Enlarge (credit: Razer)

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced this week a proposed settlement [PDF] against Razer that would see the tech company pay $1,171,254.33 for its misleading claims about the Zephyr RGB face mask. Razer marketed the device as offering capabilities similar to those of an N95 respirator.

On October 21, 2021, Razer began selling the Zephyr and its replacement filters. Razer continued to sell the mask until January 2022 and kept pushing the filters until July 2022, according to the FTC's complaint [PDF].

Per the FTC, when Razer.com listed the Zephyr in 2021, it said that the mask offered "replaceable N95 Grade filters" and that Zephyr was "FDA-registered and lab-tested for 99 percent BFE [bacterial filtration efficiency]" and offered "greater protection compared to standard disposable/cloth masks, and filters air both inhaled and exhaled to safeguard you and others around you." Razer's site also reportedly said that the mask was "not tested specifically against the COVID-19 virus, but offers the same functionality and adequate protection due to its 99 percent BFE rating.”

The FTC's complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Central District of California, contains examples—from online statements from Razer's CEO to posts on Razer's social media accounts and website—describing the Zephyr as offering N95 or N95 grade capabilities since at least January 2021.

However, the FTC said that Razer never got the Zephyr tested by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health or the US Food and Drug Administration and that the Zephyr never received N95 certification.

“[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.

FTC says Razer knew Zephyr wasn’t N95 equivalent

The "99 percent BFE rating" that Razer touted only referred to the mask's filters, however, and per the FTC's complaint: "Razer had no evidence that the mask as a whole would offer adequate protection against the COVID-19 virus based solely on the BFE characteristic of the filter material."

It continues:

In fact, Razer knew from testing the PFE [Particulate Filtration Efficiency] performance of the Zephyr that the mask as a whole performed worse with respect to filtering out foreign material than the filter material did on its own.

In the months before the Zephyr's release, a third party, Intertek, tested the mask. The best results for the device showed it reaching a maximum PFE level "of 83.2 percent with the fans off and 86.3 percent with the fans on" and that the mask "frequently tested much lower," per FTC's complaint. The figures are notably lower than the minimum PFE level of 95 percent required for an N95 respirator.

Razer kept pushing Zephyr despite warnings

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.

“Their use of deceptive advertising and misinformation posed a risk to public health and safety," the FTC's complaint said.

According to the FTC, in March 2021, Intertek warned Razer via email against saying that the Zephyr uses an N95 grade filter because N95 "is not relevant to this product, and the claim will cause confusion."

Still, on August 20, 2021, Razer CEO Min-Liang Tan said via Facebook: "One of our beta tests of the Razer Zephyr pinged me and said, 'Isn't this just an N95, but a lot more comfortable and reusable?' Well, that's really the point. For us to achieve N95 grade 99 percent BFE filters and ensure it's reusable, all other features are secondary."

The FTC also accused Razer's senior director of regulator and compliance of deciding in September 2021 to remove disclaimer text on the Zephyr's packaging that employee testers proposed, namely that the mask "is not a medical device, respirator [or] surgical mask" and that the "product is not FDA-approved." Razer's ultimate disclaimer noted that the mask is not personal protective equipment and is only intended for use with Zephyr Filters, though.

In November 2021, the Justice and Consumer Protection Agency of Hamburg, Germany sent Razer a letter telling the firm that it opened an inquiry about the Zephyr's health claims, the FTC said. Razer stopped selling the mask in the European Union on December 13, 2021, after receiving a follow-up letter, but continued selling the device in the US.

Fewer than 6 percent of US customers refunded ... so far

On January 13, 2022, after pressure from reviewers and Razer's global PR director, Razer publicly backtracked on its claims. In an email to customers, Razer said that while the Zephyr's filters were "tested for 95 percent Particulate Filtration Efficiency (PFE) and 99 percent Bacterial Filtration Efficiency (BFE) ... the wearable by itself is not a medical device nor certified as an N95 mask." Razer also said it would remove all references to "N95 Grade Filter" from marketing materials. However, the FTC said that only customers who bought the mask from Razer's website or provided their emails to physical Razer stores when buying a mask received the email.

Further, Razer's email reportedly failed to mention that the company offered full refunds. Due to Razer declining refunds for users outside the 14-day purchase window or who had used or opened the mask and/or filters, 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."

Razer didn't respond to Ars' request for comment before this story's publication. We'll update if we hear back.

Read Comments

Enlarge / Former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao arrives at federal court in Seattle for sentencing on Tuesday, April 30, 2024. (credit: Getty Images | Changpeng Zhao)

Binance founder Changpeng Zhao was sentenced today to four months in prison after pleading guilty to failing to take effective measures against money laundering. The billionaire who formerly ran the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange previously agreed to a plea deal that also required him to pay a $50 million fine.

The US government's sentencing request asked for three years in prison. Zhao's sentencing memorandum asked for probation without any prison time.

Forbes estimates Zhao's net worth at $33 billion. He pleaded guilty to failure to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program.

Zhao's cooperation with law enforcement was cited by US District Judge Richard Jones as a reason for imposing a significantly lower sentence than was requested by prosecutors, according to The Verge.

"Before handing down the sentence, Jones faulted Zhao for putting growth and profits before complying with US laws," Reuters wrote. The sentencing hearing was in federal court in Seattle.

Jones was quoted as saying to Zhao that "you had the wherewithal, the finance capabilities, and the people power to make sure that every single regulation had to be complied with, and so you failed at that opportunity."

US: Zhao willfully violated law

The government's sentencing recommendation said that "Zhao's willful violation of US law was no accident or oversight. He made a business decision that violating US law was the best way to attract users, build his company, and line his pockets."

The US said Zhao bragged that if Binance complied with US law, it would not be "as big as we are today."

"Despite knowing Binance was required to comply with US law, Zhao chose not to register the company with US regulators; he chose not to comply with fundamental US anti-money-laundering (AML) requirements; he chose not to implement and maintain an effective know-your-customer (KYC) system, which prevented effective transaction monitoring and allowed suspicious and criminal users to transact through Binance," the US said.

Zhao also "directed Binance employees in a sophisticated scheme to disguise their customers' locations in an effort to deceive regulators about Binance's client base," the US told the court.

Zhao's sentencing memorandum denied criminal intent. "Generalized knowledge that the Company's compliance program did not eliminate all risk of criminal activity does not mean that Mr. Zhao knew or intended for any funds to be criminally derived (he manifestly did not)," the filing said.

Zhao traveled to the US from his home in the United Arab Emirates to take responsibility, his legal team's filing said. "He is a first-time, non-violent offender who committed an offense with no intention to harm anyone. He presents no risk of recidivism. He has appeared in this country voluntarily to accept responsibility," the plea for lenience said.

Read Comments

• 

  Weird Al's Rambo parody was a drop in the bucket amidst all the other jokes in the film, but it's among the most memorable. [credit: Shout Factory ]

Believe it or not, it's been 35 years since Weird Al's quotable cult classic UHF first came out. Right on time for that anniversary, Shout Factory will release an UltraHD Blu-ray of the movie. This will be the first time it has ever been available in 4K.

Releasing July 2 but pre-ordering now, the disc will include a new 4K scan of the original 35mm negative, along with audio commentary from Weird Al and Jay Levy, the film's director.

It will also come bundled with a standard HD Blu-ray that includes the film in that older format along with a bunch of special features, including video of a 2014 Comic-Con panel on the movie, deleted scenes, behind-the-scenes videos, and some other assets. Some of those return from the movie's last physical edition, which was a 25th anniversary HD Blu-ray, but not 4K.

There will be deluxe editions that include some physical collectibles, including an 18×24-inch poster of the "original theatrical artwork," as well as a new, same-sized poster of new poster art made for this edition. You'll also find 10 scratch-and-sniff stickers alongside a guide with time prompts for using them, plus some stickers "designed to replicate vintage vending machine prism stickers from the late '80s and early '90s" and a Spatula City fridge magnet. Add to that a 6-inch "UHF Remote Control Stress Relief Collectible." All that stuff is limited to 1,000 units.

For an even smaller number of units of the collector's edition (500), there will be five UHF-themed hard enamel pins.

The set is available in four tiers priced at $40, $53, $76, and $130, which is a mess, but if you're not interested in collecting all the physical doohickies, it's that first price for just the movie that you need to know.

UHF was released in 1989, and it was parody musician Weird Al's first movie starring role and writing credit. Conceived as a series of bits that would allow him to satirize films in the same way he was known for satirizing songs, it, unfortunately, was a box office flop. It gained a small and passionate cult following on VHS throughout the '90s.

Another movie written in part by Weird Al, Weird: The Al Yankovich Story, was released on Roku's streaming channel in 2022. It was a very different kind of movie. Instead of rapid-fire spoofing numerous films like UHF did, it spoofed the musical biopic genre, with Daniel Radcliffe playing Weird Al in a heavily fictionalized account of his life.

The limited-run nature of this UHF release suggests that while the film still has its cult following, it remains outside the mainstream. Its fans probably like it that way, though.

Read Comments

anexperimentallife:

A Chinook salmon cuts through the clear, cold waters of the Deschutes River of Central Oregon, his iridescent red scales glinting in the sunlight. And he’s not alone. He is just one of thousands of salmon returning to the spawning grounds where they were born.

Today, Chinook are the largest living species within Oncorhynchus, the salmon genus, reaching up to five feet in length. But seven million years ago, a now-extinct species of salmon in the Pacific Northwest, O. rastrosus, would have dwarfed their modern relatives. The fish could grow up to nearly nine feet long—and that’s not even the most intimidating thing about them.

Previous research described the fearsome fish as having two enlarged teeth, earning them the nickname “sabertooth salmon.” Now, a new paper in the journal PLOS ONE shows that these teeth were more like tusks, protruding straight out to the sides from the tip of their jaws, earning them a new moniker: the spike-toothed salmon.

“I'm a little bit over six feet tall and that salmon is broader than I can reach from head to tail,” says University of Oregon paleobiologist and coauthor Edward Davis. “It's an impressive animal. Thinking about trying to wrestle one of those on a fishing line is a difficult proposition.”

In the 1970s, researchers found the first fossil of the giant salmon species in eastern Oregon. To their dismay, the skull was crushed. The team made an educated guess, based on the anatomy of modern salmon, about how the ancient fish pieces fit together, including a “saber tooth” reconstruction for two fang-like fragments.

In 2011, Davis was approached by members of the North American Research Group (NARG), a collection of fossil hunters and amateur paleontologists. At the time, the site where the fossils had been found decades earlier was privately owned and off limits. But NARG members peeking through a fence believed that they’d spotted additional fossils at the site, and enlisted Davis to help them get a closer look. “That’s the benefit of all those volunteers and amateur paleontologists who are keeping their eyes peeled,” says Davis.

The club’s hunch was right. With the property owner’s permission, Davis and his team found additional bones in 2011 and 2014, including their holy grail.

Davis remembers the day in the lab that volunteer Pat Ward, going through the 2014 material, came running up to him, excited about what he’d just found: not one but two nearly complete skulls.

“We ran downstairs and sure enough, we had two skulls and they both had these sideways teeth,” says Davis. “Neither one of us had expected that. That was the moment when we realized that we had something special.”

The unique, tusk-like teeth protrude from the sides of the snout tip, curving slightly, like a weaponized mustache. They would have been useful for defense when making the perilous journey upstream, says Davis, but he thinks there may be more to the salmon's story.

Among several modern salmon and related species, at sexual maturity only males experience structural changes to their jaws, an adaptation used for fighting competitors and defending females during spawning. However, Davis and his team found the unique, tusk-like features on both male and female giant spike-toothed salmon.

“Whatever explanation we can come up with for the teeth has to be something that would be useful for both males and females,” says Davis.

He suspects the salmon could have used the spikes “like elbows to clear out the space around them and get to the best spots.” Modern salmon behavior includes females digging nests, or redds, by pushing their snouts into the sand—if the ancient salmon did the same thing, Davis says, “By having these spike teeth, they'd actually be able to bulldoze out a wider furrow.”

Alas, the reign of these giants wouldn’t last. While modern salmon are typically considered diet generalists, these ancient fish were specialized filter feeders. It's possible that, as oceans cooled, the spike-toothed salmon were outcompeted by other, larger filter feeders, such as baleen whales. The last giant salmon disappeared five million years ago and, even as oceans warm once more, we won’t see their like again.

“Just because it warms up a bit, I don't think we're going to see spike-toothed salmon swimming around,” says University of British Columbia zoologist Eric Taylor, who was not involved in the study but is writing a book on salmon. The evolutionary processes that led to these wondrous “tusked” giants were complex and occurred over millions of years, and are unlikely to reoccur. But, adds Taylor, “There'll be something else that none of us are going to be around to see.”

Scott’s post this morning about the death of a second Boeing whistleblower (for the record — I hate it when people way that btw, as there’s no almost always no actual record when they say it, unless what you say on a blog is for the record, which is kind of like what you say in an Arby’s being on the record — I think it’s likely these deaths are coincidental) made me consult, as one does, the Social Security actuarial tables, to get the answer to this question: What are the odds that Donald Trump, or Joe Biden, or one of the two of them, or both of them, die in the next six months, that is, prior to Election Day? And what are the odds that, assuming survival until then, each of them dies between January of 2025 and four years later?

I’m answering these questions on the basis of the 2019 actuarial tables, not 2020 (the most recent available), because the 2020 stats are made significantly worse by Covid, and we’re pretty much past that now I suppose.

And yes I realize these are statistical averages, and have only limited relevance to particular individuals, but I’m working off the assumption that the various factors here — upper class status and excellent health care on the one hand, genes on the other, doing a high stress job on a third hand, pretending to do that job while dealing with constant self-generated chaos in Trump’s case — tend to more or less cancel each other out, and that statistical averages have some meaning in these individual cases.

Anyway:

Odds that Trump dies in the next six months: 2.3%

Odds that Biden dies in the next six months: 3.3%

Ye Olde Calculator tells us that means there’s a 1 in 18 [!] chance that at least one of them dies in the next six months, which sounds remarkably high to me, especially given that there’s no possible way that Trump’s death between today and November 5th would be interpreted as anything other than the culmination of the deepest of all Deep State conspiracies.

A funny thing about statistics is that this also translates into just a 1 in 1,315 chance that both of them die within the next six months. So the election is unlikely to be between Kamala Harris and Kristi Noem.

*LGM apologizes to everyone in the world for that image. The unpaid intern responsible for inserting it into this post has been sacked.

Moving right along, the odds that Trump dies over the course of his second of what would likely be several more terms are 21%. Biden’s odds of dying over the course of a second term would be 29%.

So it’s a plain shame that poor Kristi Noem destroyed a 21% chance of becoming president just because she murdered a puppy in front of her own daughter and then advertised that she did this to the world in a book. I mean that’s why pencils have erasers and long guns have silencers. Bang bang shoot shoot.

The post Hey what if one or both of these old guys were to die all of a sudden? appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.