talFTC fines Razer for every cent made selling bogus “N95 grade” RGB masks | Ars Technica
Bonesince1997Why did anyone even look at Razer for a mask?! Beyond stupid
Prior to seeing this article, I’d have thought that a facemask was something that you couldn’t make a gamer version of, but apparently I was wrong.
no bananaGamer moment
Once again gamers prove to be the most oppressed people
I’m one of the stupid. During the pandemic, it was a shit time and we didn’t know what was killing everybody.
And if that was the case, I wanted to be a cyber ninja.
Had they shipped it with a free vibro-katana they would have had a sale from me.
you know, you can just order vibrators online
But think of the matching set combo! It might take forever, searching though the available vibrators for that color and style!
But do they have colorful RGB LEDs and shit management software?
No wait, don’t answer that, I’m afraid I already know the answer.
Apparently Razor already uses “Katana” as a brand for PSUs that they sell.
I honestly didn't know they even nade them. I saw them at some point and thought when this shit keeps going, i might aswell become a cybergoth with a darth vader voice. But i assumed the hype died when mask mandates losend up
Ravers want just one thing and it makes me sick
Captain AggravatedI seem to remember a time when there were no masks of any kind to be had anywhere. A makerspace I was involved in had a few sewing machines, and a few of those who could sew were making masks out of cloth they had lying around for personal use or sale. They were suddenly in demand.
I bought masks from a toy company (Playmobil) for my family, because there was literally nothing else available anywhere. They were marketed as alternatives to basic paper masks though, not N95 masks:
https://i.imgur.com/Sbq4oBq.jpeg
The innovation was that you could use tissue paper as filters and reuse the silicone mask after cleaning it. They were uncomfortable and stinky, but functional. We used these for about a month or two, long before any vaccines were available. I suspect that social distancing protected us far more than the masks, but either way, none of us got infected.
Here’s the thing tho, if it ACTUALLY met the N95 filtering standard, and looked cool as shit… I’d absolutely buy one.
This is the gaming mouse company, right?
They make mice, keyboards, laptops, components, cell phones, clothing, peripherals like mousepads and deskmats, and some more. Quality is a bit all over the place and used to be good 15 years ago but they went cheap on parts at some point
I had the opportunity to use their mice 20 years ago. I came to the conclusion they filled the same niche as monster cables, if you were convinced to buy them, that was on you.
I’m honestly surprised they’re still in business.
If the middle hadn’t been see-through I’d have bought it so I can be a cool cyber-ninja straight out of mortal kombat!
Every cent made is a fine I want to see more of. Anything less is going to be seen as just the cost of doing business and the behavior will continue.
The article also states the settlement will go to refunding the defrauded customers. This needs to be the standard when prosecuting public harm of a business.
Kalkaline No, it should be 3x revenue, IMO it’s not enough to just get that money back, it should cause some hurt on top of it.
CorkyskogBecause we all know they are only catching the tip of the iceberg anyway
Yep! Every tech CEO I’ve worked with has a mentality of “It’s just the cost of doing business.”
As it stands - you’re punished for following the law.
Interesting too how that “cost of doing business” is basically money they don’t receive as opposed to money they actually have to pay
Similarly, for rich people, a parking ticket isn’t an imposition; it’s simply what it costs to park there.
I’d be happy with 1.1x, 1.2x revenue. They would loose our on development costs too. The only thing not recouped is any gain in brand recognition etc. Make them send a message to all of their customers, and take ads out informing the public how they broke the law, misled them etc.
I partially agree, but 100% of revenue is still a loss. The R&D, employee pay, rent for facilities, and cost of input resources are still negative. 100% of profit would only encourage it still, but 100% of revenue is potentially a pretty strong punishment.
ddhIf it’s imposed 100% of the times they do it
It has to be more than every cent. That would still incentivize cheating since at worst it is a wash for them. Given they do not come close to getting 100% of offenders, the five needs to be multiples. It’s like fare enforcement on subways and light rail. If you skip paying, you’ll likely get away with it for a while. But overall, the five will cost you slightly more than if you would have just played by the rules.
The actual fine is total revenue + 100k(roughly another 10%). That seems pitifully low for knowingly and intentionally lying about something people trust their lives to.
On one hand yes, knowingly endangering lives like that could be worth a heftier fine, on the other hand everything made plus ten percent seems like a pretty good fine to use if you want to actually discourage behavior across the board.
Exactly. Fines don’t work for corporations or the mega wealthy because they don’t have teeth. Pegging the fine to the actual income earned from the crime, and ensuring it’s no longer more profitable to just pay the fine and continue doing what you’re doing, is like, the only way to continue if we want to use fines as a deterrent.
Pegging the fine against the personal assets of the executives/board responsible for the crime would be more effective.
Fining a corporation just hurts the the employees.
I mean, that’s fair. We can talk specifics, just something to make sure the fine has teeth. How we decide to do that is another topic.
Yeah, this should be the standard. No fixed penalty amounts, no negotiated settlements. Revenue +10% would be a great standard.
10% is not a fine, it is a sales tax.
Reminder that it’s all revenue PLUS 10%. So it effectively makes whatever bullshit money making scheme they want to use, cost money instead.
Good to know you dont mind the profiteering off fraud.
Fine is a penalty, not a cost of business, not a sales tax. A penalty.
100k fine on 1 mill refund is nothing. 1 mill fine on 1 mill refund is a fine.
My guy. Reading comprehension. I did not say 10%. I said 10% ON TOP OF ANY EARNINGS.
As in, if a corp earns 1 million, the fine levied would be 1.1 million.
Christ, go back to 2nd grade.
Stop conflating refund as earnings and a fine. Its not. They didn’t earn shit, they committed fraud
Yes, they earned things. Fraudulently. You’re getting up in arms over some terminology that doesn’t quite mesh with your preferences. We’re clearly on the same wavelength - stop organizations from acquiring (does that keep you happy? Getting? Taking? Whatever fucking word you want) money through illegal or unethical methodology.
You’re like the worst part of the left. Up in arms because someone dares to have a “different” opinion from you, when if you actually stopped to understand the words they’re saying, you’d realize you’re on the same fucking page.
You’re perpetuating it as a win. Its not. Its not close to bare minimum. The cost of this should have been:
Incoherent ramblings. Cool story bro
Don’t put words in my mouth. You’re the one refusing to move past the fact that I chose to refer to your idea of a refund as part of the fine. Get back to me when you make an effort to understand the actual points I’m making.
incoherent ramblings
Still no coherent point.
It’s 110%, not 10%.
Its a 100% refund with a 10% fine. Dont conflate the refunded fraudulent sales with the fine.
Which then makes whatever business practice is causing damage actually cost the company money. That’s the point. If the bottom line is dollars, making it so that illegal or unethical practices CANNOT make you money, because you’ll be fined more than the amount you made. Or, if you REALLY want to split hairs, sure, you’ll be forced to refund 100%, and then fined 10% on top of that. If that’s REALLY the distinction you want to make, go for it. It’s the same in the end.
Don’t conflate refunds from fine. Its not an earnings, its a refund.
Who actually cares what you call it? The point is, you remove whatever money they got from being shitty, and then hit them with a fine.
Do you think 10% on top of the “refund” is not enough? I think that’s got more teeth than any fines we use today. I can get behind it not being a steep enough penalty, but say that, instead of arguing over “refund” versus “fine” and “earnings” versus “acquisitions” or whatever terminology bugbear you have.
And here in lies the problem.
You conflate earnings from fraud, still. Fines are a deterent, a burden with the goal to stop the behaviour. 10% of a few sales even a million dollars revenue is still very little for a company this size.
Okay so you take issue with the 10% part. We can talk about that, for sure. I think 10% is low too. But you’re attacking me as if I’m thinking it’s all well and good they’re doing this shit. It’s not. We’re on the same page philosophically, you just really don’t like the specific terminology I’m using, and would rather argue than try to get to a common ground. Take care, bud.
How delicate do you have to be to believe disagreement as an attack . Comical gold.
It is 83% effective, which is below par for what they’re offering. But it’s probably about as effective as the homemade cloth masks we were using at the beginning of the pandemic.
It more or less does the job. Which is less than you’d expect from a product you’re paying for, but still generally okay. This is probably fine for going to the grocery store. It’s not good enough if you’re working in a hospital.
Oooh, now do misappropriated PPE funds.
I could potentially see a market for these for shy streamers if they put a mic inside so you could use it while you game.
Otherwise, why?
googles
It looks like they were originally going to have a mic, then dropped it. It apparently has ventillation fans, a battery…and looking at its box, apparently Bluetooth support, though damned if I know what they use Bluetooth support for on a facemask.
EDIT: Ah.
theverge.com/…/razer-zephyr-face-mask-available-f…
The Zephyr can be operated entirely by its built-in buttons, but it also supports Bluetooth connectivity to control its RGB lights via the Zephyr app for Android and iOS.
Razer’s futuristic Zephyr mask is available today, starting at $99.99
Razer has officially launched its Zephyr face mask. It costs $99.99 to start and includes nine days of coverage with its filters. You can buy filters separately or get them in a kit that includes the mask, 99 days worth of filters, and more.
Definitely had that on my bingo card.
Well, now I want one.
Someone will probably try to sell theirs on eBay.
looks
rolls eyes
Well, apparently yes, and also because now that Razer isn’t selling them, the going price appears to be up to about $250.
