Tunze being sued for fraud

[dawgface]

grouper therapy;681907 wrote: Who are you to define more than advertised flow as over performing.Why do you feel that to be the case. Are you saying that you can not have too much flow in a tank? Which is it that you base your support of the lawsuit on misrepresentation of the product or poor performance. I'm gonna assume that it is fraud since you titled the thread as such, so please tell me how is fraud any different from underrating or overrating? I agree either is ridiculous!

For the record I don't necessarily favor a lawsuit, I believe Tunze needs to be held accountable. By what means or manner? Matters little to me as I am in no way effected by this. Fraud IS the charges that are levied, I copied the URL if you'd like to read it!

As far as overstating and under I guess one could argue that by comparing apples to hand granades(ap?). 18% yes I agree overstated but egregious I dont think so, 120% well that's hard for me to defend or stand behind but that me, your obviously ok with it and that's fine.

Edit:

grouper therapy;681911 wrote: How do you think Tunze should have measured their pumps since the technology that was used now was not present then? Not trying to change your mind just trying to understand how you support the lawsuit when it is based on fraud when in fact they all were fraudulent in their advertising ? simple question really.

How did the other companies manage to do it?

Edit: As far as them all being off if you truly can't see my position and difference between them being off and Tunze's off I'm wasting my time..... No offence.

 

[mufret]

DawgFace;681905 wrote: If Ecotech tailored it to thier pumps (which again Ecotech wasnt the driver in this research) then you would have everyone except ecotech failing.

Ecotech did tailor the test to their pumps, they set the parameters and paid for the tests which in my mind doesn't make this an independent test. Really their only competition is Tunze. The other pumps included aren't at the same price point.

I have and use both pumps and there are pro and cons to each (as there are with most things in this hobby). I've never had an issue with the flow that I've gotten from my Tunzes. There is also a test that Tunze has preformed that showed the lacking of the directionality and flow pattern of Vortechs. Does that make them a bad pump. Not really. Like many things in life, things get blown out of preportion and this is just another one. I'll continue to use both products because they will both provide better flow than anything else available in the market today.

 

[dawgface]

BTW sorry for the jumbled mess in grammar, I took nyquil an hour ago and I'm on my phone. I'm off to bed to rehash this if I must in the morning.

 

[grouper therapy]

I agree 120% is way off! I just don't see malice in their marketing or the strategy/methods that they used to measure. Keep in mind as well just because everyone(Including Tunze) obtained the same results using the newer technology for testing doesn't deem it 100% accurate either .

Edit:

DawgFace;681917 wrote: BTW sorry for the jumbled mess in grammar, I took nyquil an hour ago and I'm on my phone. I'm off to bed to rehash this if I must in the morning.

Hope you fell better. Bad time of the year for cold/flu:up: good nite all

 

[rbredding]

show me ONE tank that failed because it was running Tunze pumps (and that is the only reason it failed)...

ONLY THEN would a lawsuit on any magnitude be even CLOSE to acceptable recourse..


and even then it's questionable as to whether it would even pay out..


claiming something "incredible" to sell a product isn't against the law... look at EVERYTHING that is "seen on TV" (DIDI-7 comes to mind)

the issue would be malice, there was none..

the lawsuit will go nowhere..


I could sue YOU for wearing a Leather jacket.. (doesn't mean I would ever get anything out of it)..


Texas has recently passed "loser pays" tort reform... so this will be interesting to watch unfold... (the lawsuit will have to be filed in Texas, as that's where Tunze USA is Headquartered)

 

[dawgface]

Rbredding;681928 wrote: show me ONE tank that failed because it was running Tunze pumps (and that is the only reason it failed)...

ONLY THEN would a lawsuit on any magnitude be even CLOSE to acceptable recourse..


and even then it's questionable as to whether it would even pay out..


claiming something "incredible" to sell a product isn't against the law... look at EVERYTHING that is "seen on TV" (DIDI-7 comes to mind)

the issue would be malice, there was none..

the lawsuit will go nowhere..


I could sue YOU for wearing a Leather jacket.. (doesn't mean I would ever get anything out of it)..


Texas has recently passed "loser pays" tort reform... so this will be interesting to watch unfold... (the lawsuit will have to be filed in Texas, as that's where Tunze USA is Headquartered)

Again I'm not necessarily for a lawsuit but they do have a case.

proof requirement for false advertisement

To establish that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove five things: (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity; (2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience; (3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience; (4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff. The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement's potential to injure a customer. The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading. False statements can be defined in two ways: those that are false on their face and those that are implicitly false.

case in point

Flawed and Insignificant Research Advertisements based on flawed and insignificant research are defined under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act as "representations found to be unsupported by accepted authority or research or which are contradicted by prevailing authority or research." These advertisements are false on their face.

Alpo Pet Foods v. Ralston Purina Co., 913 F.2d 958 (D.C. Cir. 1990), shows how basing advertising claims on statistically insignificant test results provides sufficient grounds for a false advertising claim. In this case, the Ralston Purina Company claimed that its dog food was beneficial for dogs with canine hip dysplasia, demonstrating the claims with studies and tests. Alpo Pet Foods brought a claim of false advertising against Purina, saying that the test results could not support the claims made in the advertisements. Upon looking at the evidence and the way the tests were conducted by Purina, the court ruled not only that the test results were insignificant but also that the methods used to conduct the tests were inadequate and the results could therefore not support Purina's claims

Edit:

 

[rbredding]

that just illustrated my point..


there have been (arguably) thousands of beautiful, healthy, thriving reef systems that used ONLY tunze powerheads from the inception of the tank.. many of which have been thriving/growing for more than 10 years.. so show me where practical application of these powerheads has fallen short.. (you can't, regardless of the "study findings", on powerhead performance numbers, tanks running Tunze powerheads have been THRIVING.. for YEARS... )

Tunze was the ONLY major player in large powerheads for large reef systems for at least 15 years before Ecotech came out with their new designs..

that alone, coupled with the fact that Ecotech funded and directed (behind the scenes) the research and findings that lead to the initial study that pointed out the deficiency, is enough to plant "reasonable doubt" in a judges mind..

the lawsuit wont go anywhere..

and

if given the chance, I'd purchase Tunze powerheads for my system again..

 

[acroholic]

I'll be very surprised if this law firm can even find any "victims" to sign on. Let's face it, anyone that can afford a $350-$750 pump probably won't be money motivated by the small bit of money they'd be likely to be awarded in a settlement. Also, for a company with stellar Customer Service like Tunze North America provides, they don't really have a lot of enemies in the reefing world, outside of competitors.

And with reefs that have flourished for years using Tunze products, I can't see many of their customers wanting to hurt a company that has been around for 25+ years that has helped so many reefers, particularly in this hobby, where so many reef related businesses have dropped like flies lately.

Should Tunze address their flow deficiency if it is determined by a commonly accepted flow test standard that their pumps are not doing what they claim? Yes, of course. But should this company be sued into possible bankruptcy or into a state of financial weakness that could lead to bankruptcy in an already shaky economy over flow rates that may have been estimated by an acceptable standard at the time? Personally, I don't think so, and I have owned 4x 6101 Turbelles, 4x 6105 Turbelles, and two of their ATO units. I could certainly be a candidate for the class action lawsuit, but never would participate.

 

[dawgface]

Rbredding;682028 wrote: that just illustrated my point..


there have been (arguably) thousands of beautiful, healthy, thriving reef systems that used ONLY tunze powerheads from the inception of the tank.. many of which have been thriving/growing for more than 10 years.. so show me where practical application of these powerheads has fallen short.. (you can't, regardless of the "study findings", on powerhead performance numbers, tanks running Tunze powerheads have been THRIVING.. for YEARS... )

Tunze was the ONLY major player in large powerheads for large reef systems for at least 15 years before Ecotech came out with their new designs..

that alone, coupled with the fact that Ecotech funded and directed (behind the scenes) the research and findings that lead to the initial study that pointed out the deficiency, is enough to plant "reasonable doubt" in a judges mind..

the lawsuit wont go anywhere..

and

if given the chance, I'd purchase Tunze powerheads for my system again..

Your missing the direction this suit would follow. Whether the reef is thriving or not is irrelevent. The damages in this suit has to do with monies lost or spent on a product that advertised a product falsely. See proof requirement below, specifically " The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading''. </em>Basically would the consumer have purchased the pump had they known the actual output flow? Would the consumer had chose a different manufacturer had they known the output flow is the same? Add at a significant savings (Koralia)? I assure you a judge will not look at thier past business ethics, customer service, years in business or contibution to the industry. The current relevent facts are all that matters.

If they find the plantiffs IMO this is a guaranteed winner. If any of the competitors file they are absolutely screwed! Dave made some good points in regards to plantiffs and based on what ive seen along all the forums I wouldn't argue. Like I said I don't favor a lawsuit, I'm a capitalist at heart. The market, consumer in this case will decide whether or not they are held accountable. If the industry consumer still trusts them after this they will continue to buy, if not they were held accountable by losing confidence and trust whereas profits will suffer.

One last point. The study may not be independant and could very well be funded intentionally by Ecotech. However Tunze has basically already shot themselves in the foot from ever arguing that point. In a matter of days they issued an apology and explanation to why thier research was wrong and explained in detail what they were going to do to remedy the situation. Consider your competion issuing a study about the company you own or work for that is innaccurate, slanted towards them or baseless. Your officially response wouldn't be an explanation of why you thought your product preformed better than it did and you certainly wouldn't give a layed out plan to remedy the problems that "don't exist". It would be a vehement denial pointing out the holes and conflict of interest contained. Also consider that this research was done and issued to all the companies involved months before it was publically available. Tunze as well as all the other manufacturers were given plenty of time to test and consider the research. Tunze has accepted it as correct and are moving forward to correct thier pumps issues.

Edit:

Acroholic;682036 wrote: I'll be very surprised if this law firm can even find any "victims" to sign on. Let's face it, anyone that can afford a $350-$750 pump probably won't be money motivated by the small bit of money they'd be likely to be awarded in a settlement. Also, for a company with stellar Customer Service like Tunze North America provides, they don't really have a lot of enemies in the reefing world, outside of competitors.

And with reefs that have flourished for years using Tunze products, I can't see many of their customers wanting to hurt a company that has been around for 25+ years that has helped so many reefers, particularly in this hobby, where so many reef related businesses have dropped like flies lately.

Should Tunze address their flow deficiency if it is determined by a commonly accepted flow test standard that their pumps are not doing what they claim? Yes, of course. But should this company be sued into possible bankruptcy or into a state of financial weakness that could lead to bankruptcy in an already shaky economy over flow rates that may have been estimated by an acceptable standard at the time? Personally, I don't think so, and I have owned 4x 6101 Turbelles, 4x 6105 Turbelles, and two of their ATO units. I could certainly be a candidate for the class action lawsuit, but never would participate.

I agree 100%

Edit: Rbredding, is that the crab i gave you in your avatar?