“Deceptive advertising and misinformation posed a risk to public health."

“[Razer] falsely claimed, in the midst of a global pandemic, that their face mask was the equivalent of an N95 certified respirator,” Samuel Levine, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement.

Razer never got the Zephyr tested by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health or the US Food and Drug Administration and the Zephyr never received N95 certification.

The FTC’s complaint against Razer, which is best known for high-priced, RGB-riddled PC gaming peripherals, claimed that Razer continued promoting the Zephyr despite consultants highlighting the mask’s lack of certification and protection.

Razer reportedly refunded fewer than 6 percent of Zephyr purchases in the US.

However, the proposed settlement against Razer includes a $100,000 civil penalty, plus $1,071,254.33, which the FTC said is equal to the amount of revenue Razer made from the Zephyr and will go toward refunding “defrauded consumers.”

  • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    41·
    6 months ago

    Is that gross, or net, sales revenue? It’s a small enough number I’m guessing it’s net, which means their “punishment” is nothing more than they didn’t make any profit, but also didn’t lose any. Big woop.

    • xthexder@l.sw0.comEnglish
      3·
      6 months ago

      The article says revenue near the end. I find that a little hard to believe though, unless they sold barely any of them.

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        5·
        6 months ago

        They likely sold barely any of them. They were nigh impossible to get during the pandemic, and virtually no one wanted them after the fact.

        • AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2·
          6 months ago

          Also they were rather expensive, even if they had done what they claimed to. They became more available about the same time you could get N95s easily. I’m the kind of weirdo who thinks an RGB face mask would be cool, but I didn’t want to spend $150 (iirc) on one.

          EDIT: based on comments on the article, they were $99. Still more than I’d want to spend on something this silly, but not that unreasonable - if the mask did what it said it did.

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        1·
        6 months ago

        Yes, but there’s two tours of “revenue”. There’s net revenue, and there’s gross revenue. One is how many dollars worth they sold, and the other is how much they actually profited from it.