I posted a response calling it consumer fraud. The follow up posts may be of some interest. I suspect my post that explains how his whole business is consumer fraud probably won’t last long. But I documented it.
Taken down in less than 30 seconds. So here was my response
“ Yes. It's consumer fraud. Let's look at your assertions here for a moment
1. "risk free?"
I think not. Here is the return policy of one of your dealers. "House of Stereo’s definition of Special Order Items; Any Item that is ordered especially for you, is considered a “Special Order” item. Once “Special Orders” are placed, they are non-refundable or at the very least, subject to a 25% restocking fee, plus freight or Shipping, at the discretion of House of Stereo. For any authorized return item that is damaged, cosmetically impaired, or returned missing accessories, or with damaged or missing original manufacturer’s packaging and materials, House of Stereo reserves the right to impose a re-stocking fee of 25% NOTE: If the customer received Free Shipping with the order and the item is returned, the shipping credit the customer received will be deducted from the final refund amount." So it is hardly "risk free"
2. "And the products have been on the market in one iteration or another for nearly 20 years."
So? There are psychics in Jackson Square who have been doing bogus readings for longer than that on a daily basis.
3. "How exactly does that work?"
Here is how that works. "The federal Lanham Act allows civil lawsuits for false advertising that “misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin” of goods or services. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The FTC also enforces false advertising laws on behalf of consumers." FTC Truth in advertising "federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence. The FTC enforces these truth-in-advertising laws, and it applies the same standards no matter where an ad appears – in newspapers and magazines, online, in the mail, or on billboards or buses." "WHEN APPROPRIATE, BACKED BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE."
Let's look at your advertisement of just one product. From your website.
“The new Purple Fuse surpasses our Orange Fuse with technology initially developed for our state-of-the-art SRX Series cables. In fact, before two last-minute breakthrough SRX technologies, we could not better the Orange Fuse with its impossible combination of detail and rich harmonic musicality. As a result, we were set to forgo a new fuse introduction for 2022 as we could not build anything better sounding than Orange despite two years of trying. It was not until we finalized two new technologies, namely a three-stage long duration high voltage conditioning process and a brand new UEF compound featuring Graphene, that we were able to beat the Orange Fuse significantly. Together these new technologies create a larger soundstage with better image focus and higher resolution from a perceived lowering of the noise floor. Of all the fuse generations and refinements we have pioneered over the past decade, the new Purple Fuses are by far our best sounding and take the single greatest leap in performance over previous generations. All aspects of subjective sound quality get enhanced, including natural sound where instruments and vocals sound inherently right, dynamics, low-level detail, high-frequency extension, and smoothness all take a massive leap forward."
You make objective testable claims that the dynamics, low level detail, high frequency extension and larger soundstage. All of these qualities are objectively testable. Since the fuse literally does nothing to the audio signal your product would fail to meet the "backed by scientific evidence" standard of the FTC. Further, if investigated your claim of three new technologies would also be shown to be pure fabrication. You have not developed any new technologies much less three of them for fuses. Do you even make fuses or are you just taking someone else's stock fuses and doing nothing real to them other than cosmetic changes? What actual scientific research have you done with these three alleged new technologies? Where's the "scientific evidence" behind them?