For years, television manufacturers have touted quantum dot light-emitting diode (QLED) technology as a significant leap forward, promising enhanced color and brightness through the use of microscopic quantum dots (QDs). However, a growing wave of skepticism among industry watchers and consumers is casting doubt on these claims. Recent lawsuits targeting major brands like TCL allege misleading advertising, questioning whether some TVs marketed as QLED actually utilize quantum dots in any meaningful way. While theories suggesting a complete absence of QDs might be exaggerated, the controversy highlights a significant issue: the role of ambiguous marketing in fostering customer distrust and potentially setting a damaging precedent for future high-end display technologies, including OLED variations. The core promise of QLED technology revolves around superior visual performance compared to traditional LCD-LED screens lacking quantum dots. Manufacturers like Samsung emphasize that QLED displays offer "a wider range of colors," "better color coverage," and "a brighter picture." Similarly, TCL promotes its QLED TVs as using "billions of Quantum Dot nanocrystals" to achieve an "industry-leading color palette and brightness." When properly implemented with a sufficient quantity of high-quality QDs, these claims hold true. Premium QLED models demonstrably deliver vibrant images with expansive color gamuts and impressive color volume—the ability to display a wide array of colors across various brightness levels. Technology review site RTINGS underscores the importance of color volume, noting it makes content appear "more realistic," whereas TVs with poor color volume lack detail. This capability, allowing QLEDs to potentially surpass OLEDs in brightness and significantly outperform some non-QD LCDs in color volume, forms the technology's main selling point. Examining high-performing QLED models provides a benchmark for expected color capabilities. For instance, the 2024 Sony Bravia 9, a Mini LED TV incorporating QDs, achieves 92.35 percent coverage of the DCI-P3 color space and a remarkable 54.4 percent color volume score according to RTINGS' testing methodology (where over 30 percent is considered good). Another strong performer, the 2024 Hisense U8 Mini LED TV, boasts 96.27 percent DCI-P3 coverage and 51.9 percent color volume. Even older models, like the 2020 Vizio M Series Quantum, demonstrated excellent results with 99.18 percent DCI-P3 coverage and 34 percent color volume. These examples illustrate the potential of genuine QD integration. However, it's becoming evident that not all TVs bearing the QLED label live up to these standards, with some reportedly falling short, particularly in color gamut coverage. Guillaume Chansin from Counterpoint Research noted that while "QLED generally implies superior colors," some models cover less than 90 percent of the DCI-P3 gamut, raising questions about the consistency of the technology's application. Recent developments have intensified these concerns. Testing results shared by Samsung, conducted by Intertek on three US TCL models marketed as QLED (65Q651G, 65Q681G, 75Q651G), indicated an absence of detectable levels of cadmium or indium, chemicals typically used in quantum dots. TCL defines its QLED TVs as using nano-sized quantum dots that emit colored light when illuminated. Yet, the Intertek tests, examining optical sheets, diffuser plates, and LED modules, found insufficient levels of these key elements based on minimum detection standards (0.5 mg/kg for cadmium, 2 mg/kg for indium). Responding to these findings amidst ongoing litigation regarding its QLED performance, a TCL spokesperson stated the company "stands behind [its] high-performance lineup" and possesses "definitive substantiation" for its claims, committing to validate its technologies meet consumer expectations. This situation highlights the growing tension and scrutiny surrounding QLED marketing. While the idea of manufacturers creating entirely fake, QD-less films seems unlikely due to the high cost—nearly comparable to producing genuine QD films, according to Yole Intelligence analyst Eric Virey—a more plausible explanation involves the combined use of quantum dots and cheaper phosphors for color conversion. This practice, however, introduces ethical questions about labeling such TVs as QLED, especially if the QD contribution is minimal. Counterpoint's Chansin suggested the test results on the TCL models point towards phosphors being the primary color conversion method "instead of quantum dots." He elaborated that while trace amounts might technically mean a product "contains" QDs, marketing them as enhanced by QD technology would be misleading. The term "QLED" itself lacks a rigid definition, allowing flexibility, and it's known that combining QDs and phosphors is common, particularly in lower-margin, budget-friendly TVs. Analysts concur that manufacturers have been reducing QD concentration to cut costs, potentially reaching undetectable levels, a trend Chansin warns is "not good for the industry" and risks undermining consumer confidence. The use of phosphors alongside QDs in TCL TVs isn't a new revelation. Pete Palomaki of Palomaki Consulting documented this in a 2024 teardown video of a 2022 budget TCL QLED model (55S555). He found QDs integrated into the diffuser rather than a separate film and identified significant color contribution from phosphors (KSF red and beta sialon green). Palomaki estimated that phosphors accounted for over 90 percent of the green spectrum and about 75 percent of the red, though he noted light recycling within the backlight unit could increase the QD contribution somewhat. Crucially, TCL isn't alone; this practice spans multiple brands. Virey confirmed a "full continuum of TV designs, ranging from using only phosphors to using only QDs, with any type of mix in between." Even Samsung, which raised concerns about TCL's TVs, has reportedly used phosphors, like the basic YAG phosphor identified by Palomaki in a 2019 Samsung model, potentially compromising color gamut compared to a full QD implementation. An optical spectrogram of a TV relying heavily on QDs should show narrow peak widths, indicating purer colors; the presence of phosphors can alter this signature, as illustrated in analyses of such mixed-technology displays. Using phosphors isn't inherently negative; Virey notes they can boost brightness or improve uniformity and are found even in high-performance displays. However, when QDs become undetectable in lower-tier models, cost-saving appears to be the primary motive. This situation begs the question: why aren't manufacturers providing clear, comprehensive test data, like optical spectrograms, to substantiate their QLED claims? TCL did release a spectrogram previously, but its relevance was unclear regarding specific models or full-color spectrum analysis. Both TCL and Samsung have been hesitant to provide further detailed testing results, including color gamut and accuracy benchmarks for the disputed models. More informative data would empower consumers, but the currently shared test results, focusing on the absence of specific chemicals, seem geared more towards shock value than performance clarification. Examining the performance of one accused model, the TCL 65Q651G, through RTINGS' independent testing reveals DCI-P3 coverage of 88.3 percent and color volume of 26.3 percent—below the 90 percent and 30 percent thresholds often associated with strong QLED performance and notably lower than older or higher-tier QLEDs. This discrepancy fuels the debate about what performance level justifies the QLED label. The lack of transparency and potentially biased testing (like results commissioned by competitors or affiliated companies such as Hansol Chemical, a Samsung supplier) has understandably led to increased consumer suspicion and legal action. Class-action lawsuits have been filed against both TCL and Hisense, alleging that certain models marketed as QLED either lack the technology or contain it in negligible amounts that don't meaningfully contribute to performance. The Hisense lawsuit names several series, including the U7N, a model often recommended by review sites, which RTINGS measured at a respectable 94.14 percent DCI-P3 coverage and 37 percent color volume—performance suggesting plausible QD use, yet uncertainty remains without definitive component analysis. While these lawsuits currently lack conclusive proof of deception, they underscore growing consumer anxiety about being misled and raise critical questions about the performance standards required for a TV to be legitimately marketed as QLED. Ultimately, this confusion stems largely from the TV industry's marketing strategies. The proliferation of acronyms (QLED, QNED) and the vague use of terms like "quantum" create an alphabet soup that is difficult for average consumers to navigate. LG, for example, marketed QNED ("quantum nano-emitting diode") TVs for years as using quantum dots, only to announce a 2025 QNED lineup that *replaces* quantum dots with a proprietary "Dynamic QNED Color Solution." While claiming certification for color volume, the lack of specific benchmarks and the shift in underlying technology under the same marketing banner invite confusion and the potential for consumers to purchase products believing they contain technology they do not. This focus on branding over clear performance communication prioritizes marketing appeal over consumer understanding. What truly matters to viewers is the actual image quality relative to the price, manufacturer claims, and competing options, not the specific internal components. However, the industry's ambiguous use of QD-related terminology has made assessing the potential performance of these TVs challenging. This problem extends beyond mid-range QLEDs, potentially impacting consumer perception of genuinely advanced technologies like QD-OLED and the upcoming QDEL (quantum dot electroluminescent displays), where QDs are integral to premium performance. The current situation risks setting a precedent where manufacturers exploit the popularity of QD terminology without delivering corresponding benefits. While demanding exact QD counts is unnecessary, consumers deserve clarity on expected real-world performance. The industry has muddied the waters around the term QLED, prompting calls, like Virey's suggestion for industry standards and self-policing, to restore credibility. A reckoning may be underway for brands found to be misrepresenting their products, driven by litigation and increasing consumer demand for honesty about TV capabilities.
