 Jun 2026, 14:04
Reviewer Update
Samsung’s latest reply does not resolve anything. It actually proves the point further.
Samsung now says the issue has been logged with a “Voice of Customer Advisor” under reference number *** and that Samsung will “investigate and be in contact”.
That sounds impressive until the consumer tries to do anything with it.
I have tried to track or use that reference number. I cannot meaningfully track it. I cannot see the status. I cannot see who is handling it. I cannot see what is being investigated. I cannot see what the escalation process is. I cannot see when Samsung will respond substantively.
So what exactly has been “logged”?
A reference number without transparency is not accountability. It is corporate smoke.
This is the same problem again: Samsung appears publicly on HelloPeter with polished wording, but the consumer is still pushed into a vague internal system where everything disappears behind generic departments, call-centre barriers, and non-specific promises.
There appears to be no clear public route to Samsung Electronics South Africa senior management. No accessible senior complaints channel. No direct escalation contact. No responsible person identified. No decision-maker named. No timeline. No written position on the actual issue.
Why?
Why must an ordinary South African consumer deal with a global electronics brand through templates, call centres and anonymous escalation language?
Why are senior managers and directors insulated from consumer complaints while the public-facing brand continues selling premium devices using water-resistance language?
The issue is simple and Samsung keeps avoiding it:
My Samsung Galaxy S21 was not submerged.
It was not dropped into water.
It was not placed in a bath, basin, sink, bucket, pool, shower, or any body of water.
Not for 30 minutes.
Not for 30 seconds.
Not for one second.
Yet there is visible moisture / dampness behind a camera lens.
Samsung markets these devices with IP68 water/dust resistance language, including “up to 1.5 metres for 30 minutes”. Ordinary consumers are entitled to ask how a premium S-series phone can show moisture behind the camera lens where there was no submersion at all.
Samsung must stop hiding behind process wording.
Please answer publicly and plainly:
  1. Who exactly is the “Voice of Customer Advisor” handling reference ***?
  2. How does a consumer track this reference number?
  3. What is the direct written contact point for this escalation?
  4. What is Samsung’s actual position on moisture behind a Galaxy S21 camera lens where there was no submersion?
  5. Does Samsung say ordinary bathroom presence, humidity or steam can defeat the water-resistance expectation created by its marketing?
  6. If yes, where is that made plain and prominent to consumers before purchase?
  7. Will Samsung inspect the device and provide a written technical finding?
This is not “inconvenience”. This is a consumer-representation and product-reliability issue.
South African consumers should take note: when there is a serious complaint, Samsung appears to respond quickly in public — but the actual consumer may still be left with a reference number that cannot be meaningfully tracked, no named accountable person, no senior contact route, and no substantive answer.
That is not escalation.
That is containment.