5 ms·

What I want to know: if they had submitted the mask for testing, would it have passed? I agree there should be a fine given that "N95" refers to masks that hav

What I want to know: if they had submitted the mask for testing, would it have passed? I agree there should be a fine given that "N95" refers to masks that have actually passed NIOSH testing, but I think it interesting to know if the mask worked. If the masks worked, there was never a risk to public health.

briffle 2y ago
I want to know how much they made selling them? If they made $30m, and they get fined $1.2, that isn't really much deterrent...
- doctoboggan 2y ago
  The article claimed that the fine is 100% of the revenue from the sales of the mislabeled masks: > The vote approving the complaint and proposed order was passed 3-0, and the FTC will use the $1.1 million sum, equal to revenue generated by the Zephyr, to provide full refunds to customers.
  - ungreased0675 2y ago
    That doesn’t seem like much of a deterrent.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  Well also, IIUC about 3% of americans died from covid so assuming each Zypher mask cost $100 then out of the ~10,000 customers 30 of them died.
  - recursive 2y ago
    This is assuming that there's zero correlation between mask usage and dying from covid. That hasn't been established.
  - nrml_amnt 2y ago
    Did you mean .3% ?
    - lesuorac 2y ago
      Yeah, 30/10k is .3% so that part is correct.
cdchn 2y ago
Or were the filter elements already submitted for N95 rating and Razer thought that the rating was transitive rather than having to get the entire apparatus certified.
- quartesixte 2y ago
  The generous reading is this. And I don’t exactly blame whoever interpreted the regulations like that. However, they really should have gotten a lawyer or consultant specializing in health product regulations.
  - eschneider 2y ago
    I absolutely blame them. You don't YOLO health and safety regulations.
  - dmd 2y ago
    I do blame whoever interpreted the regulations like that, as the regulations about this stuff are crystal clear that it is the whole device that is tested, not a component.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  As pointed out in the actual complaint [1], Razr was aware their masks did not perform at the N95 level and were told by the testing agencies "Cannot mentioned N95. Hazel mask is not a N95 respirator. " and "cannot mentioned NIOSH or NIOSH-certified respirators.". Of course, they did anywas. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40214045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40214045
trvz 2y ago
Reading the article, I was sorely missing this as well. For me, this story erodes confidence in the FTC, not Razer.
- neura 2y ago
  How does this erode your confidence in the FTC? Maybe you missed the FTC report where they stated the maximum filtration they were able to reach was 86% and that was the maximum, with most tests hitting much lower. Even calling the mask "N95 Grade", which is an obvious statement that it didn't pass actual testing, is a major problem. It's vague enough that most will believe that it is equivalent to one that has actually passed testing. When it's supposed to catch 95% and catches 10% less, that's _triple_ the amount of crap passing through. If you read through the FTC documents, you can see that they (Razer) knew it would not pass and so went with the strategy of getting people to believe that it was the same, without any proof. The FTC could not prevent them from releasing the product or immediately cause them to remove it from market as Razer did not claim that it was N95 certified. Razer knew exactly what they were doing in getting around this and now they're paying the price for doing so, while the FTC sets an example for others that "if you even imply that your product is equivalent to being certified, we'll pin you for it."
burkaman 2y ago
No, they did have them tested and knew they wouldn't pass NIOSH testing. Page 17: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Razer-PACER-No1-Complaint.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Razer-PACER-No1.... I encourage everyone to read the complaint, there is no grey area here and no accidents. This was explicit fraudulent behavior by executives (including the CEO) who knew their mask didn't work very well, knew what "N95" means and that their mask couldn't qualify, and made many conscious decisions to lie to the public anyway.
- hex4def6 2y ago
  Jeez. It's one thing to not do the testing, call it N95, and then say "oopsie, we didn't realize". It's another to actually do the testing, discover it doesn't pass, and sell it as N95 anyway. That is a pretty good "willfully fraudulent" argument rather than "accidently overstating performance".

briffle 2y ago

I want to know how much they made selling them? If they made $30m, and they get fined $1.2, that isn't really much deterrent...

doctoboggan 2y ago
The article claimed that the fine is 100% of the revenue from the sales of the mislabeled masks: > The vote approving the complaint and proposed order was passed 3-0, and the FTC will use the $1.1 million sum, equal to revenue generated by the Zephyr, to provide full refunds to customers.
- ungreased0675 2y ago
  That doesn’t seem like much of a deterrent.
lesuorac 2y ago
Well also, IIUC about 3% of americans died from covid so assuming each Zypher mask cost $100 then out of the ~10,000 customers 30 of them died.
- recursive 2y ago
  This is assuming that there's zero correlation between mask usage and dying from covid. That hasn't been established.
- nrml_amnt 2y ago
  Did you mean .3% ?
  - lesuorac 2y ago
    Yeah, 30/10k is .3% so that part is correct.

cdchn 2y ago

Or were the filter elements already submitted for N95 rating and Razer thought that the rating was transitive rather than having to get the entire apparatus certified.

quartesixte 2y ago
The generous reading is this. And I don’t exactly blame whoever interpreted the regulations like that. However, they really should have gotten a lawyer or consultant specializing in health product regulations.
- eschneider 2y ago
  I absolutely blame them. You don't YOLO health and safety regulations.
- dmd 2y ago
  I do blame whoever interpreted the regulations like that, as the regulations about this stuff are crystal clear that it is the whole device that is tested, not a component.
lesuorac 2y ago
As pointed out in the actual complaint [1], Razr was aware their masks did not perform at the N95 level and were told by the testing agencies "Cannot mentioned N95. Hazel mask is not a N95 respirator. " and "cannot mentioned NIOSH or NIOSH-certified respirators.". Of course, they did anywas. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40214045 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40214045

trvz 2y ago

Reading the article, I was sorely missing this as well. For me, this story erodes confidence in the FTC, not Razer.

neura 2y ago
How does this erode your confidence in the FTC? Maybe you missed the FTC report where they stated the maximum filtration they were able to reach was 86% and that was the maximum, with most tests hitting much lower. Even calling the mask "N95 Grade", which is an obvious statement that it didn't pass actual testing, is a major problem. It's vague enough that most will believe that it is equivalent to one that has actually passed testing. When it's supposed to catch 95% and catches 10% less, that's _triple_ the amount of crap passing through. If you read through the FTC documents, you can see that they (Razer) knew it would not pass and so went with the strategy of getting people to believe that it was the same, without any proof. The FTC could not prevent them from releasing the product or immediately cause them to remove it from market as Razer did not claim that it was N95 certified. Razer knew exactly what they were doing in getting around this and now they're paying the price for doing so, while the FTC sets an example for others that "if you even imply that your product is equivalent to being certified, we'll pin you for it."

burkaman 2y ago

No, they did have them tested and knew they wouldn't pass NIOSH testing. Page 17: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Razer-PACER-No1-Complaint.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Razer-PACER-No1.... I encourage everyone to read the complaint, there is no grey area here and no accidents. This was explicit fraudulent behavior by executives (including the CEO) who knew their mask didn't work very well, knew what "N95" means and that their mask couldn't qualify, and made many conscious decisions to lie to the public anyway.

hex4def6 2y ago
Jeez. It's one thing to not do the testing, call it N95, and then say "oopsie, we didn't realize". It's another to actually do the testing, discover it doesn't pass, and sell it as N95 anyway. That is a pretty good "willfully fraudulent" argument rather than "accidently overstating performance".