Court Blocks Cell Phone "Ray Blockers"

• Cell Phones Said To Weaken Bones • Analysis Finds Evidence of Cell Phone-Tumor Link • Senate Studies Cell Phone Cancer Risks • Cancer Center Workers Warned about Cell Phone Risks • New Mexico Allergy Sufferers Want Public Wi-Fi Ban • Study Cautions Pregnant Women On Cell Phone Use • Researcher: Cell Phones 'More Dangerous Than Smoking' • Cell Phones May Provide False Sense Of Security • Study Suggests Cell Phone-Salivary Gland Cancer Link • Scientist Worries WiFi May Harm Children • British Study To Examine Cell Phone-Health Links • Study: Cell Phone Use Not Linked to Cancer Risk • FDA Will Review Cell Phone-Cancer Link • Supreme Court Clears Cell Phone Cancer Suits for Trial • St. Louis Researchers Find Cell Phone Radiation Doesn't Promote Cancer • Swedish Study Finds No Cell Phone-Cancer Link in First Decade of Use • WHO Study Examines Cellphone Risks to Kids • Judges OKs Cell Phone Safety Case • Cell Phones May Harm Sperm Cells, British Study Finds • Swedish Study Finds Cell Phone-Brain Tumor Link • Firefly Promotes Cell Phone for Kids • Researchers: Cell Phones Pose Cancer Risk for Kids • British Lab Will Study Cell Phone Radiation • Swedish Study Finds Higher Risk in Long-Term Users • Cell Phones Probably Safe: British Study • Court Blocks Cell Phone "Ray Blockers" • Cell Phone Radiation Suit Dismissed • Baltimore attorney Peter Angelos enters cell suit • New Orleans judge lets cell-phone suit stand • Report Finds "Legitimate Questions" About Cell Phone Safety • Doctor Blames Cell Phones for His Brain Tumor • Cell Phone Cancer Link • Readers Report Their Problems • Cell Phone Safety: An Editorial

August 6, 2003
Two companies who marketed and sold bogus cell phone "radiation protection" patches have settled Federal Trade Commission charges that they violated federal laws by making false and misleading claims about their products.

Using television and Internet advertising, Safety Cell, Inc. and Rhino International, Inc. deceptively indicated that their patches, designed to fit over the earpiece of any cell phone, could block a substantial amount of radiation and other electromagnetic energy emitted by cellular telephones, thereby reducing consumers’ exposure to this radiation.

Under separate settlements, both sets of defendants are required to have adequate scientific evidence to substantiate claims about the performance, efficacy, or benefit of any good or service. The settlement in Rhino requires them to pay $342,665 in redress to consumers who purchased Rhino’s “WaveScrambler” patch.

Rhino, of Sag Harbor, NY, marketed and sold the “WaveScrambler” patch, claiming that their product could block 99 percent of electromagnetic waves emitted by cellular phones and cordless phones.

Safety Cell, of Brooklyn, NY, marketed the “WaveGuard” cell phone shield. The FTC alleged that the defendants claimed that their WaveGuard patch blocked most of the electromagnetic energy emitted from cell phones.

Back to the top | News