Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Razer made to pay $1.2M over 'N95' face mask that wasn't

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: Razer made to pay $1.2M over 'N95' face mask that wasn't

#21

Post by consumer451 »

jeffwask wrote: post #15

After they tried slipping a bitcoin miner in their mouse software that paid you in Razer Points, I was done with Razer. This seems on brand.

While not a recommendation, I mentioned the Razer gaming laptop to a co-worker. He bought one, it started to de-laminate and bend itself into a potato chip. I had never seen anything like it. They would not take a return, he had to do a credit card charge back, and blamed me forever.

Their laptops had a 50% failure rate at Linus Media Group, according to Luke during a WAN Show. Linus kept pushing them on his viewers though.

This was years ago, and I will never understand how the company was not shamed into bankruptcy. Well, I guess I do understand. You can buy favorable media coverage and it scares the crap out of me.

Re: Razer made to pay $1.2M over 'N95' face mask that wasn't

#22

Post by peddling-brink »

TheBlight wrote: post #12

I mean it was probably at least as effective against covid as the Etsy masks people were selling that were made from regular fabric and whatever other nonsense. Probably shouldn't have used "N95" though. Doubt they would've even needed to at the time.

> Probably shouldn't have used "N95" though.

That’s the entire point. Nobody would have cared otherwise.

Re: Razer made to pay $1.2M over 'N95' face mask that wasn't

#23

Post by HeatrayEnjoyer »

>The Register asked Razer to comment, and a spokesperson told us: "We disagree with the FTC's allegations and did not admit to any wrongdoing as part of the settlement. It was never our intention to mislead anyone, and we chose to settle this matter to avoid the distraction and disruption of litigation and continue our focus on creating great products for gamers.

The zero-accountability culture of capitalist corporatism needs to be cast into a scorching lava pit.

Re: Razer made to pay $1.2M over 'N95' face mask that wasn't

#25

Post by burkaman »

doctoboggan wrote: post #5

It is a little unclear from reading the article. Is the claim that their filters were not as effective as N95 masks, or that they were just as effective but did not go through the testing needed to prove it?

See page 17: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/Razer-PACER-No1.... They were not even close, they knew they weren't close, and senior executives removed disclaimers that would have warned the mask wasn't as effective as real PPE.

> In July, August, and September of 2021, Intertek performed tests assessing the PFE of various assembled Zephyr prototypes. In each test, the assembled device failed to perform to the N95 standard of 95% or greater PFE. Figure 13, infra, depicts the best results ever reached for the device in testing: as documented in Intertek’s August 13, 2021 report, the device reached a maximum PFE of 83.2% with the fans off and 86.3% with the fans on, and frequently tested much lower. The mask did not come close to consistently reaching a PFE of 95%, the level of protection characteristic of an N95 mask.

Re: Razer made to pay $1.2M over 'N95' face mask that wasn't

#26

Post by burkaman »

blendergeek wrote: post #2

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.

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....

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.

Re: Razer made to pay $1.2M over 'N95' face mask that wasn't

#27

Post by kevingadd »

consumer451 wrote: post #21
jeffwask wrote: post #15

After they tried slipping a bitcoin miner in their mouse software that paid you in Razer Points, I was done with Razer. This seems on brand.

While not a recommendation, I mentioned the Razer gaming laptop to a co-worker. He bought one, it started to de-laminate and bend itself into a potato chip. I had never seen anything like it. They would not take a return, he had to do a credit card charge back, and blamed me forever. Their laptops had a 50% failure rate at Linus Media Group, according to Luke during a WAN Show. Linus kept pushing them on his viewers…

My sister had issues with her Razer laptop that ended up leading to needing new case screws so she could reassemble it after replacing a faulty battery and repairing a bad trackpad.

They didn't have replacement screws, period. We had to buy them from a third party on Amazon. Kind of a clown company between that experience and every time I've bought one of their mice or keyboards (I learned my lesson after the third time...)

Re: Razer made to pay $1.2M over 'N95' face mask that wasn't

#28

Post by dmd »

quartesixte wrote: post #10
cdchn wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Razer made to pay $1.2M over 'N95' face mask that wasn't

#29

Post by billy99k »

consumer451 wrote: post #21
jeffwask wrote: post #15

After they tried slipping a bitcoin miner in their mouse software that paid you in Razer Points, I was done with Razer. This seems on brand.

While not a recommendation, I mentioned the Razer gaming laptop to a co-worker. He bought one, it started to de-laminate and bend itself into a potato chip. I had never seen anything like it. They would not take a return, he had to do a credit card charge back, and blamed me forever. Their laptops had a 50% failure rate at Linus Media Group, according to Luke during a WAN Show. Linus kept pushing them on his viewers…

I had a Razer laptop. The metal on the back split open at one point and became really sharp. Due to this and its bulky-ness, I got an Asus Rog Zephyrus and never looked back.

I always used to like Asus as a company when I built computers back in the 90s. Still great quality.

Re: Razer made to pay $1.2M over 'N95' face mask that wasn't

#30

Post by lesuorac »

cdchn wrote: post #4
blendergeek wrote: post #2

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.

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.

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

Post reply on HN