“[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.”

  • Rottcodd@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    This shouldn’t be an exception - it should be the rule.

    At the very least, companies should be fined every single cent that they made off of something criminal, and really, they should be fined much more than they made.

    If they’re fined less than they made off of it, it’s not even really a fine. It’s just the government taking a cut of the action.

  • Veraxus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Holy cow, I tried to buy one of these. Glad I wasn’t able to. I thought “Yeah, why not lean into the cyberpunk dystopia look, right now?”

    Little did I realize that it was a product of a literal cyberpunk dystopia. Corpos, man.

    • brotkel@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah, I was on the fence and now I wish I had bought it. I’d still get my money back and I’d have a cool cosplay prop.

  • applepie@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    After using their producta. This doesn’t surprise me.

    Who DA FAQ wants their accessories to collect telemetry …

  • db2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Now start fining hedge funds and big banks the same way. What garbage.

  • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 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.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 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.

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 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.

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 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.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 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.

  • JakenVeina@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I feel like this is the first time I’ve EVER heard of a fine being “all the profits you made from the fraud.” Is this for real? Why the hell is it Razer, of all companies, that’s getting a proper punishment?

    • abhibeckert@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Here in Australia it’s standard practice to use “how much profit did you make” as the basis for a fine against a corporation.

      Except we normally multiply that number by 3x or 5x in order to make it properly punitive.

      The upside is companies tend to obey the law. The downside is every now and then an honest mistake ends in bankruptcy. And in fact, most people fined are making a mistake, because why would any corporation take on that much risk intentionally?

      I’m OK with all the fines being a bit unfair. If you’re incompetent then GTFO of the market and allow someone who does a better job to replace you.

  • Serra@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    As far as I am aware Naomi Wu was one of the first people to file an FTC complaint. She has a video about the mask on YouTube.

    Sadly she is being silenced by the Chinese government. Probably because she reported privacy problems with smartphone keyboards. Privacy that can be very important. For example if you are LGBT and your partner is of the Uyghur minority.