Technology

59597 readers

3187 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

397

FTC fines Razer for every cent made selling bogus “N95 grade” RGB masks (arstechnica.com)

submitted 6 months ago by ForgottenFlux@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

“[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."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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.com 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 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.de 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think you're confusing net income with net revenue. As far as I know, net revenue is just gross revenue minus discounts and refunds. All other expenses such as cost of materials are then subtracted after that to get net income (their actual profit).

Either way, revenue represents how much money they actually received from customers.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 6 months ago

Yes, exactly. Except you're wrong.

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/102714/what-are-difference-between-gross-revenue-reporting-and-net-revenue-reporting.asp

There are many other links. That one I just grabbed from top spot of Google search when I typed in "net revenue".