I merged your post into this older one about OLED Burn-in (started in 2017.) Note this reply from Choice staff.
Agree or not, burn-in is not equated with function in the estimated panel lifetime hours. eg a panel with burn-in that still otherwise works is not considered ‘failed’. Taking the case via the Australian Consumer Law Could get a resolution in a specific well documented case, but because of the pervasiveness of OLED panels is unlikely to succeed just because it is OLED and had burn-in.
Some years ago when burn-in was recognised the ‘broadcasters’ and most if not all manufacturers eventually added some features to their broadcasts and products that have been more or less successful including screen savers and pixel shifting. On some models both have to be enabled although they should be on by default. It is a feature to look for.
Neither is perfect but the incidence of burn-in has been reduced as a result.
While warning about burn-in would be appropriate all types of displays are subject to it, some more than others. In the context of a lab test it is impractical to determine if any particular product has more or less or any burn-in because the elapsed time would make any review irrelevant vis-a-vis product cycles.
It is possible Choice needs to re-evaluate the presentation of ‘bad points’ if data shows OLEDs (or any technology) remain more prone than others. @ScottOKeefe?
