> That's where the brand comes in: they're supposed to have something to lose.
Samsung is a huge brand, and had significant issues with battery fires. The bigger the brand, the less they lose because they swim in money and have specialists dedicated to PR damage control.
In fact, brands seem more likely to be the ones that manage to stuff more battery capacity in there, increasing risk and scope of damage.
Yes, huge brands have problems, but they are at least incentivized to solve them, whereas some no-name company has no such incentive because they have absolutely nothing to lose. And suing Samsung for damages means you are at least sure there is something worth suing.
The big companies cannot lose anything that matters to them, as they're too big and powerful, brushing off even the worst publicity. A small company collapses under pressure, and can be killed by even a viral meme going against them, with the owners suffering personal financial losses as a result.
Suing a big company like Samsung is an almost guaranteed loss with you thoroughly crushed and case precedent set so others have no reason to try. Suing a small company is a much more likely win, with reasonable damages.
Samsung is a huge brand, and had significant issues with battery fires. The bigger the brand, the less they lose because they swim in money and have specialists dedicated to PR damage control.
In fact, brands seem more likely to be the ones that manage to stuff more battery capacity in there, increasing risk and scope of damage.