That makes even less sense now. Listen closely to what you and OP just posted as proof that it isn’t fake. The man tells the Samsung operator 1 week after the visit that he never saw the scratch. And that he wonders if the technician put the scratch there themselves.
He had the footage! You mean to tell me that he already suspected that the technician put the scratch on the TV but he never reviews the footage before calling Samsung?
He was promised a new screen and was told it would be fixed, so he thought he didn’t need the footage.
Then when he calls because the technician never comes, the ticket is closed because of the scratch. What’s so weird about that?
If this was false, Samsung would have closed his channel with a cease and desist, and having lawyers all over him.
There is no way this is fake!!! But you are a shill paid or not.
That makes even less sense now. Listen closely to what you and OP just posted as proof that it isn’t fake. The man tells the Samsung operator 1 week after the visit that he never saw the scratch. And that he wonders if the technician put the scratch there themselves.
He had the footage! You mean to tell me that he already suspected that the technician put the scratch on the TV but he never reviews the footage before calling Samsung?
Again, the whole thing seems fake.
He was promised a new screen and was told it would be fixed, so he thought he didn’t need the footage.
Then when he calls because the technician never comes, the ticket is closed because of the scratch. What’s so weird about that?
If this was false, Samsung would have closed his channel with a cease and desist, and having lawyers all over him.
There is no way this is fake!!! But you are a shill paid or not.