this post was submitted on 01 May 2024
401 points (98.3% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3183 users here now

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


Our Rules


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

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

“[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
[–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] psycho_driver@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

In the US companies will knowingly do shitty things and break established rules and laws if they feel the profit will outweigh the resulting fines. It happens all the time.

Sometimes they will just have people killed too and face zero repercussions.

[–] P1nkman@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

It's the cost of doing business. Hell, if I could rob a bank for 10 million dollars, and the fine was a million dollars (or 9 million), I'd probably do it too!

If the cost for breaking the law is a set amount, it technically only affects poor people. There's a rich guy in Bergen, Norway who received more than 50 parking fines in less than a year, because for him, the fine is the parking cost. It would be like I'd pay 1 cent for parking wherever I want. I wish the government would be able to take away his driver's license for this. He's also blocked trans from being able to continue their drive. Fucking asshole.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

That's not a downside, that's consequences of their mistakes. If they're not caught, honest mistake or not, they're not giving it back to the community.