If only the U.S. government had protections in place for consumers... oh wait, they do!
I would agree that much of the posting is "circular" {or is delusional worse} and will have little impact.
However, This "thread" has the potential to puts fact on record and therein resides the value. I am sure that Storm, Indiegogo, and Agency 2.0 all view the finding of fact to be very annoying because the chosen strategy in response has been stonewalling instead of remedy.
Yes the US government can step in, on a "de-facto" or after the fact basis, for example today the CPSC is talking to Lumber Liquidators on the issue as to whether or not Chinese flooring containing high levels of formaldehyde was sold to and then installed by consumers to their detriment. At present, The CPSC ruling looks to be "good news" for Lumber Liquidators because theyw were diligent in testing their product! Please take note of the word(s) testing (regulations and standards) and apply it to bicycles and batteries to draw analogy. Even with today;s CPSC ruling Consumer class, securities class, and private legal actions will likely be filed against Lumber Liquidators.
Litigation won't happen here because there is no way (or it will be very difficult) to collect damages. In Storms case, the overly complex crowd-funding business-structure clouds and will ultimately constrain those seeking remedy through litigation.
If someone gets killed or injured there may not be anyone to sue with pockets deep enough to make that costly endeavor worthwhile. Indiegogo can point to Agency 2.0 and they can all point to Storm, thus creating smoke-screen like confusion and thus adding cost to any litigation.
This complex business structure is sophisticated and intentional, the FTC might be interested in addressing those set of concerns because they are interested in other cutting edge technological issues including bitcoin where law has lagged "innovation."
Another mistake, by the parties involved, resides in the fact that this product is a known commodity.
That is also the value of this thread an forum. Ebikes are known while the Kreyos watch was totally unknown.
The only provable "illegality here" resides with the blatantly false representations that were made. It would be the responsibility of any interested party to file a concern with the FTC as they are the agency tasked with the oversight of advertising related concerns.
What some of the recent posting has told us, and proven, is that even the "better Samsung IRC 18650 26F cells"
that will not be used in this case because they are expensive have a stated "Rapid charge rate of 2.5 hours." (i.e. not 90 minutes). With this forum then, another false advertising claim has been exposed and proven false. I would think that would be the main-point of this thread.
In terms of taking personal responsibility, and to reiterate, If you care to file a concern about false or misleading advertising find this FTC complaint template as it can be used by you as a starting point;
The "Storm-Sondors crowdfunding" campaign has been centered around the sale of an electronic bicycle being sold to consumers for $499 (now $599) This campaign has raised near $3,950,000 in several weeks based on false representations made to the public and members of the press.
The product being sold is a known product with clearly documented parameters. Materially false and misleading statements were made as part of this campaign to include range, weight, specification, legality of operation (federal v state ) and expected performance.
Illustratively, the most brazenly-false representation made pertains to a claimed range of 50 miles versus a reality of approximately 15 miles or less. This claim has been widely published through advertisements appearing on the internet. This claim, among others that have been made, is and are irrefutably false.
The parties involved in this offering, individually separately together or in part, including Storm aka Sondors ebike, Indiegogo, and/or Agency 2.0 have continually refused to remedy the gross inaccuracies of this offering.
I hereby ask the Federal Trade Commission act in the public interest by remedying this situation through litigation.
https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/GettingStarted?NextQID=251&Url=#&panel1-8#crnt
If you like, copy this post and send it to the FTC.. (or write your own based on facts) In the text name three parties.
Sondors ebike c/o Indiegogo 965 Mission Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103.
Indiegogo 965 Mission Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103.
Agency 2.0 co Indiegogo 965 Mission Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94103.
Yeah, I noticed that about the Vapes. Used to be guys with Cree flashlights looking for the best lith battery. ("This flashlight can light up the shaded part of the moon")
