Is Z-Max worth a [censored]?

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
In other words zmax does not harm nor any good. Thus 4,500,000.00USD in legal fees bought zmax the right to pay 1,000,000.00USD in restitution to consumers of the product. This settlement is similar to other settlements such as dura lube and slick 50 have with the FTC.

I have no idea where you got the $4.5 million in legal expenses, but even if it was that much it was probably worth it. There was no damages or restitution and certainly no admissions of wrong doing. I would be curious as to how much in refunds they actually paid, but like legal expenses, information like that is usually confidential. My guess is... not that much.

But, here is what Zmax got in return: they can make the following claims

zMAX soaks into metal.
zMAX reduces friction.
zMAX increases horsepower.
zMAX dissipates engine heat.
zMAX helps to improve or restore gas mileage and reduce emissions in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to maintain gas mileage and emissions in newer cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to reduce engine wear on engine valve-stems and guides and piston rings and skirts, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to extend engine life, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.

.... with FTC approval.

This was not the FTC's finest hour. Does anyone need any extra horsepower?

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I hestitate to bring this up again, but will someone please explain how Z-max soaks into metals, which is a major Z-max claim?

Quote:
zMAX soaks into metal
. What is the physical/chemical theory and instrumental proof that this occurs?

Quote:
zMAX reduces friction
. All lubricants reduce friction but in a relative sense.

Quote:
zMAX increases horsepower.
By how much and by what standard?

Quote:
zMAX dissipates engine heat
. All lubricants have a thermodynamic conduction coefficient which allows heat to be conducted via thermo-fluid interactions. What makes this product different?

Quote:
zMAX helps to improve or restore gas mileage and reduce emissions in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.

zMAX helps to maintain gas mileage and emissions in newer cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.

zMAX helps to reduce engine wear on engine valve-stems and guides and piston rings and skirts, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.

zMAX helps to extend engine life, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.


We'll give them by virtue of reducing engine deposits if they can unequivocally prove it.


Did Zarch-supporter ever responded to this posting?

Addendum:

Wait a minute.

I think I know now how they are able to make those claims:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456974/phlogiston

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
There was no damages or restitution


Read.
http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2003/03/030321stip0023256.pdf

The makers of zmax had to pay 1 million in restitution. The legal and administration fees of the court and of the case.

This is outlined under monetary relief section 4.

Your statement is false and the information has been provided to prove your statement is false.

This might not of been the FTC's finest hour but the makers of zmax agreed to pay 1 million dollars in restitution and the cost of the case against them including the administration fees of the court in addition to its own legal fees.

Thus zmax was the party worse for wear. If this is how you define a "win" I do not want to see what you view as a loss.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: MolaKule
Originally Posted By: MolaKule
I hestitate to bring this up again, but will someone please explain how Z-max soaks into metals, which is a major Z-max claim?

Quote:
zMAX soaks into metal
. What is the physical/chemical theory and instrumental proof that this occurs?

Quote:
zMAX reduces friction
. All lubricants reduce friction but in a relative sense.

Quote:
zMAX increases horsepower.
By how much and by what standard?

Quote:
zMAX dissipates engine heat
. All lubricants have a thermodynamic conduction coefficient which allows heat to be conducted via thermo-fluid interactions. What makes this product different?

Quote:
zMAX helps to improve or restore gas mileage and reduce emissions in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.

zMAX helps to maintain gas mileage and emissions in newer cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.

zMAX helps to reduce engine wear on engine valve-stems and guides and piston rings and skirts, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.

zMAX helps to extend engine life, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.


We'll give them by virtue of reducing engine deposits if they can unequivocally prove it.


Did Zarch-supporter ever responded to this posting?

Addendum:

Wait a minute.

I think I know now how they are able to make those claims:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/456974/phlogiston

Not with anything outside of baiting.

Phlogiston

To paraphrase a line from my favorite movie "This arch-supporter knows how to defend a hopeless position."

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: dave5358
There was no damages or restitution


Read.
http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/2003/03/030321stip0023256.pdf

The makers of zmax had to pay 1 million in restitution. The legal and administration fees of the court and of the case.

Dave:

If you search the Court's order, the word restitution does not appear, because there was no restitution in this case. There's nothing in this case that would have involved restitution, even had the case gone to hearing - Zmax hadn't ripped of the FTC or anything remotely like that.

Section 4 of the order deals with the refund mechanism, which is administered by and paid by Zmax. That's what 'administrative expenses' refers to.

There were no court costs, this being a suit by the United States. There were no administrative fees of the court. Zmax paid nothing to the FTC, which amounts might have been significant, since the FTC probably hired outside consultants to determine that they (the FTC) were on shaky ground. Finally, while the FTC has the right to monitor Zmax's activities for up to 5 years, Zmax does not have to pay for this. I sincerely doubt that the FTC darkened their door again.

Just read the Court's order - it's reasonably straight forward.

Look, if you really believe there was restitution or that Zmax lost this case or that there were court costs or that it cost Zmax $4.5million in legal fees, you're welcome to your belief. Let's end this part of the thread - it's really just a distracton.

You focused on what Zmax lost, but as I noted above, going forward Zmax was permitted to make a whole bunch of claims with written approval of the FTC.

 

[Trajan]

When a court orders you to set up a fund to make refunds, that is *restitution*.

Restitution is a monetary payment sometimes ordered to be made as part of a judgment in negligence and/or contracts cases to restore a loss.

Knapp, Charles L. 1987. Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials. Boston: Little, Brown.

Shoben, Elaine W., and William Murray Tabb. 1989. Remedies: Cases and Problems. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press


Don't try to argue law or split hairs. You just making that hole deeper.

Instead, why don't you prove that Zmax does what it does, being that you keep defending a product you don't use.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
When a court orders you to set up a fund to make refunds, that is *restitution*.

When a court orders you to set up a fund to make refunds, that is a fund to make refunds. Restitution is designed to prevent unjust enrichment. The Court's order is the Court's order - it speaks for itself and it's really not that hard to read. Ditto for the two accompanying letters between Oil-Chem and the FTC. I doubt that you are an attorney and most readers can probably sort this out, assuming they even care.

Originally Posted By: Trajan
Instead, why don't you prove that Zmax does what it does, being that you keep defending a product you don't use.

Not being a user, and based on this thread, I would expect...
zMAX soaks into metal.
zMAX reduces friction.
zMAX increases horsepower.
zMAX dissipates engine heat.
zMAX helps to improve or restore gas mileage and reduce emissions in older cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to maintain gas mileage and emissions in newer cars, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to reduce engine wear on engine valve-stems and guides and piston rings and skirts, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
zMAX helps to extend engine life, by virtue of reducing engine deposits.
... because that's what the FTC permitted them to say in their advertising. But, as I said, I don't use it.

But you did use it. So, what did it fail to do that you expected? Or, what did it actually do, where you were expecting something else or some other result?

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: Trajan
When a court orders you to set up a fund to make refunds, that is *restitution*.

Restitution is a monetary payment sometimes ordered to be made as part of a judgment in negligence and/or contracts cases to restore a loss.

Knapp, Charles L. 1987. Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials. Boston: Little, Brown.

Shoben, Elaine W., and William Murray Tabb. 1989. Remedies: Cases and Problems. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press


Don't try to argue law or split hairs. You just making that hole deeper.

Instead, why don't you prove that Zmax does what it does, being that you keep defending a product you don't use.


I agree with this post.

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Trajan
When a court orders you to set up a fund to make refunds, that is *restitution*.

When a court orders you to set up a fund to make refunds, that is a fund to make refunds. Restitution is designed to prevent unjust enrichment. The Court's order is the Court's order - it speaks for itself and it's really not that hard to read.


Yes the court order does. Zmax was forced to pay because of dubious unverifiable claims.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Zmax was forced to pay because of dubious unverifiable claims.

Zmax agreed to pay refunds in according with Section 4 of the mutually agreed Court's order. There were no admissions of wrong doing, either by Zmax or by the FTC. Zmax also got something in return.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: Trajan
When a court orders you to set up a fund to make refunds, that is *restitution*.

When a court orders you to set up a fund to make refunds, that is a fund to make refunds. Restitution is designed to prevent unjust enrichment. The Court's order is the Court's order - it speaks for itself and it's really not that hard to read.


Don't argue law with me. You're as outmatched as you are arguing chemistry/physics/tribology with Molakule.


Show where it states in law that a court order must contain the word "restitution" in order for it to be called restitution.

Good luck with that.

 

[Vikas]

I want to register myself as dave9876 and jump in to this discussion and start arguing with the other two daves

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
I want to register myself as dave9876 and jump in to this discussion and start arguing with the other two daves

Are you sure ;-)

 

[dave1251]

Originally Posted By: dave5358
Zmax agreed to pay refunds in according with Section 4 of the mutually agreed Court's order. There were no admissions of wrong doing, either by Zmax or by the FTC. Zmax also got something in return.


Yes the makers of zmax agreed to refund customers that purchased zmax and agreed to join Slick 50 and Dura Lube down the walk of shame.

 

[Trajan]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Zmax agreed to pay refunds in according with Section 4 of the mutually agreed Court's order. There were no admissions of wrong doing, either by Zmax or by the FTC. Zmax also got something in return.


Yes the makers of zmax agreed to refund customers that purchased zmax and agreed to join Slick 50 and Dura Lube down the walk of shame.


Not only did they get to make restitution, they get the right to continue to make incredulous claims that our fervent defender can't back up.

Walk of shame indeed.

 

[dave5358]

Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Zmax agreed to pay refunds in according with Section 4 of the mutually agreed Court's order. There were no admissions of wrong doing, either by Zmax or by the FTC. Zmax also got something in return.

Yes the makers of zmax agreed to refund customers that purchased zmax and agreed to join Slick 50 and Dura Lube down the walk of shame.

You should be very careful how you lump cases together. At least as regards Zmax, the FTC's case against them was very weak. Basically, Zmax stopped advertising "percentage improvement" claims and started advertising "improvement" - only now the "improvement" had the FTC seal of approval. Frankly, the Zmax folks should have done this anyway - update their advertising for the 21st century. Had this matter gone to trial, the FTC may have lost the whole banana and ended up paying Oil-chem's legal fees or maybe even damages. This case was in a Federal Court in Nowhere, North Carolina - not exactly the hot-bed of consumer liberalism. Just because it was a Federal judge doesn't mean he likes the FTC.

As it turned out, I would be surprised if some FTC attorney didn't get fired over the Zmax case. Not only was it a weak case to start with, but the settlement made no sense and the FTC got sucked into approving Zmax' advertising claims. They approved Zmax's advertising even before the case was settled, and basically gave away the farm. Why, in December 2002, the FTC didn't just drop the whole thing and walk away is beyond me. There was near zero activity on this case for the next 5 years, when the FTC's clock ran out - an event probably celebrated in both camps. We can debate the minutia of this, but the 'big picture' is painfully clear.

As for Dura Lube or Slick 50, I don't know any of the facts of either case. But FTC or no, both products are still being sold and still seem to be doing well. I doubt that either product has improved - it is as good or useless now as it was back when the FTC jumped in. Where is the progress? Zmax, with it racing sponsorship, hasn't suffered much either. The 'hall of shame' for Zmax lead straight to the bank.

 

[Arctic388]

Where's the proof that it doesn't do something?

 

[MolaKule]

Originally Posted By: Arctic388
Where's the proof that it doesn't do something?


Where is the proof that it can do what it claims?

Zarch-supporter keeps repeatedly posting vacuous claims but he certainly can't defend it.

 

[dave1251]

This is something to be proud of?

 

[MolaKule]

Quote:
This case was in a Federal Court in Nowhere, North Carolina - not exactly the hot-bed of consumer liberalism. Just because it was a Federal judge doesn't mean he likes the FTC.


Now Zarch-supporter is impuning the people of NC because he can't understand the results of the FTC case.

What a guy!