Samsung Z Fold 6 Chronic Screen Defect & Unfair Repair Fee

I purchased my Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 (Model: SM‑F956BDBCTUR, IMEI: 357489946080771) on 16 October 2024 with invoice number IZO2024000042378. While the device was still under warranty, the inner foldable screen began to fail repeatedly with the same defect. The screen developed cracks along the central crease and immediately showed broken colors and spots on the inner display, making it unusable. The first inner screen failure occurred on 24 January 2025 and was repaired free of charge under warranty by the Başarı Teknik authorized service center in İzmir Karşıyaka. Afterwards, the same defect happened two more times during normal use, again on the inner screen, and both times the device was accepted as a warranty case and repaired without any cost to me. These free repairs are recorded under service record numbers 4283126101, 4288062548 and 4291472173. On 23 April 2026, the same problem occurred for the fourth time. While I was simply opening the fold to use the inner screen during normal, careful use, a crack suddenly appeared along the center crease and the inner display immediately failed with broken colors and spots. There was no drop, no impact, no pressure on the screen and no misuse on my side. This 4th failure happened under the exact same conditions as the previous three, which Samsung itself had previously accepted as a warranty-covered defect. I delivered the device to the same Başarı Teknik İzmir Karşıyaka authorized service on 25 April 2026, and the current service record was opened under number 4293941724. Despite three previous free warranty repairs for the identical issue, the service center now claims that old cosmetic wear on the outer frame caused this new internal screen failure and is demanding ₺26,900 for the repair. They have not provided any detailed technical report proving user error and are trying to attribute a spontaneous internal display defect to minor external cosmetic scratches, which is technically baseless and inconsistent with the device’s documented history. I also spoke by phone with the Samsung Customer Solution Team regarding this situation. They verbally admitted that the requested repair fee was high and offered a 40% discount as a so‑called goodwill gesture, but they refused to provide this offer or any technical assessment in writing. They insisted that I first pay the remaining amount and accept the paid repair. I rejected this verbal “bargaining” proposal, because it clearly shows that they are not certain about the alleged user‑induced damage and are trying to resolve a recurring technical defect through negotiation, instead of honoring the warranty and consumer rights. Up to this point, I have refused all payment requests. I have not paid any amount for diagnosis, repair or the ₺26,900 fee, because this is a chronic manufacturing or design defect that has now occurred four times under normal use, always in the same way, and has three previous warranty repair records to prove it. To protect my rights, I have already initiated an official legal process with the Consumer Arbitration Committee under reference number 2026/0497.2513. My service record, invoice and previous repair history clearly show that the product is under warranty and has a recurring inner screen failure that Samsung has repeatedly recognized. Given the repeated occurrence of the same defect and the fact that three previous repairs did not provide a lasting solution, I no longer accept another paid or discounted repair offer. I demand that my Galaxy Z Fold 6 be replaced free of charge with a new, non‑defective unit of the same kind, in line with my legal rights under consumer protection laws. In addition, I expect a formal written explanation from Samsung and the authorized service center clearly stating on what technical grounds they requested ₺26,900 for this repair, why they reversed their previous warranty approach for the same defect, and why their current user‑error claim is not supported by a transparent, detailed technical report.