I believe in your case he feels over matched thus his right of invoking the ignore button is currently being utilized.
Is Z-Max worth a [censored]?
- Thread starter Shooff82
- Start date
- Status
to me it's another standard case of "douuche bag" effect..
Q.
Q.
Originally Posted By: 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?
The proof is quite simple, really. The best case would have been if Molakule or some technical person interpreted engineering or other test results, and these tests clearly exist. But, that option is unlikely. So, let's work with what we've got.
Look in the Court's order in the section entitled Conduct Prohibitions.
In Part 1 is says that...
"the Defendants... shall not make any representation... that such product
A. increases gas mileage.
B. increases gas mileage by a minimum of 10% or by any other percentage, miles-per-gallon, dollar or other figure;
C. reduces engine wear;
D. reduces or eliminates engine wear at startup;
E. reduces engine corrosion;
F. extends engine life, or
G. reduces emissions.
unless at the time the representation is made, Defendants possess and rely upon competent and reliable evidence, which when appropriate must be competent and reliable scientific evidence which substantiates the representation."
In the letter of December 22, 2002 (incorporated in the Court's order, and attached at the end of the order), the Defendants proposed that they would advertise the following for their product, specifically that
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.
and for each of these representations, Zmax/Oil-chem cited a specific document or documents which they said supported their proposed representations.
The FTC, after reviewing this documentation, said, in writing (letter of December 26, 2002) that this was okay. Of course the FTC waffled in their approval letter, but the FTC is bound by the Court's order the same as Zmax. Zmax submitted the test results and the FTC approved.
We can debate this until the cows come home, but it is reality. Molakule can trash all the Federal agencies he chooses, but both the FAA and FTC have either staff members or consultants to evaluate technical evidence. The evidence got evaluated. The FTC said Okay.
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?
The proof is quite simple, really. The best case would have been if Molakule or some technical person interpreted engineering or other test results, and these tests clearly exist. But, that option is unlikely. So, let's work with what we've got.
Look in the Court's order in the section entitled Conduct Prohibitions.
In Part 1 is says that...
"the Defendants... shall not make any representation... that such product
A. increases gas mileage.
B. increases gas mileage by a minimum of 10% or by any other percentage, miles-per-gallon, dollar or other figure;
C. reduces engine wear;
D. reduces or eliminates engine wear at startup;
E. reduces engine corrosion;
F. extends engine life, or
G. reduces emissions.
unless at the time the representation is made, Defendants possess and rely upon competent and reliable evidence, which when appropriate must be competent and reliable scientific evidence which substantiates the representation."
In the letter of December 22, 2002 (incorporated in the Court's order, and attached at the end of the order), the Defendants proposed that they would advertise the following for their product, specifically that
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.
and for each of these representations, Zmax/Oil-chem cited a specific document or documents which they said supported their proposed representations.
The FTC, after reviewing this documentation, said, in writing (letter of December 26, 2002) that this was okay. Of course the FTC waffled in their approval letter, but the FTC is bound by the Court's order the same as Zmax. Zmax submitted the test results and the FTC approved.
We can debate this until the cows come home, but it is reality. Molakule can trash all the Federal agencies he chooses, but both the FAA and FTC have either staff members or consultants to evaluate technical evidence. The evidence got evaluated. The FTC said Okay.
Originally Posted By: Arctic388
Where's the proof that it doesn't do something?
That isn't how it works. The company makes claims. It is the company that has to prove them.
Neither the company, or Zarch, can even explain how it "soaks" into metal.
Where's the proof that it doesn't do something?
That isn't how it works. The company makes claims. It is the company that has to prove them.
Neither the company, or Zarch, can even explain how it "soaks" into metal.
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: 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?
The proof is quite simple, really. The best case would have been if Molakule or some technical person interpreted engineering or other test results, and these tests clearly exist. But, that option is unlikely. So, let's work with what we've got.
Look in the Court's order in the section entitled Conduct Prohibitions.
In Part 1 is says that...
"the Defendants... shall not make any representation... that such product
A. increases gas mileage.
B. increases gas mileage by a minimum of 10% or by any other percentage, miles-per-gallon, dollar or other figure;
C. reduces engine wear;
D. reduces or eliminates engine wear at startup;
E. reduces engine corrosion;
F. extends engine life, or
G. reduces emissions.
unless at the time the representation is made, Defendants possess and rely upon competent and reliable evidence, which when appropriate must be competent and reliable scientific evidence which substantiates the representation."
In the letter of December 22, 2002 (incorporated in the Court's order, and attached at the end of the order), the Defendants proposed that they would advertise the following for their product, specifically that
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.
and for each of these representations, Zmax/Oil-chem cited a specific document or documents which they said supported their proposed representations.
The FTC, after reviewing this documentation, said, in writing (letter of December 26, 2002) that this was okay. Of course the FTC waffled in their approval letter, but the FTC is bound by the Court's order the same as Zmax. Zmax submitted the test results and the FTC approved.
We can debate this until the cows come home, but it is reality. Molakule can trash all the Federal agencies he chooses, but both the FAA and FTC have either staff members or consultants to evaluate technical evidence. The evidence got evaluated. The FTC said Okay.
Marketing claims are not proof.
Originally Posted By: 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?
The proof is quite simple, really. The best case would have been if Molakule or some technical person interpreted engineering or other test results, and these tests clearly exist. But, that option is unlikely. So, let's work with what we've got.
Look in the Court's order in the section entitled Conduct Prohibitions.
In Part 1 is says that...
"the Defendants... shall not make any representation... that such product
A. increases gas mileage.
B. increases gas mileage by a minimum of 10% or by any other percentage, miles-per-gallon, dollar or other figure;
C. reduces engine wear;
D. reduces or eliminates engine wear at startup;
E. reduces engine corrosion;
F. extends engine life, or
G. reduces emissions.
unless at the time the representation is made, Defendants possess and rely upon competent and reliable evidence, which when appropriate must be competent and reliable scientific evidence which substantiates the representation."
In the letter of December 22, 2002 (incorporated in the Court's order, and attached at the end of the order), the Defendants proposed that they would advertise the following for their product, specifically that
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.
and for each of these representations, Zmax/Oil-chem cited a specific document or documents which they said supported their proposed representations.
The FTC, after reviewing this documentation, said, in writing (letter of December 26, 2002) that this was okay. Of course the FTC waffled in their approval letter, but the FTC is bound by the Court's order the same as Zmax. Zmax submitted the test results and the FTC approved.
We can debate this until the cows come home, but it is reality. Molakule can trash all the Federal agencies he chooses, but both the FAA and FTC have either staff members or consultants to evaluate technical evidence. The evidence got evaluated. The FTC said Okay.
Marketing claims are not proof.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Marketing claims are not proof.
I foresee the standard tactic of there are no facts to support claims. Thus compiling a whole bunch of hooey may sway opinion to my favor.
Marketing claims are not proof.
I foresee the standard tactic of there are no facts to support claims. Thus compiling a whole bunch of hooey may sway opinion to my favor.
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Marketing claims are not proof.
I foresee the standard tactic of there are no facts to support claims. Thus compiling a whole bunch of hooey may sway opinion to my favor.
Hooey supported by pseudo scientific technobabble.
Zmax soaks into metal through MODULATED PHASE NUTATION by the application of LINEAR FREQUENCY EMISSION. http://www.ds10.org/Database/babble.html
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Marketing claims are not proof.
I foresee the standard tactic of there are no facts to support claims. Thus compiling a whole bunch of hooey may sway opinion to my favor.
Hooey supported by pseudo scientific technobabble.
Zmax soaks into metal through MODULATED PHASE NUTATION by the application of LINEAR FREQUENCY EMISSION. http://www.ds10.org/Database/babble.html
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Marketing claims are not proof.
I foresee the standard tactic of there are no facts to support claims. Thus compiling a whole bunch of hooey may sway opinion to my favor.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the FTC, a federal agency charged with doing this sort of thing, when presented with competent and reliable evidence which substantiated the representations, said the following representations were okay:
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.
No facts to support claims? Where have you been? And, there's another inconvenient fact that the FAA approved the product as it contributed to the airworthiness of the overall aircraft. You may dislike or disagree with what the FTC or FAA did, but please don't suggest that it didn't happen.
The problem with Zmax is that there is overwhelming evidence supporting the product's claims. What is lacking is the underlying engineering reports, but why is that so unusual? Such reports are company property and almost never released. Even on a popular product like Techron, after a lengthy debate on BITOG, all anyone could produce were evaluations of PEA. Companies simply don't release their engineering data. This is not a tactic - it is simply reality.
In the case of Zmax, it might actually be possible to get those engineering reports, since those reports may be filed in two different public records - the FAA approval and the FTC matter. But when this possibility was broached, there was zero interest, this technical data being dismissed in advance and out of hand as "innuendo and pseudo-science" given to non-technical agencies. Maybe someone needs to inquire of the FTC or FAA?
Folks, there is no shortage of evidence supporting Zmax's claims - there is overwhelming evidence. What's missing is engineering reports and the like, but they are "inneundo and pseudo-science" (this from someone who had never seen them). And opposing Zmax? One user bought the product, used it, spent a lot of money on it, but has refused to provide any details of his experiences with the product - anecdotal information in all likelihood - after two different invitations to do so.
In my personal view the FTC blundered this matter from start to finish. I have no idea what the FAA did. But, that's what happened so live with it. If the forum wants to trash an additive product, they might pick on Slick 50 or DuraLube or something else. Zmax managed to get their ducks in order.
This has been an interesting thread, but unless there's something new to contribute, it looks like it's run it's course. Simply rehashing the record is not productive. The FTC and FAA, either voluntarily or perhaps by being out maneuvered, are clearly in the Zmax camp. They may be non-technical boob agencies, but that's still a hard act to follow.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Marketing claims are not proof.
I foresee the standard tactic of there are no facts to support claims. Thus compiling a whole bunch of hooey may sway opinion to my favor.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the FTC, a federal agency charged with doing this sort of thing, when presented with competent and reliable evidence which substantiated the representations, said the following representations were okay:
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.
No facts to support claims? Where have you been? And, there's another inconvenient fact that the FAA approved the product as it contributed to the airworthiness of the overall aircraft. You may dislike or disagree with what the FTC or FAA did, but please don't suggest that it didn't happen.
The problem with Zmax is that there is overwhelming evidence supporting the product's claims. What is lacking is the underlying engineering reports, but why is that so unusual? Such reports are company property and almost never released. Even on a popular product like Techron, after a lengthy debate on BITOG, all anyone could produce were evaluations of PEA. Companies simply don't release their engineering data. This is not a tactic - it is simply reality.
In the case of Zmax, it might actually be possible to get those engineering reports, since those reports may be filed in two different public records - the FAA approval and the FTC matter. But when this possibility was broached, there was zero interest, this technical data being dismissed in advance and out of hand as "innuendo and pseudo-science" given to non-technical agencies. Maybe someone needs to inquire of the FTC or FAA?
Folks, there is no shortage of evidence supporting Zmax's claims - there is overwhelming evidence. What's missing is engineering reports and the like, but they are "inneundo and pseudo-science" (this from someone who had never seen them). And opposing Zmax? One user bought the product, used it, spent a lot of money on it, but has refused to provide any details of his experiences with the product - anecdotal information in all likelihood - after two different invitations to do so.
In my personal view the FTC blundered this matter from start to finish. I have no idea what the FAA did. But, that's what happened so live with it. If the forum wants to trash an additive product, they might pick on Slick 50 or DuraLube or something else. Zmax managed to get their ducks in order.
This has been an interesting thread, but unless there's something new to contribute, it looks like it's run it's course. Simply rehashing the record is not productive. The FTC and FAA, either voluntarily or perhaps by being out maneuvered, are clearly in the Zmax camp. They may be non-technical boob agencies, but that's still a hard act to follow.
Originally Posted By: 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!
No, Molakule, not impugning anyone, and not name calling either - just trying to deal with reality. There are three federal districts in North Carolina. The FTC, in its genius, selected the most rural district. This is also a hot-bed of automobile racing - dirt track, stock car, you name it.
Forget about the judge, that he's non-technical, and most likely very conservative, and of course that he's from this local area. Forget that the defendants are long-time auto-racing promoters, clearly folks with a flare for the colorful, who sponsor auto races in this area. Suppose this case had gone to hearing. Let's see, testifying for the FTC we have... hired gun experts from some big city. Who knows, maybe they would have hired you?
And, for Oil-chem, we have... the president of Carroll Shelby Racing plus several of their top drivers. They can all get up and swear, under oath, that Z-Max is snake oil, because Carroll Shelby used it in his Cobra automobiles. Not enough? How about a group of engineers from Offenhauser Engines? They also use and endorse ZMax. Not enough? How about a bunch of local pilots who would say they use Avbleand, and that it is FAA approved.
I would have really liked to see this hearing. It has all the makings of a circus - on the one side, dull technicians, hired guns, representing some Federal agency in Washington. And on the other side some of the most famous and colorful names in auto racing, all of whom endorse the product. You are welcome to think that anecdotes don't count, but they just might be worth a lot in a situation like this. These colorful characters should all stand up, hold hands and shout "Snake oil and proud of it", as the FTC attorney slinks out of the court room.
What was the FTC smoking when they brought this case?
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!
No, Molakule, not impugning anyone, and not name calling either - just trying to deal with reality. There are three federal districts in North Carolina. The FTC, in its genius, selected the most rural district. This is also a hot-bed of automobile racing - dirt track, stock car, you name it.
Forget about the judge, that he's non-technical, and most likely very conservative, and of course that he's from this local area. Forget that the defendants are long-time auto-racing promoters, clearly folks with a flare for the colorful, who sponsor auto races in this area. Suppose this case had gone to hearing. Let's see, testifying for the FTC we have... hired gun experts from some big city. Who knows, maybe they would have hired you?
And, for Oil-chem, we have... the president of Carroll Shelby Racing plus several of their top drivers. They can all get up and swear, under oath, that Z-Max is snake oil, because Carroll Shelby used it in his Cobra automobiles. Not enough? How about a group of engineers from Offenhauser Engines? They also use and endorse ZMax. Not enough? How about a bunch of local pilots who would say they use Avbleand, and that it is FAA approved.
I would have really liked to see this hearing. It has all the makings of a circus - on the one side, dull technicians, hired guns, representing some Federal agency in Washington. And on the other side some of the most famous and colorful names in auto racing, all of whom endorse the product. You are welcome to think that anecdotes don't count, but they just might be worth a lot in a situation like this. These colorful characters should all stand up, hold hands and shout "Snake oil and proud of it", as the FTC attorney slinks out of the court room.
What was the FTC smoking when they brought this case?
Originally Posted By: Arctic388
i went from this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4O5jI7ky7E&list=PLPi_s5p45KGvZfDqHnY1lupx-HVUMkhqy&index=7
to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf27FQsh3Nc&list=PLPi_s5p45KGvZfDqHnY1lupx-HVUMkhqy&index=9
and the only difference was adding z-max to the oil.
of course that doesn't prove anything.
since when is seeing not believing ?
i went from this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4O5jI7ky7E&list=PLPi_s5p45KGvZfDqHnY1lupx-HVUMkhqy&index=7
to this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zf27FQsh3Nc&list=PLPi_s5p45KGvZfDqHnY1lupx-HVUMkhqy&index=9
and the only difference was adding z-max to the oil.
of course that doesn't prove anything.
since when is seeing not believing ?
What you have provided is not truth.
Originally Posted By: dave5358
What was the FTC smoking when they brought this case?
The FTC settled and was the party that came out with the long end of the stick by far. You do not know what you are posting.
What was the FTC smoking when they brought this case?
The FTC settled and was the party that came out with the long end of the stick by far. You do not know what you are posting.
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: dave5358
What was the FTC smoking when they brought this case?
The FTC settled and was the party that came out with the long end of the stick by far. You do not know what you are posting.
Actually, dave5358 is about the only one that makes any sense in this whole thread. I been watching this thread for a long time, ever since I posted a question to it several pages back. The FTC was sent packing. They dropped it in the best way they could without just getting their legs kicked out from under them. ZMax came out losing basically nothing. If the FTC was so correct, why did they want to drop the lawsuit? They dropped it because they was about to lose in a even larger and more public way.
I hate to say something that is so obvious, a couple people on here would not believe anything even if they saw it with their own eyes. I have not used ZMax and may not ever use it but based on what ZMax has dealt with and still come out on top, I believe the product does what it claims for the SIMPLE fact that the FTC couldn't prove it didn't. Why a few people can't see that only proves that they have lost all abilities to figure it out for themselves or to even see what is so obvious.
Maybe one day a couple people will figure that out but I think they are well past ever doing that.
Originally Posted By: dave5358
What was the FTC smoking when they brought this case?
The FTC settled and was the party that came out with the long end of the stick by far. You do not know what you are posting.
Actually, dave5358 is about the only one that makes any sense in this whole thread. I been watching this thread for a long time, ever since I posted a question to it several pages back. The FTC was sent packing. They dropped it in the best way they could without just getting their legs kicked out from under them. ZMax came out losing basically nothing. If the FTC was so correct, why did they want to drop the lawsuit? They dropped it because they was about to lose in a even larger and more public way.
I hate to say something that is so obvious, a couple people on here would not believe anything even if they saw it with their own eyes. I have not used ZMax and may not ever use it but based on what ZMax has dealt with and still come out on top, I believe the product does what it claims for the SIMPLE fact that the FTC couldn't prove it didn't. Why a few people can't see that only proves that they have lost all abilities to figure it out for themselves or to even see what is so obvious.
Maybe one day a couple people will figure that out but I think they are well past ever doing that.
Originally Posted By: rdalek
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: dave5358
What was the FTC smoking when they brought this case?
The FTC settled and was the party that came out with the long end of the stick by far. You do not know what you are posting.
Actually, dave5358 is about the only one that makes any sense in this whole thread. I been watching this thread for a long time, ever since I posted a question to it several pages back. The FTC was sent packing. They dropped it in the best way they could without just getting their legs kicked out from under them. ZMax came out losing basically nothing. If the FTC was so correct, why did they want to drop the lawsuit? They dropped it because they was about to lose in a even larger and more public way.
I hate to say something that is so obvious, a couple people on here would not believe anything even if they saw it with their own eyes. I have not used ZMax and may not ever use it but based on what ZMax has dealt with and still come out on top, I believe the product does what it claims for the SIMPLE fact that the FTC couldn't prove it didn't. Why a few people can't see that only proves that they have lost all abilities to figure it out for themselves or to even see what is so obvious.
Maybe one day a couple people will figure that out but I think they are well past ever doing that.
Very simple if you have been involved with a civil lawsuit. If the court is likely to rule in your favor do not settle and you do not settle to pay restitution.The makers of zmax settled and agreed to pay restitution drop marketing claims.
The function of the FTC is not to sue companies into extinction. This was not a criminal preceding thus many confuse because the makers of zmax are able to conduct business after the proceeding somehow the makers of zmax are better off. Losing the ability to make certain marketing claims and repaying customers because of the same false advertising claims and this is a result of an company agreeing to the terms of the settlement.
Companies do not agree to settle to lessen the ability to market their product and to refund customers if no wrongdoing accrued.
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: dave5358
What was the FTC smoking when they brought this case?
The FTC settled and was the party that came out with the long end of the stick by far. You do not know what you are posting.
Actually, dave5358 is about the only one that makes any sense in this whole thread. I been watching this thread for a long time, ever since I posted a question to it several pages back. The FTC was sent packing. They dropped it in the best way they could without just getting their legs kicked out from under them. ZMax came out losing basically nothing. If the FTC was so correct, why did they want to drop the lawsuit? They dropped it because they was about to lose in a even larger and more public way.
I hate to say something that is so obvious, a couple people on here would not believe anything even if they saw it with their own eyes. I have not used ZMax and may not ever use it but based on what ZMax has dealt with and still come out on top, I believe the product does what it claims for the SIMPLE fact that the FTC couldn't prove it didn't. Why a few people can't see that only proves that they have lost all abilities to figure it out for themselves or to even see what is so obvious.
Maybe one day a couple people will figure that out but I think they are well past ever doing that.
Very simple if you have been involved with a civil lawsuit. If the court is likely to rule in your favor do not settle and you do not settle to pay restitution.The makers of zmax settled and agreed to pay restitution drop marketing claims.
The function of the FTC is not to sue companies into extinction. This was not a criminal preceding thus many confuse because the makers of zmax are able to conduct business after the proceeding somehow the makers of zmax are better off. Losing the ability to make certain marketing claims and repaying customers because of the same false advertising claims and this is a result of an company agreeing to the terms of the settlement.
Companies do not agree to settle to lessen the ability to market their product and to refund customers if no wrongdoing accrued.
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
No, Molakule, not impugning anyone, and not name calling either - just trying to deal with reality. There are three federal districts in North Carolina. The FTC, in its genius, selected the most rural district. This is also a hot-bed of automobile racing - dirt track, stock car, you name it.
Forget about the judge, that he's non-technical, and most likely very conservative, and of course that he's from this local area. Forget that the defendants are long-time auto-racing promoters, clearly folks with a flare for the colorful, who sponsor auto races in this area. Suppose this case had gone to hearing. Let's see, testifying for the FTC we have... hired gun experts from some big city. Who knows, maybe they would have hired you?
It is apparent Zarch has no understanding as to how you equate scientific data to actual technical claims, so he is now going off in left field again to impune racing in general and those people who are involved in racing.
That is a mark of arrogance.
What a guy!
Quote:
What was the FTC smoking when they brought this case?
What are YOU smoking????
Quote:
“Reality, what a concept.” – George Carlin
No, Molakule, not impugning anyone, and not name calling either - just trying to deal with reality. There are three federal districts in North Carolina. The FTC, in its genius, selected the most rural district. This is also a hot-bed of automobile racing - dirt track, stock car, you name it.
Forget about the judge, that he's non-technical, and most likely very conservative, and of course that he's from this local area. Forget that the defendants are long-time auto-racing promoters, clearly folks with a flare for the colorful, who sponsor auto races in this area. Suppose this case had gone to hearing. Let's see, testifying for the FTC we have... hired gun experts from some big city. Who knows, maybe they would have hired you?
It is apparent Zarch has no understanding as to how you equate scientific data to actual technical claims, so he is now going off in left field again to impune racing in general and those people who are involved in racing.
That is a mark of arrogance.
What a guy!
Quote:
What was the FTC smoking when they brought this case?
What are YOU smoking????
Quote:
“Reality, what a concept.” – George Carlin
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: rdalek
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: dave5358
What was the FTC smoking when they brought this case?
The FTC settled and was the party that came out with the long end of the stick by far. You do not know what you are posting.
Actually, dave5358 is about the only one that makes any sense in this whole thread.
Not in the reality we all inhabit.
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: dave5358
What was the FTC smoking when they brought this case?
The FTC settled and was the party that came out with the long end of the stick by far. You do not know what you are posting.
Actually, dave5358 is about the only one that makes any sense in this whole thread.
Not in the reality we all inhabit.
MolaKule
Staff member
Quote:
Zarch: This has been an interesting thread, but unless there's something new to contribute, it looks like it's run it's course.
Aww, it's getting too hot in the kitchen so Zarch wants to get out and go back to his alternate, denial ridden alternate universe.
Zarch: This has been an interesting thread, but unless there's something new to contribute, it looks like it's run it's course.
Aww, it's getting too hot in the kitchen so Zarch wants to get out and go back to his alternate, denial ridden alternate universe.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
So just how does a company that had to make a million dollar restitution come out on top?
Trajan: Please share your experiences with Zmax, good or bad. What did it do or fail to do?
For everyone else, search the Court's order. Restitution is nowhere mentioned. Zmax only had to offer refunds. And, who knows, maybe their customers liked zMax? Trajan liked it, bought it, spent a lot of money on it. But he does not want to tell us about his Zmax moment.
In return, the FTC has officially approved the following ZMax ad 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.
'Sure looks like 'on top' to me.
So just how does a company that had to make a million dollar restitution come out on top?
Trajan: Please share your experiences with Zmax, good or bad. What did it do or fail to do?
For everyone else, search the Court's order. Restitution is nowhere mentioned. Zmax only had to offer refunds. And, who knows, maybe their customers liked zMax? Trajan liked it, bought it, spent a lot of money on it. But he does not want to tell us about his Zmax moment.
In return, the FTC has officially approved the following ZMax ad 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.
'Sure looks like 'on top' to me.
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: rdalek
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: dave5358
What was the FTC smoking when they brought this case?
The FTC settled and was the party that came out with the long end of the stick by far. You do not know what you are posting.
Actually, dave5358 is about the only one that makes any sense in this whole thread. I been watching this thread for a long time, ever since I posted a question to it several pages back. The FTC was sent packing. They dropped it in the best way they could without just getting their legs kicked out from under them. ZMax came out losing basically nothing. If the FTC was so correct, why did they want to drop the lawsuit? They dropped it because they was about to lose in a even larger and more public way.
I hate to say something that is so obvious, a couple people on here would not believe anything even if they saw it with their own eyes. I have not used ZMax and may not ever use it but based on what ZMax has dealt with and still come out on top, I believe the product does what it claims for the SIMPLE fact that the FTC couldn't prove it didn't. Why a few people can't see that only proves that they have lost all abilities to figure it out for themselves or to even see what is so obvious.
Maybe one day a couple people will figure that out but I think they are well past ever doing that.
Very simple if you have been involved with a civil lawsuit. If the court is likely to rule in your favor do not settle and you do not settle to pay restitution.The makers of zmax settled and agreed to pay restitution drop marketing claims.
The function of the FTC is not to sue companies into extinction. This was not a criminal preceding thus many confuse because the makers of zmax are able to conduct business after the proceeding somehow the makers of zmax are better off. Losing the ability to make certain marketing claims and repaying customers because of the same false advertising claims and this is a result of an company agreeing to the terms of the settlement.
Companies do not agree to settle to lessen the ability to market their product and to refund customers if no wrongdoing accrued.
If the Govt brings a lawsuit, they don't drop the lawsuit unless they see they are going to lose. It is really THAT simple. The FTC started it and it also put a end to it. Anyone with a small amount of common sense can see that. The Fed Govt filed a lawsuit and then settled it winning nothing. Why do you think they wanted to settle the lawsuit? Do you think they did it because they were winning? To use your own logic, you don't go to the expense of filing a lawsuit and then drop the lawsuit IF YOU ARE WINNING. The only reason that ZMax agreed to the restitution, which I'm pretty sure is YOUR word not the word of the court, is to stop having to pay lawyers to defend the lawsuit. ZMax got what they wanted, the FTC and the FULL weight of the Fed Govt OFF their back. They also got to keep making most of the same claims they made before the FTC stepped into the cow pattie.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: rdalek
ZMax has dealt with and still come out on top,
Dang time limit.
So just how does a company that had to make a million dollar restitution come out on top?
It saves them from having to pay lawyers. Can you not see that? Really? Companies settle all the time to stop the expense of defending themselves even if they did nothing wrong at all. It's cheaper to do that so it is just a VERY common business decision. The Govt however very rarely if ever does that. They don't care about cost because it doesn't really cost them anything. It's not their money, it is taxpayer money. They could care less about the expense. If the Govt even thinks they can win, they fight on until the end. In this case, the FTC couldn't chew all it bit off. That is why they settled it in the best way they could WITHOUT making them stop make basically the same claims as before.
Originally Posted By: rdalek
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: dave5358
What was the FTC smoking when they brought this case?
The FTC settled and was the party that came out with the long end of the stick by far. You do not know what you are posting.
Actually, dave5358 is about the only one that makes any sense in this whole thread. I been watching this thread for a long time, ever since I posted a question to it several pages back. The FTC was sent packing. They dropped it in the best way they could without just getting their legs kicked out from under them. ZMax came out losing basically nothing. If the FTC was so correct, why did they want to drop the lawsuit? They dropped it because they was about to lose in a even larger and more public way.
I hate to say something that is so obvious, a couple people on here would not believe anything even if they saw it with their own eyes. I have not used ZMax and may not ever use it but based on what ZMax has dealt with and still come out on top, I believe the product does what it claims for the SIMPLE fact that the FTC couldn't prove it didn't. Why a few people can't see that only proves that they have lost all abilities to figure it out for themselves or to even see what is so obvious.
Maybe one day a couple people will figure that out but I think they are well past ever doing that.
Very simple if you have been involved with a civil lawsuit. If the court is likely to rule in your favor do not settle and you do not settle to pay restitution.The makers of zmax settled and agreed to pay restitution drop marketing claims.
The function of the FTC is not to sue companies into extinction. This was not a criminal preceding thus many confuse because the makers of zmax are able to conduct business after the proceeding somehow the makers of zmax are better off. Losing the ability to make certain marketing claims and repaying customers because of the same false advertising claims and this is a result of an company agreeing to the terms of the settlement.
Companies do not agree to settle to lessen the ability to market their product and to refund customers if no wrongdoing accrued.
If the Govt brings a lawsuit, they don't drop the lawsuit unless they see they are going to lose. It is really THAT simple. The FTC started it and it also put a end to it. Anyone with a small amount of common sense can see that. The Fed Govt filed a lawsuit and then settled it winning nothing. Why do you think they wanted to settle the lawsuit? Do you think they did it because they were winning? To use your own logic, you don't go to the expense of filing a lawsuit and then drop the lawsuit IF YOU ARE WINNING. The only reason that ZMax agreed to the restitution, which I'm pretty sure is YOUR word not the word of the court, is to stop having to pay lawyers to defend the lawsuit. ZMax got what they wanted, the FTC and the FULL weight of the Fed Govt OFF their back. They also got to keep making most of the same claims they made before the FTC stepped into the cow pattie.
Originally Posted By: Trajan
Originally Posted By: rdalek
ZMax has dealt with and still come out on top,
Dang time limit.
So just how does a company that had to make a million dollar restitution come out on top?
It saves them from having to pay lawyers. Can you not see that? Really? Companies settle all the time to stop the expense of defending themselves even if they did nothing wrong at all. It's cheaper to do that so it is just a VERY common business decision. The Govt however very rarely if ever does that. They don't care about cost because it doesn't really cost them anything. It's not their money, it is taxpayer money. They could care less about the expense. If the Govt even thinks they can win, they fight on until the end. In this case, the FTC couldn't chew all it bit off. That is why they settled it in the best way they could WITHOUT making them stop make basically the same claims as before.
- Status
