A Perfect Storm is Brewing – Image Retention Issue That Can Shake LCD TV Industry

March 15, 2011 - PRLog -- The global market for LCD TVs grew at a remarkable rate of 30% in 2010 and is forecasted to exceed 200 million units in 2011. LCD TV technology has established itself as uncontested market leader leaving plasma TV far behind and making CRT TV obsolete.  There is only one small cloud on the LCD TV technology‘s horizon – the image retention phenomenon, also known in the field as temporary image retention (TIR), image sticking, image persistence or pixel burn.  The image retention issue marring consumer experience can burst anytime in a wave of consumer protection suits and shake LCD TV industry.

Here is how Philips’s whitepaper describes this phenomenon:
“When an unchanging fixed image or repetitive sequence is displayed over a sufficiently long time interval, electrically charged particles (ions) that are always present in liquid crystal material can collect at the LCD panel electrodes. These ions cause a parasite electric field that affects the normal LCD behavior. The result is observed when the screen image is changed, and a residual image of the previous image can be seen – this is image retention. In most cases, image retention is temporary, and can be reversed by taking particular measures. However, when no measures are taken for long time, image retention can become permanent.”

Currently the legal status of the image retention issue can be described as a grey area.  On the one side, warranty certificates offer rather vague clauses designed to protect warranty providers from customers’ suits. On the other side, the leading LCD TV manufacturers go the extra mile to please disgruntled customers and suppress any potential suit that can set up the precedent for mass claims. The standard operating procedure is to replace the image retention affected LCD TV set free of charge by new set even when the set is out of the warranty period.

A perfect storm that could affect the LCD TV industry is brewing in the small hall of the Israeli (Haifa Magistrate)Small Claims Court.  On March 14, 2011 there was a hearing  in the Haifa Small Claims Court – file #23292-11-10 – E.E., a private person,  v. Ralco Consumer Products Ltd,  the exclusive importer and distributor of Sharp’s products in Israel.  The Plaintiff has applied for warranty service within warranty period when she discovered faded bands on the screen of her LCD TV.  Technician, sent by warranty provider, had diagnosed a problem as unrepairable irreversible pixel burn.  Ralco Consumer Products Ltd., a Sharp’s importer and warranty provider, took a stance typical for Israeli service providers against small and helpless consumers – “Deny and Procrastinate”.  The elderly judge Honorable Rev. Rachel Hoze, whose lifetime experience has been shaped mostly in pre-digital era, presided over the case bristling with technical terms and arguments.

The Plaintiff, E.E., has complained that faded bands on the screen developed after watching LCD TV in format 4:3. The Defendant, Mr. Yakov Gurman, Ralco’s Service Director, has blamed the Plaintiff in a breach of User Manual instructions which say that watching in format 4:3 for extended periods of time may cause problems. Asked what is “extended period of time”  - an hour,  week, month, year, continuous or accumulated – Mr. Gurman mumbled something  about one movie after another and necessity to stick to format 16:9. Asked  if format 14:9 could cause any problems or if there any reservations in using format 14:9, Mr. Gurman  confirmed that the format 14:9 is trouble-free.  Mr. Gurman has failed to answer the Plaintiff’s complaint that format 14:9 also caused faded bands. It was clear that the entire technical concept of image retention was beyond Mr. Gurman’s  grasp.  Losing argument with the Plaintiff on the technical ground, Mr. Gurman slipped into his familiar turf – “Deny and Procrastinate”.  What Mr. Gurman lacked in technical competency, he certainly made up in rudeness and aggressiveness.

The Judge, though somewhat lost in technical arguments, amazed by Plaintiff’s insistence on having all options of high-tech gadgetry working properly and worn out by apparent sleaziness of the Defender, did her best to run the hearing smoothly and ask the right questions.

No matter how insignificant this case and whatever is the verdict, this case may set up the precedent and trigger similar cases, gravel y affecting LCD TV industry. Sometimes it’s better let sleeping dogs lie, if only the warranty provider could keep customer happy, it would be in the best interests of both the consumer and the industry.  Well, rudeness, bad service and incompetence have their price.