A Munich court has banned TCL from advertising several of its televisions as “QLED” in Germany, siding with Samsung in a lawsuit over what the label actually promises buyers. The TCL QLED lawsuit in Germany, decided by the Landgericht München I on February 23, 2026, found that the sets carried only a negligible amount of quantum dot material and did not deliver the color performance consumers expect from a QLED television.1The Lec. Court Sides With Samsung Over TCL QLED TV Claims
What the Munich Court Ordered
Samsung filed suit in April 2025 against TCL’s German subsidiary, TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, arguing that TCL’s QLED marketing violated Germany’s Unfair Competition Act (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb, or UWG).2The Korea Times. German Court Orders TCL to Halt QLED TV Ads Over False Claims
The court agreed. It called TCL’s advertising a “deceptive trading practice” and ordered the company to stop promoting or selling the affected models, or any other products relying on the same technology, as QLED televisions anywhere in Germany.3What Hi-Fi. TCL Has Been Banned From Calling Some of Its TVs QLED After Losing Samsung Court Case
The ruling specifically named TCL’s QLED870 series, and its scope extends to any TCL television using the same approach.4Ars Technica. TCL’s German QLED Ban Puts Pressure on TV Brands to Be More Honest About QDs A Samsung community forum post noted that six TCL models were subject to corrections in Germany.5Samsung Community. Court Sides With Samsung Over “Fake” TCL QLED The decision was not yet legally binding when it was published, meaning TCL retains the right to appeal.64KFilme. QLED Ohne Quantum Dots: TCL Verliert Vor Gericht Wegen Irreführender TV-Werbung
Why the Court Called TCL’s QLED Label Deceptive
QLED, as the industry generally uses the term, refers to an LCD television with a dedicated quantum dot enhancement film placed between the LED backlight and the LCD panel. The quantum dots absorb light from the backlight and re-emit it at precise wavelengths, producing a wider and more saturated color range than a conventional LCD.7TCL. 4 Misunderstandings About QLED TVs Samsung, which popularized the label, uses a separate quantum dot film layer.
The Munich court found that TCL used a cheaper method: applying a small quantity of quantum dot material directly onto a diffusion plate rather than using a dedicated QD film. According to the court, that implementation produced no measurable improvement in color reproduction, so the “QLED” label was decorative rather than descriptive.8Notebookcheck. TCL Can’t Advertise TVs as QLED Since They Lack in Quantum Dots and Color Accuracy The court referenced IEC 62595-1-6, an International Electrotechnical Commission standard that expects a QLED display to use a specific quantum dot film to enhance color between the backlight and panel.9T3. Samsung’s QLED TVs Use Real Quantum Dot Displays Amid Claims Others Don’t
The Lab Testing Behind the Case
Independent testing set the stage for the lawsuit. In 2024, Korean chemicals company Hansol Chemical commissioned Intertek and SGS to test several TCL TV models for cadmium and indium, two chemical markers associated with quantum dot materials. The labs reported that these elements were “undetected” in the finished TCL units tested.10Ars Technica. TCL Accused of Selling Quantum Dot TVs Without Actual Quantum Dots
TCL disputed those results. The company argued that testing finished products rather than component films produces inaccurate readings, and submitted its own SGS test results showing cadmium at 4 mg/kg in QD film samples.10Ars Technica. TCL Accused of Selling Quantum Dot TVs Without Actual Quantum Dots Hansol also filed a complaint with Korea’s Fair Trade Commission in November 2024, which was investigating the claims as of late 2024.11The Korea Herald. Hansol Chemical Files Complaint Against TCL Over QLED Marketing
TCL’s Response and the Opposite Australian Ruling
TCL has consistently maintained that its televisions qualify as QLED products, and after the German ruling it disputed the court’s finding, arguing that quantum dot particles applied to diffusion plates are a legitimate form of the technology.3What Hi-Fi. TCL Has Been Banned From Calling Some of Its TVs QLED After Losing Samsung Court Case The company did not respond to press requests for comment following the ruling, according to Ars Technica.4Ars Technica. TCL’s German QLED Ban Puts Pressure on TV Brands to Be More Honest About QDs An appeal is widely expected but had not been confirmed as of mid-2026.
The German ruling does not settle the question globally. In October 2025, Australia’s Ad Standards Industry Jury ruled on a complaint Samsung filed against TCL over the same QLED marketing claims and reached the opposite conclusion. The Jury found there was “no agreed standard” for what technical elements define “quantum dot technology” or “QLED.” Relying on expert testimony and testing from Intertek and Exponent, Inc., TCL argued that its diffuser-plate approach was a legitimate quantum dot implementation. The Jury concluded that TCL had a “reasonable basis” for its claims and dismissed the complaint.12Ad Standards Australia. Case Report: Samsung Electronics v TCL Electronics
Reach of the Ruling Beyond Germany
The Munich decision is binding only in Germany. But Germany’s Unfair Competition Act implements the EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (2005/29/EC), which harmonizes consumer protection principles across member states, so the reasoning could inform how regulators and courts elsewhere in the EU treat similar QLED claims.13European Union. Unfair Commercial Practices
Parallel cases are moving elsewhere. In the United States, a class action titled Herrick v. TTE Technology was filed in California in April 2025, alleging that TCL models including the Q651G, Q672G, and A300W/NXTFRAME were marketed as QLED despite lacking the technology or containing it in negligible amounts; as of mid-2026 the case had been remanded to state court.14Truth in Advertising. TCL QLED Televisions A separate US class action, Macioce v. Hisense USA Corporation, was stayed as of April 2026 while the Southern District of New York considered Hisense’s motion to compel arbitration.15CourtListener. Macioce v. Hisense USA Corporation Both TCL and Hisense have called the US complaints “without merit.”16CE Pro. TCL, Hisense Hit With Class-Action Lawsuits Over QLED Claims
For a shopper in Germany, the practical effect is direct: TCL cannot legally sell the covered models under the QLED label there while the ruling stands. For buyers elsewhere, the case is a signal that the definition of QLED is being tested in court, with different jurisdictions so far reaching different answers.