Samsung Electronics advertised the game-running capabilities of its Galaxy smartphones and tablets without disclosing that it caps maximum performance when running high-spec games, and it now faces a fine of 20.114 billion won. The Fair Trade Commission said on the 27th that it decided to impose this fine, along with a corrective order, for Samsung Electronics' violation of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising.
The FTC concluded that Samsung Electronics' advertising, which highlighted only the strengths while concealing the performance limits, constituted "deceptive advertising." Because high-spec game performance is cited as a key criterion when choosing a premium smartphone, whether performance is throttled is information buyers must know, the FTC judged. It held that the company obstructed consumers' rational choices by touting game performance as a core strength while omitting important information that undercut it.
The sanctions target advertising for the Galaxy S21 and S22 series and the Galaxy Tab S8 series sold from January 2021 to March 2022. During this period, Samsung Electronics heavily promoted game performance in promotional videos, on its website and at new product launch events. It even used the expression "the ultimate mobile gaming experience." For the Galaxy S21, it touted that performance is excellent even in high-spec games, citing the "fastest 5nm AP of any Galaxy series." For the S22 and Tab S8, it emphasized fast touch response and smooth screen transitions as strengths.
However, the investigation found that the Game Optimizing Service (GOS) kicked in the moment certain high-spec games were launched and lowered the device's maximum performance. GOS is a system that controls heat generated during gameplay. Unlike the general policy, which adjusts performance according to the device's state, such as temperature, the individual policy at issue here capped the maximum operating speeds of the CPU (central processing unit) and GPU (graphics processing unit) to predetermined levels from the moment a specific game ran, regardless of the device's state.
The size of the cap was large. When PUBG: New State was launched on a Galaxy S22 series phone, the CPU's maximum operating speed fell from 2.99GHz to 0.94GHz, and the GPU's from 818MHz to 220MHz. That is only 31.4% and 26.9% of the original maximums. The games subject to performance throttling numbered 82 on the Galaxy S21 series, 47 on the S22 series and 8 on the Tab S8 series. The FTC said that as a result, the screen could stutter and graphics quality could fall during gameplay. Complaints also emerged among consumers about screen stuttering and lower resolution.
The fine was cut sharply from the examiner's opinion. The FTC examiner originally saw the case as a "serious violation" and proposed a fine of about 66 billion won. After deliberation, however, the plenary session judged it a "violation of weak seriousness" and applied a base rate of about 0.5%, bringing the amount down to about 20.1 billion won. It took into account that when the GOS controversy erupted in March 2022, Samsung Electronics promptly corrected the problem itself, lifting the CPU and GPU maximum speed caps through a software update and letting users choose a "Game Performance Mode" that loosens temperature control.
The FTC said the case is significant in confirming that a company that advertises a particular performance as a strength must also clearly disclose the important restrictions that govern that performance.
Samsung Electronics takes the position that it is hard to accept the sanction. A Samsung Electronics representative said, "GOS was a function that improved perceived game performance and optimized it so that games could be enjoyed stably for a long time," adding, "This is a decision that is hard to understand, given that all domestic and overseas lawsuits have concluded and the FTC complaints filed by plaintiffs have been withdrawn." The representative added, "We will actively explain the company's position through legal procedures going forward."
The FTC countered that the conclusion of the civil suits is a separate matter from whether the labeling and advertising law was violated. FTC standing commissioner Lee Soon-mi said at a briefing that day, "The first-instance ruling in the civil suit in June 2025 also found that it constituted deceptive advertising," adding, "However, the damages claim was dismissed because a causal link between the specific losses consumers suffered and the advertising was not proven." She stressed, "The second-instance trial in February 2026 was wrapped up through a compulsory mediation procedure between the parties, and the court did not make a separate legal judgment. The FTC judged illegality based on criteria such as whether information important to consumers' purchasing choices was omitted from the advertising."