Overview

Overview of our case
Case
Category
One
case2
In 2023, a certain brand launched a smart LED light featuring remote dimming and voice control via a mobile app. After purchasing the lights, over 200 consumers nationwide discovered that the app frequently experienced connection failures and control delays. Some lights even suddenly went out during app operations. Consumers contacted the brand’s customer service, who only offered ineffective solutions like “restarting the router” and “uninstalling and reinstalling the app,” refusing to acknowledge the product’s defects. Consumers subsequently formed a rights protection group, collecting evidence such as videos of the malfunction and chat logs, and filed a collective complaint with the 12315 platform. An investigation by market regulators revealed that the brand’s smart lights’ Bluetooth module had compatibility issues, preventing them from reliably connecting to devices and representing a design issue. Ultimately, the brand issued a recall announcement, offering refunds and 200 yuan shopping vouchers to all consumers.
Learn More

Smart LED lights frequently fail to function under app control, leading consumers to receive collective refunds.

case1
An outdoor LED bulletin board installed in a residential complex in 2023 went black after just eight months due to continuous rainfall. Professional inspections revealed cracking and aging of the screen’s sealant, allowing rainwater to seep into the internal circuitry, causing a short circuit and completely burning out the core driver board. When the homeowners contacted the installation company, they refused repairs, claiming the six-month warranty had expired and that the rainfall was considered force majeure. They offered only a high-priced replacement (offering a price exceeding 70% of the initial installation fee). The community homeowners’ committee, after compiling evidence, discovered that the LED board was purchased from an unqualified, small manufacturer and installed without undergoing IP65 waterproofing testing. They have now joined over 50 other homeowners in filing a complaint with market regulators, demanding the manufacturer assume responsibility for repairs and compensate for lost work time.
Learn More

LED outdoor screen water intrusion short circuit claim case

case1
At the end of 2023, Mr. Wang, a consumer in Hangzhou, reported that after three months of using a certain brand of newly installed LED downlight in his home, his family frequently experienced dry eyes and fatigue. Mr. Wang commissioned a third-party test, which revealed that the downlight had a flicker frequency of only 50Hz, far below the national requirement of “flicker frequency ≥ 120Hz” in the “Limited Values ​​and Energy Efficiency Grades for LED Lighting Products,” making it substandard. Mr. Wang contacted the brand’s after-sales service, but they claimed that “flickering in household lighting is normal” and refused to accept a refund or exchange. Mr. Wang subsequently complained to the 12315 platform. After mediation by regulatory authorities, the brand ultimately replaced the downlight with a compliant one and compensated him for the testing costs of 800 yuan.
Learn More

Complaint regarding eye problems caused by flickering LED downlights of a certain brand

case2
In 2023, a commercial complex renovation project purchased a certain brand of LED linear lights for exterior facade decoration. The contract clearly stipulated that “the color temperature deviation of the entire batch of lamps must not exceed ±200K.” However, after installation, the contractor discovered significant color variations between different batches of the linear lights—some exhibited a warm yellow hue (3000K), while others exhibited a cool white hue (5000K). At night, the facade lighting produced a patchy effect, seriously inconsistent with the design. The project owner requested that the manufacturer replace the lights with qualified products, but the manufacturer refused, citing vibrations during transportation as the cause. The contractor was also unable to deliver the products due to construction delays. The project owner ultimately sued the manufacturer. Professional testing confirmed that the color temperature deviation of the lamps at the time of shipment had reached ±500K, making them substandard. The court ordered the manufacturer to compensate the project owner for rework costs and lost wages totaling 280,000 yuan.
Learn More

A breach of contract claim involving color difference in LED linear lights for an engineering project

Products
Contacts
WhatsApp
Email