|Back To Previous Page|
|Print This Page|
New York City Defendants Settle FTC Charges:
Alleges That the Companies Made False and Unsubstantiated
Claims for Their Cell Phone Radiation Protection Devices
In addition to Tecnozone International and Tecnozone America, the FTC’s complaint names Marvin Jemal, Stephen Jemal, and Jacob Dresdner. According to the Commission, the defendants advertised and sold two “Tecno AO” devices – one for cell phones and one for video display units – to consumers nationwide over the Internet, and through radio, print, and television ads. The “Tecno AO” device for cell phones is a small almond-shaped device designed to fit to any flat surface on a cell phone. The device sold for $49.99. The Tecno AO for VDUs is a seven inch long metallic-looking device designed to be placed on a video display unit, typically a television or computer monitor, and sold for $99.95. The companies allegedly claimed that the devices substantially protect consumers from electromagnetic energy emitted by cellular telephones and video display unit radiation. To induce consumers to purchase these devices, the defendants’ ads contained statements such as:
The FTC alleged that the defendants’ claims that their devices substantially protect consumers from electronmagnetic energy emitted by cell phones and from VDU radiation are false and unsubstantiated. The complaint further alleged that the defendants’ claims that scientific testing proves that their devices work are false and unsubstantiated.
The proposed stipulated judgment and order to settle the FTC charges prohibits the defendants from:
The settlement requires the defendants to pay $85,000 in consumer redress. The settlement contains an avalanche clause that would make the entire $120,884 judgment due if the defendants do not make the required payments within 90 days after the entry of the consent order.
Finally, the settlement contains various recordkeeping requirements to assist the FTC in monitoring the defendants’ compliance.
The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint and stipulated final order for permanent injunction was 5-0. They were filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, on November 14, 2003. The stipulated final order requires the court’s approval.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law.
NOTE: This stipulated final order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law violation. Stipulated final orders have the force of law when signed by the judge.