Razer settles 'deceptive' marketing FTC lawsuit for over $1 million — 6,764 Zephyr mask buyers to get full refunds
The FTC ordered Razer to fully refund all customers who bought a Zephyr mask because of its deceptive ads.

Razer has settled the suit filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (PDF) against it for the "deceptive advertising" of the Razer Zephyr mask the company launched in late 2021. As reported by Ars Technica Razer has paid a $100,000 fine and turned over $1,071,254.33 now due to consumers, to the agency. The FTC says that it will send “checks and PayPal payments to 6,764 consumers who purchased the deceptively marketed products. Recipients will get a full refund.”
It means that all 6,764 people who bought these Zephyr masks will receive the $99.99 they paid for a mask and a set of three filters. Those who bought the Starter Pack, which came with 33 sets of filters, will receive $150. In line with this, the FTC is warning people against scams, especially those that pose as representatives of the agency and ask for payment or information in exchange for the refund. If you’re one of the few buyers, you should cash your refund check within 90 days, as indicated on it, or redeem your PayPal payment within 30 days, says the agency.
For questions and clarifications, you can reach out to Simpluris, the refund administrator the FTC has tapped for the Razer Zephyr case at 1-833-285-3003. Alternatively, you can visit FTC’s Refund Program FAQ page to get some answers.
The Razer Zephyr saga began when the company marketed the mask as having “replaceable N95 grade filters for maximum protection” and that it was “FDA-registered and lab-tested for 99 percent BFE (Bacteria Filtration Efficiency).” It also claimed that the mask “offers greater protection compared to standard disposable/cloth masks, and filters air both inhaled and exhaled to safeguard you and others around you.”
These claims were found to be misleading to the consumer who might equate a mask having “replaceable N95 grade filters” as having the same efficacy as an N95 mask. Even a Razer executive was concerned about this marketing push after tech reviewer Naomi Wu criticized the Zephyr for its deceptive marketing. According to the company’s Director of Global Public Relations, “the ‘N95 grade filter’ wording that we’re using […] suggests that Zephyr is on par with officially certified masks. Do we have any certifications to back the N95-grade claim?” He said that Razer needed to boil down how the Zephyr mask provides N95 grade protection in two to three sentences. He also added, “And if we can’t do that, I’d recommend to stop using any ‘N95 grade’ claims in our marketing immediately.”
Furthermore, third-party tests hired by Razer showed that even though the Zephyr used N95 filters, it failed to perform at the required standard for the entire mask to be granted that certification. Its best results only had an 86.3% effectiveness with the fans on, and 83.2% with them off—and these were the best results. Other tests would often show lower numbers, meaning buyers who bought the Razer mask because of its supposed N95-level of protection had a false sense of security.
Tom’s Hardware tested the Razer Zephyr and our very own Andrew Freedman found that it had poor fitment around his and his wife’s face. This is a major requirement to ensure that all the air you take in goes through the filter, but the company’s one-size-fits-all approach for this mask meant that it almost certainly didn’t fit perfectly.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Even though the company removed all mention of N95 protection from the Zephyr page as of January 10, 2022, the damage has already been done, and some have already bought the pretty expensive mask. Furthermore, Razer said that it implemented a refund policy the day before for those who bought the Zephyr for its supposed N95 protection. But the FTC says that it did not promote this policy in its emails to consumers, instead just telling that that the mask “is not a medical device nor certified as an N95 mask.” Those who asked for refunds often ran into issues, meaning just 6% of those who purchased the mask, about 400 people, were given one.
Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.
-
TheSecondPower This seems like a fair complaint but it also makes me want a refund from the CDC, who recommended cloth masks against covid when all available evidence said a surgical mask was the absolute minimum for any efficacy. Can we get refunds from the CDC too?Reply -
edzieba
Don't mix up efficacy in protecting the wearer (in which case a properly fitted filtered mask is mandatory, and 'surgical masks'* are worthless) and efficacy in reducing population transmission (pretty much any face covering that catches projectile droplets is highly effective here).TheSecondPower said:This seems like a fair complaint but it also makes me want a refund from the CDC, who recommended cloth masks against covid when all available evidence said a surgical mask was the absolute minimum for any efficacy. Can we get refunds from the CDC too?
The razer Zaphyr was a PAPR but garbage. As well as being ineffective as a respirator due to the high bypass flow, it was ineffective at transmission reduction due to the unfiltered forced air exhaust.
* a 'Surgical Mask' has the one job of preventing projectile droplets from being inhaled. It is not a particulate filter. They are effectively cloth masks with some standardisation in geometry and sterilisation protocols for manufacture and packaging. -
TheSecondPower
I'm not. Razer claimed that the mask “offers greater protection compared to standard disposable/cloth masks, and filters air both inhaled and exhaled to safeguard you and others around you.” No RCT ever demonstrated that cloth masks reduce risks to the wearer or to the people around the wearer compared to not wearing a mask, as the CDC claimed. In the same way Razer had no RCT comparing its mask to a cloth mask. I suppose there were possibly some lab experiments and observational studies around cloth masks, which is apparently more than Razer had.edzieba said:Don't mix up efficacy in protecting the wearer (in which case a properly fitted filtered mask is mandatory, and 'surgical masks'* are worthless) and efficacy in reducing population transmission (pretty much any face covering that catches projectile droplets is highly effective here). -
edzieba
Evidence is clear:TheSecondPower said:No RCT ever demonstrated that cloth masks reduce risks to the wearer or to the people around the wearer compared to not wearing a mask
Evidence which consistently demonstrated the efficacy of cloth masks, medical masks, and respirators against infection with SARS-CoV-2 emerged early in the pandemic, from classical epidemiological (cohort and case-control) studies (179–186), database-derived real-world evidence (187, 188), and ecological studies and quasi-experiments related to policy change (189–198). A community-based case-control study performed in California found a dose-response relationship between both mask or respirator quality and frequency of use and reduction in SARS-CoV-2 risk: the aOR for SARS-CoV-2 infection associated with mask use was 0.44 (95% CI 0.24–0.82); surgical mask aOR was 0.34 (95% CI 0.13–0.90), and respirator use aOR was 0.17 (95% CI 0.05–0.64) (179).
Cloth masks are less effective than properly fitted N95 masks (though improperly fitted masks are merely as effective as cloth masks), both are more effective than no mask, and both are less effective than respirators. This isn't some mystery conjecture, this is well established evidentially, in both controlled trials and in population studies over multiple pandemics (including both Coronavirus pandemics). -
TheSecondPower
The paper you linked says, "The Cochrane review of non-pharmaceutical interventions, for example, appears to rest on the assumption that trustworthy evidence on this topic comes primarily or exclusively from RCTs and that if RCTs have been identified, non-RCT evidence can be ignored. An alternative view is that evidence-based medicine’s “hierarchy of evidence” (with RCTs as the assumed gold standard) is inappropriate for multifaceted topics such as masking." But I am in the former camp, which believes that RCTs are the gold standard.edzieba said:Evidence is clear:
Cloth masks are less effective than properly fitted N95 masks (though improperly fitted masks are merely as effective as cloth masks), both are more effective than no mask, and both are less effective than respirators. This isn't some mystery conjecture, this is well established evidentially, in both controlled trials and in population studies over multiple pandemics (including both Coronavirus pandemics). -
edzieba
You may wish to continue reading the rest of the paper, since you managed to skip over the entire RCT-only metanalysis section to just clip out the bit that conforms to your desired result.TheSecondPower said:The paper you linked says, "The Cochrane review of non-pharmaceutical interventions, for example, appears to rest on the assumption that trustworthy evidence on this topic comes primarily or exclusively from RCTs and that if RCTs have been identified, non-RCT evidence can be ignored. An alternative view is that evidence-based medicine’s “hierarchy of evidence” (with RCTs as the assumed gold standard) is inappropriate for multifaceted topics such as masking." But I am in the former camp, which believes that RCTs are the gold standard. -
TheSecondPower
I clipped out the bit which explains the difference in philosophy between this review and the Cochrane review on masks. This paper tries to make the case for the philosophy that puts a lower value on RCTs.edzieba said:You may wish to continue reading the rest of the paper, since you managed to skip over the entire RCT-only metanalysis section to just clip out the bit that conforms to your desired result. -
edzieba
It does not, and instead conducts a new meta-analysis of only RCT studies. I recommend reading the paper.TheSecondPower said:This paper tries to make the case for the philosophy that puts a lower value on RCTs. -
TheSecondPower
You linked two papers in your original response to my comment. I have finite time. I only looked at the first paper, Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review.edzieba said:It does not, and instead conducts a new meta-analysis of only RCT studies. I recommend reading the paper. -
edzieba
And that first paper is the one that contains said new metaanalysis, with the section headed and starting:TheSecondPower said:You linked two papers in your original response to my comment. I have finite time. I only looked at the first paper, Masks and respirators for prevention of respiratory infections: a state of the science review.
A new meta-analysis: justification of approach
To address our methodological concerns about previous studies (notably, the mask section of the 2023 Cochrane review ), we separated dissimilar settings, interventions, and outcome measures for a new meta-analysis of published RCTs.