Samsung lost appeals trying to overturn rulings rejecting arbitration in a pair of consumer cases involving Galaxy S7 smartphones.

In separate unpublished memoranda, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Tuesday upheld rulings that found Samsung Electronics America Inc. had not adequately disclosed its arbitration agreements on the outside of the smartphone's box or the cover of a booklet tucked inside the packaging.

One case involved a class action brought on behalf of a customer whose Galaxy S7 stopped working after she accidentally dropped it in the toilet.

The other was pursued by a man whose Galaxy S7 Edge caught fire in his pants.

Both challenged the enforceability of Samsung's arbitration agreement.

Morgan & Morgan partner Andrew Parker Felix in Orlando, who represented Daniel Ramirez in a personal injury lawsuit over his exploding smartphone, praised the ruling in an email.

"We have believed from the beginning that our client's injuries were preventable, and that Samsung is unjustly trying to force him into an arbitration proceeding that he never agreed to, and in so doing, shirk its responsibility to ensure their products are safe," Felix wrote.

Writing in almost identical decisions, the court said, "We conclude that the inaptly titled booklet containing the terms and conditions and the smartphone packaging's vague reference to terms and conditions are insufficient to put a reasonable consumer (or a reasonably prudent smartphone user) on notice of the arbitration provision that Samsung seeks to enforce,"

Samsung and its lawyer, Robert Katerberg, a partner at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer in Washington, who argued in both cases, did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.

Jordan Elias, a partner at Girard Sharp in San Francisco, who represented the other plaintiff, Dulce Alondra Velasquez-Reyes, said, "The Ninth Circuit rightly rejected Samsung's attempt to contract by surprise." She alleged Samsung's claims about its Galaxy S7 being waterproof were fraudulent.

The cases are the latest to address whether manufacturers of consumer products adequately disclose arbitration agreements to customers. Judges in two courts in California ruled against Samsung based on the Ninth Circuit's 2017 precedent in Norcia v. Samsung Telecommunications America, which rejected an arbitration motion under similar facts involving its Galaxy S4.

Katerberg tried to distinguish the cases from Norcia, but the Ninth Circuit cited that decision in Tuesday's rulings.

"Under California law, silence or inaction generally does not constitute acceptance of a contract," the panel wrote. "Norcia also forecloses Samsung's arguments that California courts have adopted the 'in-the-box' theory of assent and that the 'in-the-box' theory would apply in these circumstances."