LG Electronics Small Claims Court Submission

This document relates to my LG Electronics Blog

Issued on: 31 August 2025

Defendant details

Company name: LG Electronics U.K. Ltd

Address:
LG Electronics UK Ltd
Velocity V2
Brooklands Drive
Weybridge
KT13 0SL

Reason for claim

Background

I purchased an LG television in December 2020 for £493.99 (including delivery), specifically for its ability to run third-party apps: YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, and Jellyfin (for local media playback).

I do not watch live/broadcast TV; the smart app functionality was the sole reason for my purchase.

Events

Over several years, LG has pushed software updates requiring acceptance of new terms and conditions to continue using smart features. Refusal disables all apps: including third-party and already installed apps: leaving the TV limited to live TV and external inputs.

These updates often come with changes to the television’s core functions and features, such as the operating system and its features, including AI, etc., and are covered by a general set of terms and conditions.

In April 2025, an update presented the terms in a foreign language, despite all language settings being English. This made informed consent impossible.

Without accepting the terms, I cannot use any apps (including those I already installed), including Jellyfin, which operates locally without network services.

LG’s Conduct

LG has:

  • Offered no software fix or alternative update
  • Asserted the issue is outside the warranty (irrelevant, as this is not a hardware fault)
  • Deflected responsibility to the retailer, despite having sole control over the software
  • Provided no mechanism to run already installed apps
  • Provided no ability to locally install or run apps outside of their terms (e.g. “sideload”)
  • Not provided an English copy of the new terms
  • Not offered a replacement or any other alternative

Their actions show not just unwillingness, but an active effort to obstruct resolution and therefore my rights as a consumer and data subject.

Why This Is Unreasonable

  • Loss of purchased functionality Features central to the product’s purpose have been disabled.
  • Coerced consent Functionality is conditional on accepting broad, unrelated terms.
  • No informed consent Terms are in a language I cannot read, breaching GDPR’s requirement for “specific, informed, and unambiguous” consent.
  • Overreach Blanket terms apply even to apps like Jellyfin for local media playback and which were already installed.
  • No alternative No path exists to use the TV (including already installed apps) without agreeing to the new terms.

Legal Basis

  • Consumer Rights Act 2015
    The TV is no longer “fit for purpose” or of “satisfactory quality,” as its essential functions have been removed by LG’s updates.
  • GDPR
    Consent is not “freely given” if refusal leads to loss of product functionality, especially where the processing is not strictly necessary for that function, and the terms are in a foreign language.
  • Unfair Contract Terms
    Introducing new terms post-sale to restore pre-existing features is an unfair variation.

Relevant Precedent

Similar to Bundeskartellamt v Meta, where consent was invalid due to lack of real choice, LG’s exclusive control over the device’s software post-sale creates a lock-in, coercing acceptance of broad terms unrelated to the core product function.

Timeline of events

  • 27 December 2020
    Initial purchase of LG (50NANO796NE) television from Buy It Direct Limited.
  • 18 April 2025
    Television enforces new terms and conditions, in foreign language.
  • 21 April 2025
    I send a complaint to their DPO (Data Protection Officer) using the email address in their privacy policy; this bounces and I resend to customer support.
    The complaint includes details of the problem as well as photos of the issue and the terms in a foreign language.
  • 22 April 2025
    LG acknowledges that features are blocked unless I accept the terms but claims compliance with the law.
  • 5 May 2025
    I dispute this point given I cannot even understand the terms.
  • 6 May 2025
    LG requests details of the television for escalation.
  • 1 June 2025
    I provide make, model, serial number, and purchase details.
  • 2 June 2025
    LG sends a generic help link and no direct resolution. At this point I no longer want to deal with the issue, so I ask for a refund.
  • 11 July 2025
    LG refuses refund citing out-of-warranty and deflects responsibility to the retailer.
  • 4 August 2025
    I reiterate that this is not a warranty issue and is a matter of rights.
  • 4 August 2025
    LG again deflects to the retailer.
  • 7 August 2025
    I reaffirm that my complaint is with LG.
  • 8 August 2025
    LG acknowledges my frustration but continues to reiterate their stance and only offers a chargeable “repair”.
  • 9 August 2025
    I state that LG has had ample opportunity to resolve the matter and announce my intent to seek remedy through the small claims court.
  • 11 August 2025
    LG acknowledges my email but offers no solution other than to suggest:
    “We recommend contacting your local Trading Standards or Citizens Advice for free and impartial consumer guidance.”

Evidence type

  • Letters, emails and other correspondence:
    Email correspondence with LG
  • Photo evidence:
    Photo and video evidence of the television including the settings being set to “English”, terms being in a foreign language, and being forced to accept the terms when opening already installed apps
  • Receipts:
    Proof of purchase from Buy It Direct Ltd

Claim amount details

Claim amount items

  • Cost of television including delivery: £493.99

Total amount

  • Claim amount: £493.99
  • Total interest claimed to date of submission: £0
  • Claim fee: £50.00

Total: £543.99