UK Advertising Standards Authority vs Chord Company Ruling

[WJG]

In the UK if there is an advert that you think is false, misleading, offensive etc. you can complain the the ASA, who investigate it, ask for evidence from the company in question and then make a ruling. As you can see someone didn't believe that "magic internet cables" improve sound quality and took Chord to task over this claim...

"Tuned ARAY cables appear to dramatically reduce noise levels within the systems they are used in. The result of this is music with extraordinary levels of detail, dynamics and coherence ... because of the way Tuned ARAY works; connecting a Tuned ARAY cable to the streaming device will have a dramatic effect ... Music is simply so much more coherent and involving. This can transform the sound of both WAV and FLAC files and the results with high resolution downloads are simply stunning".

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/the-chord-company-ltd-a14-274211.html#.VLaZ1UyCOrU



The ASA don't always find against these companies those as in the case of Russ Andrews and his noise reducing mains cables...

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/russ-andrews-accessories-ltd-a13-228690.html


Perhaps more of us should do this for snake oil cable marketing?

 

[Soniclife]

RA were done in the past, but it seems to have fallen off the ASA site.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/01/13/russ_accessories/

They seem to have learnt to be more careful in how they separate the gullible from their cash.

I'm sure a lot of HIFI advertising would fail if someone took the time to submit it.

 

[DonH56]

So it was not misleading because the RFI rejection in the home might not match the lab so the claim was not disproved... I only skimmed quickly but did not see anything where audibility was addressed. Thus the claims that magical Ethernet cables improve the sound go on to the smell of what comes out of the nether end of Thomas' avatar...

 

[Soniclife]

So it was not misleading because the RFI rejection in the home might not match the lab so the claim was not disproved... I only skimmed quickly but did not see anything where audibility was addressed.

The chord case was pure delusion with no measurements to back up the claim.
The RA powerchord RFI case was classic measure something in on the way into a component to suggest it might work on what comes out, but never quite say it, let the gullible join the dots in their own imaginations.
I assume it would be easy to add an RFI filter to a power cord, and show RFI is reduced in the chord? It would be good to see the measurements on the way out of an all analogue component (e.g. preamp) and digital component (e.g. DAC) that swapping between filtered and unfiltered cord made.

 

[DonH56]

I assume it would be easy to add an RFI filter to a power cord, and show RFI is reduced in the chord? It would be good to see the measurements on the way out of an all analogue component (e.g. preamp) and digital component (e.g. DAC) that swapping between filtered and unfiltered cord made.

Yes, of course, you can measure the output of the cable to see if noise is suppressed. The latter point, does it make an audible difference, is the one that routinely gets lost. I am aware of very few measurements (most folk probably would not bother), and would have no hope of finding the references (so this is heresy or bad memory, take your pick), but IIRC there was no change except in the presence of a large RF field and poor power supply and cage (component shield/chassis) design. But of course that simply leads to the invocation of the "you can't measure what I can hear" argument.

One of the usual "sneak" paths for RFI is through the speaker cords, where it ripples through the feedback circuit inside the amplifier to be rectified and/or cause other issues. Power cords won't fix that, however.

Many years ago I swapped power cords in a friend's system after he claimed great audible benefits. Turns out nobody, including he, could tell and with the equipment I had I could not measure any change in the output of the power amp. It was not an exhaustive test.

I have sometimes heard and measured audible differences with power cords but they fell into three main areas:

1. The original cord was significantly undersized for the task;
2. The cord added RF filtering that helped the components (very special cases, specific components/systems); and,
3. The addition or removal of the safety ground and its impact on ground loops (also component- and system-specific).

I suppose there is a fourth case: If you remove the power cord, the sound goes away, and comes back when you plug it in again. I've found that which provides the most audible benefit is dependent upon the source material.

 

[Willem]

What has often surprised me is that this does not seem to have been taken up in litigation prone America.

 

[pwjazz]

What has often surprised me is that this does not seem to have been taken up in litigation prone America.

1. Submitting a complaint to a regulatory body is free. Suing someone is not.

2. Lawyers are willing to work on contingency for enough upside. The damages related to audio fraud are likely too insignificant to make it worth the effort.

 

[restorer-john]

"They (Chord) said the difference was by nature subjective, as listening to music was subjective and describing it in words was impossible. "

What an admission...

 

[amirm]

Good consumer protection but seems like it had no effect? This is from Chord's website:

 

[DuxServit]

What has often surprised me is that this does not seem to have been taken up in litigation prone America.

Advertising is free speech

 

[maxxevv]

What has often surprised me is that this does not seem to have been taken up in litigation prone America.

Believe there was a "free speech" ruling by the US courts a few decades back that allowed such nonsense within certain limits. I remember reading about it a few years ago.

 

[RayDunzl]

Who knows.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advertising

When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence. The Federal Trade Commission 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. The FTC looks especially closely at advertising claims that can affect consumers’ health or their pocketbooks – claims about food, over-the-counter drugs, dietary supplements, alcohol, and tobacco and on conduct related to high-tech products and the Internet. The FTC also monitors and writes reports about ad industry practices regarding the marketing of alcohol and tobacco.

When the FTC finds a case of fraud perpetrated on consumers, the agency files actions in federal district court for immediate and permanent orders to stop scams; prevent fraudsters from perpetrating scams in the future; freeze their assets; and get compensation for victims.

 

[JJB70]

I am a big advocate of free speech and consider that free speech without freedom to be offensive or say things we might object to is not free speech. However, making false claims in advertising is not an expression of free speech, it is a form of fraud.

 

[maxxevv]

Who knows.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/truth-advertising

When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence. The Federal Trade Commission 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. The FTC looks especially closely at advertising claims that can affect consumers’ health or their pocketbooks – claims about food, over-the-counter drugs, dietary supplements, alcohol, and tobacco and on conduct related to high-tech products and the Internet. The FTC also monitors and writes reports about ad industry practices regarding the marketing of alcohol and tobacco.

When the FTC finds a case of fraud perpetrated on consumers, the agency files actions in federal district court for immediate and permanent orders to stop scams; prevent fraudsters from perpetrating scams in the future; freeze their assets; and get compensation for victims.

I can't locate the exact article which I read it from, but found something that correlates to it.

It was in a context similar to this:

http://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html

In the US of A, where you reside, I believe when it comes to the Law, the Constitution over-rights everything else ?

 

[Wombat]

The alternative.

 

[jsrtheta]

Believe there was a "free speech" ruling by the US courts a few decades back that allowed such nonsense within certain limits. I remember reading about it a few years ago.

These guys are often pretty careful about claims. They will make truthful representations about how their cables will do this or that, with measurements, but omit mention of the fact that the "changes" occur at radio frequencies, not at frequencies relevant to home audio. So it's misleading, but technically true.

Other claims are matters of opinion, and extremely hard for government to litigate under the strictures of the First Amendment. "The differences were not subtle!" is a matter of opinion and vulnerable to the retort that "Well, that's what I heard!" How do you disprove that? And what "differences"? Just what qualifies as "subtle"?

I think, though, that there are provable cases of fraud if someone in a government consumer affairs division wanted to press the issue. But do they devote their time to saving silly audiophiles with more money than sense from their own folly? Or maybe that guy killing cancer patients by giving them worthless treatments is more deserving of the law's wrath.

So many grifters, so little time. They have to prioritize. I can tell you that when I was a prosecutor, the victims in the waiting room weren't howling for the head of Bruce Brisson.

 

[jsrtheta]

Except international treaties, I believe. In theory, there is no power vested in the Federal Government to act in a certain way if the power is not delineated or otherwise to be found in the Constitution, but this is a very amorphous and nebulous concept. The Supreme Court is the final word on how to interpret the Constitution.

Treaties (which by their nature are international, or at least inter-sovereign) are covered in Article VI of the Constitution, where they, along with federal law and Constitution itself, are defined as the "supreme law of the land".

(Sorry. I rarely get to show off around here.)

 

[agtp]

Chord Company, Press release July 31, 2019

Chord Company Launches New Epic USB Cable

https://audiobacon.net/2019/07/31/chord-company-launches-new-epic-usb-cable/

 

[maxxevv]

I was just highlighting why nobody bothers to sue many of these advertisers in the US.

There was precedence, hence the probable reason why the lack of action since. But yes, the Courts probably have better things to do if nobody takes up a civil case as a private citizen.

 

[RayDunzl]

But yes, the Courts probably have better things to do if nobody takes up a civil case as a private citizen.

The FTC seems to keep busy, at least...

https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/cases-proceedings