A lot of this debate is OT so I'll just stcik to the most relevant point...
And let's also clarify what we're discussing, because I'm referring to liability under law and you keep citing guidelines, and these are very different. The law, which is passed based on evidence following a public consultation and presentation of said evidence, is there for public safety. Guidelines, which is everything you've listed (use by dates, guidelines on not using mobile phones) are
opinions made by a body and which are almost entirely optional.
There's evidence that mobile signals can interfere with avionics. That's different to proof that mobile phones can't trigger and explosion. Plus mobiles are starting to be allowed on flights. And flights are pretty ridiculous in their degree of prohibition anyway!
Let's be clear, there is no aircraft malfunction that has been attributed to a mobile device. That's an incontrovertible fact. There is some data that demonstrates that some devices (old by today's standards)
used in or very near the cabin, can affect the flight deck equipment. It is for this reason that, to the best of my knowledge anyway, that the FAA, CAA and their regional equivalents do not ban the use of phones but leave this to the discretion of operators. This is a
guideline (nor law).
Similarly, the use of mobile phones at fuel stations. There's no legislation that I'm aware that prohibits usage, only guidelines against using them. Whatever the original reason there are sufficient cases of
mobiles catching fire to consider this perhaps a sensible precaution. This is also a
guideline.
That's different to the idea that the guidelines are based on scientific research. The suggested best-practice for switching off mobiles at petrol stations was based on hearsay, not science.
And why these are guidelines and not legislation. However, H&S and product liability are
legislation - at least in the EU and many other countries like Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand. Here in the UK the primary legislation is the
Consumer Protection Act 1987, on which many other supplementary Orders are established.
I've posted on
how law is passed in the UK (based on evidence) in the past so I'll refer you to that which is the distinction between the body of evidence required to pass a law. If you really want to pursue the evidence used to pass laws, you can certainly get this publicly because it would have been published and 'robustly tested' (made sure it's bullshit).
If there is a real risk, it'll be undocumented and appear when the product is in the wild and people start dropping like flies or losing their marbles. And none of those poor folk is going to be able to sue Samsung or OVR or Sony because they all basically told you not to use VR because it was going to melt your brain, so you've only yourself to blame.
Here's the difference. When a company like Samsung is liable under statutory regulation for harm or other ill effects resulting from the use of their prodicts, it's not just a case of potentially facing a civil suit from the customer, you've got the legislation's regulator on your arse - in this case the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (what used to the Department of Trade & Industry). They can stop you selling, fine you, revoke licences and authorisations you need to trade. That is not a risk you take.
So back to those cautious lawyers. To retread where I entered; I've never met a cautious lawyer render a view without knowing the facts. Particularly where new technology and consumers are concerned. They
will have undertaken some studies. You mentioned "low-balling" the risk but to low/high ball anything you have to have a benchmark for that risk - a study in other words. Otherwise it's just a guess. And cautious lawyers don't guess. If they go to court they'll want to present exhibit A, this study of 1,000 people who were monitored while using the product with various degrees of effects over different periods of time. Then demonstrate, and convince a jury, that their product usage instructions were sensible and realistic.
