A producer of phone shield devices has agreed not to distribute its promotional brochure in the United States after Motorola Inc. warned the company not to make unsubstantiated claims about the safety of cellular phones.
Motorola Inc. demanded an end to distribution of the pamphlet by U.K.-based Microshield Industries plc. Microshield makes wireless phone covers designed to limit the amount of electromagnetic field radiation to which wireless users are exposed. The company also agreed not to make its phone shields available for purchase on its Web site for any potential customer ordering from the United States. Motorola said it objected to MicroShield’s promotional claims about the phone shields and about the safety of Motorola’s phones. It sent a stern letter to the company.
Motorola said Microshield made repeated claims in its brochures, which were distributed at the Consumer Electronics Show in January in Las Vegas and on its Web site, that cellular phones emit high levels of radio frequency energy, or hot spots, which heat users’ brain and eye tissue like a microwave “cooks” food. Motorola said the claims were false and misleading because no actual heating of a cellular phone occurs.
The promotional materials indicated that cellular phones were unsafe and that scientists had discovered a link between cellular phone use and several health problems, said Motorola. Motorola argued that such claims were false because the company selectively chose from various studies that had concluded a causal relationship exists between cellular phone use and illnesses and failed to disclose the vast research that has concluded no causal relationship exists. Microshield’s brochures also claimed that its device could reduce more than 90 percent of the RF emitted from a cellular phone, said Motorola.
“We’ve tested the product. It didn’t do what it was advertised to do.” said Norman Sandler, director of global strategic issues for Motorola. “It pushes the RF back into the phone, which could damage the phone’s components and could affect the signal and efficiency of the phone.”
Motorola informed Microshield that its claims were false advertising and that the company likely violated the Federal Trade Commission Act, which requires advertising to be factual, nonmanipulative and proven. “Microshield’s false and deceptive advertising has already injured, and is likely further to injure irreparably, Motorola’s goodwill,” Motorola wrote to Microshield. “Therefore, Motorola demands your assurances that Microshield immediately will discontinue any further use or distribution of any materials or claims that state or imply that cellular phones in general or Motorola phones in particular create thermal effects or pose (to) users a safety threat.”
In its reply, Microshield did not admit to the allegations but said it would cease distribution to quickly resolve the matter. The company said it “has an interest consistent with Motorola in promoting proper use of cellular phones.”
The letter sent to Microshield is similar to several Motorola has written during a span of three years to that company and to other phone shield producers, said Sandler. The phone manufacturer sent a letter to Microshield when it launched its product in March 1996 in the United Kingdom. Microshield still distributes the phone covers there.
Most recently, Motorola objected to Microshield’s promotional claims made in Australia. Microshield introduced the phone shield device there one week before the release of a major Australian study that found significant cancer in rodents exposed to digital wireless phone radiation.
The Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association is upset over Microshield’s promotional materials as well. Peter Russell, executive director of the Australian trade group, said he has written a letter to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, a consumer watch organization, asking it to direct the removal of the company’s sales brochure. He called the company’s promotional tactics “scare mongering.”
The trade group also issued a press release stating mobile phone shields are unwarranted and prey on community fears. “One look at the unfounded adverse health claims and selective use of media reports shown in [these] sales brochures should make Australian phone users think twice before purchasing these so called `shields,’ ” said Russell.
But the Australian Consumers’ Association has added fuel to the fire by issuing a solid warning about the use of mobile phones. The Australian Broadcasting Corp. reported that the association is advising mobile phone users to limit their exposure to radiation when possible, although it concedes that no scientific proof exists linking harmful health effects to mobile phone radiation.
Codem Retail, a division of Merrimack, N.H.-based Codem Systems Inc., in January initiated an international launch of its product, PhoneShield, a form-fitting, wrap-around attachment consisting of lightweight shielding material that encases the upper half of a cellular phone. Already, the company has penetrated a large portion of the world, including Australia, where it is in the process of signing an agreement with one of the largest cellular phone accessory dealers in that country. Codem’s product already is in Australia’s largest mail order catalog, said company spokeswoman Mariam Docrat.
The company said it has signed contracts or is negotiating with distributors in North America, Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Asia Pacific, including Hong Kong, China, Spain, Singapore, Brunei, Malaysia, Japan and Korea.
Codem claims its product does not interfere with range, muffle voice quality or impact battery life.
The company declined to comment on whether any cellular phone manufacturers have taken actions against it.
