NoClean sued for false advertising.

Finally someone with some cojones and the money to stand up and do what should have been done years ago.
Every time I hear one of those ads I cringe because of the blatant lies and scaremongering.

Interesting reading. Many of the things we have been telling people about machine are spelled out very clearly in the law suit. I would like to know what the final outcome is when it happens.

let's all make sure to tuck this link away for the next time some newbie comes in to ask about so-called-clean.

Interesting! Thanks for that link Palerider.
A friend of mine saw So Clean advertised somewhere and she phoned me to tell me about this "great product". I just laughed and told her that it's complete nonsense and scaremongering to boot. Thankfully over the years I've seen the posts here about this product and wasn't conned into buying one of these when I first started CPAP and was vulnerable and naïve to the crap that goes on in this so called "sleep industry".

Looks like a strong case to me.

I particularly liked the way this is stated:

3. Representations that the SoClean Devices Are “Safe” and “Healthy”
for Use
116. SoClean often markets its device as “safe” and “healthy.”
117. These representations are false and misleading.
118. A device that releases toxic gas into a user’s bedroom at levels exceeding federal
regulations is not “safe” or “healthy.”

The most shocking thing to me however, was this:

14. An estimated 8 million people in the United States use a CPAP machine.

That's only 2%(roughly) of the US population, which is way below where it should be. Heck, the population of the Dallas/Fort Worth area hit 7.5 million in 2018.
viewtopic/t174556/Prevalence-of-quotMod ... ation.html

I am shocked.... truly shocked....

Sheriff

djams wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 01, 2019 4:49 am

Looks like a strong case to me.

I particularly liked the way this is stated:

3. Representations that the SoClean Devices Are “Safe” and “Healthy”
for Use
116. SoClean often markets its device as “safe” and “healthy.”
117. These representations are false and misleading.
118. A device that releases toxic gas into a user’s bedroom at levels exceeding federal
regulations is not “safe” or “healthy.”

...

Yes.

This also sounds serious:

SoClean’s marketing materials fail to disclose that its devices emit ozone, which is a longstanding requirement of federal law.

palerider wrote: ↑

Fri May 31, 2019 9:19 pm

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14 ... clean-inc/

Good find, PR.

Sheriff Buford wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 01, 2019 6:06 am

I am shocked.... truly shocked....

Sheriff

Why?

Lumin, a sanitizer competitor that says they are following the law (by using ultraviolet light) takes the one with over 90% of the market to court over violating the law.

IMO they are both scammers. One is just more successful than the other. Lumin is avoiding stating to the court that their product actually cleans or sanitizes significantly.

Dr. Breus instigated this lawsuit to deflect this forum's angst over his article to a new topic.

bombayone wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:53 am

Dr. Breus instigated this lawsuit to deflect this forum's angst over his article to a new topic.

. . . to say nothing of the blatant preying on individuals afflicted with germophobia.
Decent people do not take advantage of the weak.
ONLY PREDATORS.

chunkyfrog wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 01, 2019 3:09 pm

. . . to say nothing of the blatant preying on individuals afflicted with germophobia.
Decent people do not take advantage of the weak.
ONLY PREDATORS.

That's why they should be sued. Those blasted commercials that could scare people away from lifesaving PAP. But it's fine if they want to try to bring in Capone over his taxes.