Dateline: 02/22/02

Finding "no scientific evidence that their products work as they claim," the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has charged two companies selling cell phone radiation protection devices with making false and unsubstantiated claims.

According to the FTC, Stock Value 1, Inc. and Comstar Communications, Inc. both misrepresented their products by claiming that they protected the health of cell phone users by blocking up to 99 percent of radiation and other electromagnetic energy emitted by their phones. Alleging that the companies "lacked a reasonable basis to substantiate their claims," FTC is asking two federal courts for permanent injunctions, consumer compensation and other equitable relief.

"These companies are using a shield of misrepresentation to block consumers from the facts," said J. Howard Beales III, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection in an FTC press release. "There is no scientific evidence that their products work as they claim."

Details on Products Named in the FTC Complaint

Stock Value 1, Inc., based in Boca Raton, Florida, and also known as SV1, marketed and sold two products -- "SafeTShield (TM)" and "NoDanger"-- that purportedly block electromagnetic energy emitted from cellular and cordless telephones to consumers throughout the United States. These products consist of metallic fiber patches that are placed over the earpieces of cellular and cordless telephones. The defendants advertised their products through TV, radio and print ads, and on the Internet. 

Comstar Communications, based in West Sacramento, California, marketed and sold their products under the names "WaveShield," "WaveShield 1000," and "WaveShield 2000." They advertised their products to consumers nationwide through TV, radio and print ads, and on the Internet. 

Both companies claimed their products protected the user's brain and ear canal by filtering out electromagnetic energy coming from the cell phone's earpiece. FTC, however, charges that the company's ads failed to tell consumers that most electromagnetic energy comes from the antenna and other parts of the phone, not the earpiece. In addition, FTC charges that the company's ads did not disclose that their products had no effect at all on this other electromagnetic energy. These facts, the FTC said, "would be material to consumers' decision to buy or use their products."

The FTC further alleges that the company's claims that their products had been scientifically "proven" and "tested," were false.

Are cell phones harmful? In May 2001, the General Accounting Office issued a report stating, "Scientific research to date does not demonstrate that the radio frequency energy emitted from mobile phones has adverse health effects, but the findings of some studies have raised questions indicating the need for further investigation."

Also see the FDA's report: Cell Phones and Cancer: No Clear Connection

Effective and free precautions: In its Consumer Alert - "Radiation Shields: Do They 'Cell' Consumers Short?", FTC suggests that consumers who want to limit their exposure to the electromagnetic emissions from their phone can take simple steps such as:

• limit cell phone use to short conversations; 
• increase the distance between the antenna and the head by using a hands free set or a car phone with the antenna outside the car;
• and avoid using cell phones where the signal is poor. 

According to the FTC, there is no scientific proof that so-called shields significantly reduce exposure from electromagnetic emissions.

The complaint against the SV1 defendants was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, in Fort Lauderdale, on February 13, 2002. The complaint against the Comstar defendants was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, in Sacramento, on February 13, 2002.