[Edaily Reporter Shin Yeong-bin ] SamsungElectronics(005930)has announced it will take legal action against the Fair Trade Commission’s decision to impose a 20.1 billion won fine for advertisements related to its Game Optimization Service (GOS).

GOS is a feature designed to manage heat generation and ensure stable game performance. The company maintains that it is difficult to accept the Commission’s ruling that the advertisements were deceptive simply because they did not specify the exact optimization methods. SamsungElectronics plans to review the decision document and contest it in court.

On the 27th, SamsungElectronics stated, “GOS was a feature designed to enhance the perceived performance of games and optimize them so users could enjoy them stably for extended periods,” adding, “This is a decision that is difficult to understand, given that all domestic and international lawsuits have been concluded and the complaints filed with the Fair Trade Commission by the parties involved have been withdrawn.”

On that day, the Fair Trade Commission decided to issue a corrective order and impose a fine of 20.114 billion won on Samsung for failing to disclose—when advertising the gaming performance of the Galaxy S21 and S22 series and the Galaxy Tab S8 series—that maximum operating speeds and other specifications were limited when running specific games.

Samsung countered that “clock speed”—which indicates the operating speed of a semiconductor—cannot be equated with the gaming performance experienced by users. The company explained that factors such as frames per second (FPS), which indicates how smoothly the game screen plays, frame stability, and device temperature must all be evaluated together.

Jipyeong Law Firm, acting as SamsungElectronics’ legal representative, explained that the settings in question imposed an upper limit on the application processor (AP) clock speed for a small number of games that generate high heat. They argued that the upper limit was set at a level exceeding the typical clock speed during normal gameplay.

They explained that suppressing sudden spikes in clock speed reduces heat generation and allows high frame rates to be sustained for longer periods. Jipyeong stated that these upper limits were frequently adjusted in response to game updates and consumer feedback.

Jipyeong argued, “When evaluated based on frames per second and stability, Galaxy devices can deliver superior gaming performance thanks to GOS’s individual optimization settings,” adding, “This also allows for maintaining a similar level of gaming performance at lower temperatures for longer periods.”

Samsung stated that it submitted the results of its own experiments—conducted on the same device and game but with and without the clock speed cap applied—to the Fair Trade Commission. The company claims that when the cap was applied, the results were more favorable in terms of average FPS, device temperature, and long-term stability.

Jipyeong pointed out that while the KFTC presented only the ratio of the upper limit setting to the maximum AP clock speed, it did not clarify the impact of that setting on the actual gaming experience, such as frames per second. The argument is that one cannot interpret that the perceived performance of the Galaxy S22 when running a specific game decreased by the same ratio as the CPU and GPU clock speed limit ratio.

It also emphasized that this sanction does not target the current GOS settings. SamsungElectronics explained that it provided an update in March 2022 reflecting consumer feedback and that the individual optimization settings subject to the sanction are no longer in use.

The two sides also offered differing interpretations regarding the significance of the conclusion of domestic and international lawsuits. SamsungElectronics emphasized that all eight related lawsuits filed in South Korea, the United States, and Israel were concluded by last September, and that no ruling had found SamsungElectronics liable for damages.

It explained that 1,690 domestic plaintiffs and mediation participants did not object to the Seoul High Court’s mediation decision, and that related complaints filed with the Fair Trade Commission (FTC) and other grievances had been withdrawn. In contrast, the FTC maintains that the conclusion of the civil lawsuits is separate from the issue of whether there was a violation of the Fair Labeling and Advertising Act.

Samsung plans to explain the technical necessity of the optimization feature and the legality of the advertisement in court. Jipyeong stated, “After receiving and reviewing the Fair Trade Commission’s decision, SamsungElectronics plans to actively demonstrate through legal proceedings that the advertisement in question does not violate the Labeling and Advertising Act.”