The Real McCoy: The Controversy Over Quantum Dot Display Authenticity
In recent weeks there have been numerous reports about “fake” quantum dot displays, with TCL and Hisense facing class action lawsuits in the US over whether they have misled consumers over the technology in their quantum dot TVs. The lawsuits1,2 allege that quantum dot technology is either completely missing from certain TV products or is present in negligible amounts that do not contribute to the colour performance. The lawsuits claim that consumers were misled into paying a premium for a product that they believed to contain state-of-the-art technology delivering improved colour performance and brightness. Had they known this not to be true, in some cases they may not have purchased the TV at all.
In South Korea, Hansol Chemical commissioned tests on a number of TCL TV models, which were found not to contain any traces of either cadmium or indium, which would be expected in quantum dot TVs. This has led to a complaint to South Korea’s Fair Trade Commission,3 arguing that TCL’s advertising is misleading. TCL has fought back, stating that its TVs do in fact contain cadmium-based quantum dots. Yet, many in the industry argue that the cadmium-based quantum dot concentration is too low to enhance the display performance.
Samsung has since announced that its QLED TVs have received certification for cadmium-free quantum dot technology excellence from the Société Générale de Surveillance,4 to reassure the consumer that its products are RoHS compliant and completely free of toxic cadmium. In 2023, Samsung took out a licence to Nanoco’s patent portfolio in settlement of litigation for alleged infringement of certain Nanoco patents in its QLED TVs. The licence allows Samsung access to Nanoco’s unique IP relating to cadmium-free quantum dot technology.
We endeavour to continue improving our materials and promoting the use of cadmium-free quantum dots over toxic cadmium, with the aim of converting the industry completely over to cadmium-free materials for display applications and beyond.
1. Herrick vs. TTE Technology, Inc., Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverdale case no. CVRI2500738
2. Macioce vs. Hisense USA Corporation, United States District Court Southern District of New York case no. 1:25-cv-01608
3. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2025/02/129_386091.html