ARTICLE
22 July 2026

Is It A "QLED" TV? Navigating The Difficulties Of Advertising Emerging Technology

FK
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz

Contributor

Frankfurt Kurnit provides high quality legal services to clients in many industries and disciplines worldwide. With leading practices in entertainment, advertising, IP, technology, litigation, corporate, estate planning, charitable organizations, professional responsibility and other areas — Frankfurt Kurnit helps clients face challenging legal issues and meet their goals with efficient solutions.
A federal court allowed a false advertising lawsuit against Hisense USA to proceed, where consumers allege the company misled buyers about quantum dot technology in its QLED televisions. The case raises critical questions about how brands should advertise emerging technologies, the importance of clear terminology, and whether advertised features provide material benefits to consumers.
United States Consumer Protection
Jeff Greenbaum’s articles from Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz are most popular:
  • within Consumer Protection topic(s)
  • in United States
  • with readers working within the Advertising & Public Relations, Automotive and Banking & Credit industries
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz are most popular:
  • within Government, Public Sector, Strategy and Real Estate and Construction topic(s)

Hisense USA sells QLED televisions. As Hisense explains on its website, “With Hi-QLED Color delivering vivid color, every scene feels richer, deeper and more lifelike – whether you're watching a late-night drama or a weekend blockbuster.” According to Consumer Reports, a QLED television is an LCD television that uses quantum dots to produce better colors. 

Some consumers sued Hisense for false advertising, alleging that Hisense misled consumers in its promotion of its QLED televisions through third-party retailers, because the TVs either do not contain QLED technology or they contain such negligible amounts of the technology that it won't meaningfully contribute to the television's performance. 

Hisense moved to dismiss, arguing that the consumers' allegations were speculative and unsupported. The court allowed the case to proceed, holding that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs at this stage of the proceeding was sufficient to allow the case to continue. As the court explained, “considering all of plaintiffs' allegations – including the references to the Rtings.com articles, industry standards, and their own testing – plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the Hisense TVs at issue either do not contain quantum dot technology or contain it in negligible amounts such that it does not provide the advertised benefits of a true QLED TV.”

While this lawsuit is still at its very early stages, and there's no telling how it will resolved, it highlights some important issues that advertisers should think about when advertising new technology. 

First, when new technologies get introduced, consumers are often less familiar with them. As a result, they may not fully understand the technology being promoted or the specific benefits they are going to get from that technology. In order to prevent consumers from being misled, then, it's often necessary to take extra steps in the advertising to educate them about that technology and how it works and what the limitations are.

Second, with new technology, there often isn't a common understanding about what the terminology means. If you're using newer terminology to promote a product, don't assume that your definition is the same as what a consumer's definition may be. When in doubt, explain exactly what you mean when using an unfamiliar term. 

Third, don't ignore the claims your third-party retailers are making. If you're promoting your product through retailers, consider how they are going to promote your product as well. If you've decided that certain qualifying information is needed to prevent consumers from being misled, you're going to want to ensure that the retailers include that information as well. 

Finally, this lawsuit raises an important issue about materiality. If you're going to promote that your product has a specific feature, or a particular ingredient, you should consider whether that feature or ingredient is actually providing a material benefit to consumers. If it isn't, consumers may argue that they were misled. 

Abi-Chahine v. Hisense USA, No. 25-cv-09960-WHO (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2026).

www.fkks.com

This alert provides general coverage of its subject area. We provide it with the understanding that Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz is not engaged herein in rendering legal advice, and shall not be liable for any damages resulting from any error, inaccuracy, or omission. Our attorneys practice law only in jurisdictions in which they are properly authorized to do so. We do not seek to represent clients in other jurisdictions.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More