Tunze is being investigated by a law firm out of D.C.

[secretreefer]

Posted on July 13th, 2011 by Jake Adams
wow, how did this only come up now? If you ever used their product and dealt with Roger then you would also support this company. We would all love to "Go USA", who wouldn't? But in reality most products we use everyday are "made in china" or some other foreign country. But that's not the issue here. Try their product for a few months, i'm sure you'd be happy. I guess everything comes down to your own choice and being able to be happy with the product you're using whatever it may be. I'M A TUNZE PRODUCT USER and have always been happy with tunze's products and customer service so i will continue supporting them. :bigsmile:

 

[AcroholicReefer]

Read this
Tunze issues statement regarding the results of the propeller pump flow article

Today Tunze issued a statement regarding this propeller pump study which thanked the authors for their work, it acknowledged and agreed with the protocol used to measure flow: “we conclude that the study is correct for the flow produced by the actual pump itself and we will improve the pumps in a retrofittable manner“.

I understand what you are saying. Yes, they had to make a public statement that acknowledges the research and ways to improve the misrepresentation.

Here is what I was referring to.

"We believe pump volume alone does not equal effective flow, the ability to direct that flow is also important. In much the same way as the light available from a bulb means little if it cannot be properly directed into the aquarium, the flow rate at a pump is not as important if there is not sufficient flow at the corals"

 

[sreefer]

I understand what you are saying. Yes, they had to make a public statement that acknowledges the research and ways to improve the misrepresentation.

Here is what I was referring to.

"We believe pump volume alone does not equal effective flow, the ability to direct that flow is also important. In much the same way as the light available from a bulb means little if it cannot be properly directed into the aquarium, the flow rate at a pump is not as important if there is not sufficient flow at the corals"

Above statement is just plain excuse. We are talking about the flow rate here. The Tunze flow rate is incorrect and misrepresented, therefore they need to take responsibility period

 

[bct15]

Above statement is just plain excuse. We are talking about the flow rate here. The Tunze flow rate is incorrect and misrepresented, therefore they need to take responsibility period

The tunze flowrate is incorrect according to the results if this single experiment funded by ecotech, which represents a conflict if interest. I can just as easily orchestrate an experiment that produces a flow rate that makes the tunze appear to over-perform (see my previous post in this thread as I am bit going to repeat myself). You can not trust the results of a single experiment until they have been replicated by a separate experimentalist. Any person trying to make a claim like this should have several sources to back up their claim, not a single experiment and a number on a box. To do otherwise is only setting yourself to possibly eat your words later.

All of these ignorant comments citing this report as if it is a well established law have really started to bother me to the point I am going to attempt to acquire these powerheads and do my own study, calculating the flow rate using at least three different methods. Then I will write up a report and submit it to advanced aquarist and a couple other articles, hopefully it will pass as one of my PhD published requirements (even though I an a materials and mathematical modeling guy). Big difference is my study will be %100 unbiased...just hopefully I can get the required equipment. I don't really care which pump meets the claims as I don't use either one, I just want to see another report with some numbers from an unbiased person and who better than myself.

 

[Rockadile]

The tunze flowrate is incorrect according to the results if this single experiment funded by ecotech, which represents a conflict if interest. I can just as easily orchestrate an experiment that produces a flow rate that makes the tunze appear to over-perform (see my previous post in this thread as I am bit going to repeat myself). You can not trust the results of a single experiment until they have been replicated by a separate experimentalist. Any person trying to make a claim like this should have several sources to back up their claim, not a single experiment and a number on a box. To do otherwise is only setting yourself to possibly eat your words later.

All of these ignorant comments citing this report as if it is a well established law have really started to bother me to the point I am going to attempt to acquire these powerheads and do my own study, calculating the flow rate using at least three different methods. Then I will write up a report and submit it to advanced aquarist and a couple other articles, hopefully it will pass as one of my PhD published requirements (even though I an a materials and mathematical modeling guy). Big difference is my study will be %100 unbiased...just hopefully I can get the required equipment. I don't really care which pump meets the claims as I don't use either one, I just want to see another report with some numbers from an unbiased person and who better than myself.

That would be awesome if you did that, more input is def needed here but, be sure to have assistance along with credible witnesses otherwise I fear all your work may be considered bias in iteself if you get what I am saying.

 

[Just Clownin Around]

Above statement is just plain excuse. We are talking about the flow rate here. The Tunze flow rate is incorrect and misrepresented, therefore they need to take responsibility period

No offense to vortices owners but there pumps suck, I spent 900 on 2 pumps and had to Send them in twice. I've owned tunzes for years and haven't even had to clean them, sure would I like them to meet the stated values yes but when my vortechs broke down I threw my tunzes back in til I got the vortech back.
Once again no insult to vortices owners but mine were in my living room and they were to loud. I couldn't watch my tv at a descent decibel when they were running. For me it's a easy choice and it will be tunze. Hopefully they do right by the owners of the product and I have faith in them that they will

 

[Just Clownin Around]

Stupid spell check. Vortech

 

[Russellaqua]

No study is without bias, and there does seem to be a conflict of interest in this study. Should it be shown that this study is accurate and it can be shown that tunze intentionally misled its customers, I will not feel bad for them. If this study can be shown to be in error tunze will come out on top, and there is recourse to collect damages from frivolous lawsuits. I'll let things work themselves out. I'd like to believe that tunze is in the right, but if they're not they should be punished.

 

[droblack]

Love my Tunze 6055 nanostreams and my old 6100's were straight up insane. Don't really care about the numbers. At first I thought people were getting electrocuted or something. This is peanuts.

 

[sreefer]

The tunze flowrate is incorrect according to the results if this single experiment funded by ecotech, which represents a conflict if interest. I can just as easily orchestrate an experiment that produces a flow rate that makes the tunze appear to over-perform (see my previous post in this thread as I am bit going to repeat myself). You can not trust the results of a single experiment until they have been replicated by a separate experimentalist. Any person trying to make a claim like this should have several sources to back up their claim, not a single experiment and a number on a box. To do otherwise is only setting yourself to possibly eat your words later.

All of these ignorant comments citing this report as if it is a well established law have really started to bother me to the point I am going to attempt to acquire these powerheads and do my own study, calculating the flow rate using at least three different methods. Then I will write up a report and submit it to advanced aquarist and a couple other articles, hopefully it will pass as one of my PhD published requirements (even though I an a materials and mathematical modeling guy). Big difference is my study will be %100 unbiased...just hopefully I can get the required equipment. I don't really care which pump meets the claims as I don't use either one, I just want to see another report with some numbers from an unbiased person and who better than myself.

Why would you waste your money and time if Tunze itself already admitted that the flow rate is incorrect. And why would the engineers who test the product would put their credibility on the line. Geez...

 

[sreefer]

No offense to vortices owners but there pumps suck, I spent 900 on 2 pumps and had to Send them in twice. I've owned tunzes for years and haven't even had to clean them, sure would I like them to meet the stated values yes but when my vortechs broke down I threw my tunzes back in til I got the vortech back.
Once again no insult to vortices owners but mine were in my living room and they were to loud. I couldn't watch my tv at a descent decibel when they were running. For me it's a easy choice and it will be tunze. Hopefully they do right by the owners of the product and I have faith in them that they will

You are out of the subject here. We are not talking about tunze vs vortech here. Its all about the validity of the lawsuit. Product is one hundred percent misrepresented therefore they need to eat and pay for all the consequences.

 

[sreefer]

No offense to vortices owners but there pumps suck, I spent 900 on 2 pumps and had to Send them in twice. I've owned tunzes for years and haven't even had to clean them, sure would I like them to meet the stated values yes but when my vortechs broke down I threw my tunzes back in til I got the vortech back.
Once again no insult to vortices owners but mine were in my living room and they were to loud. I couldn't watch my tv at a descent decibel when they were running. For me it's a easy choice and it will be tunze. Hopefully they do right by the owners of the product and I have faith in them that they will

You are out of the subject here. We are not talking about tunze vs vortech here. Its all about the validity of the lawsuit. Product is one hundred percent misrepresented therefore they need to eat and pay for all the consequences.

 

[sreefer]

No study is without bias, and there does seem to be a conflict of interest in this study. Should it be shown that this study is accurate and it can be shown that tunze intentionally misled its customers, I will not feel bad for them. If this study can be shown to be in error tunze will come out on top, and there is recourse to collect damages from frivolous lawsuits. I'll let things work themselves out. I'd like to believe that tunze is in the right, but if they're not they should be punished.

Tunze issues statement regarding the results of the propeller pump flow article

 

[AcroholicReefer]

Product is one hundred percent misrepresented therefore they need to eat and pay for all the consequences.

That is for the courts to decide at this point. I'm sure that they are going to take the research sponsored by EchoTech and not question the validity of the information.

 

[Yerboy]

That is for the courts to decide at this point. I'm sure that they are going to take the research sponsored by EchoTech and not question the validity of the information.

I could be wrong but didnt tunze conduct their own test and confirm that the original test was accurate?

 

[MitchReef]

I agree that this seems to be a frivolous lawsuit, but if you bought a car claiming to get 79 Miles per Gallon, and then found that, in perfect laboratory conditions, that was actually only capable of reaching 36 Miles per Gallon, I believe you would SCREAM foul. This is the same thing.

No amount of customer service would make you happy with that car.

I still admire the quality of Tunze products, as well as their reputation for standing behind them, but this appears to be a pretty blatant case of misrepresentation.

 

[Dave3112]

The lawsuit is frivolous. Period. There are better things in this nation to worry about than an aquarium pump. NOW! With that being said I don't see how you people see the study as biased. Yes EcoTech had a big hand in the study BUT Tunze and Vortech WERE NOT THE ONLY PUMPS TESTED!!!!!! Tunze is just the only one that UNDER-PERFORMED. Should they be sued NO WAY! Should they make some changes. YES! And they already said that they were going to.........

 

[AcroholicReefer]

I could be wrong but didnt tunze conduct their own test and confirm that the original test was accurate?

Something with this magnitude should be tested in an independent research facility. Yes, they acknowledged the study and from my understanding, there was an accuracy error in their testing methods. It is one thing to write down numbers that are exaggerated and it is another thing to have some sort of explanation on where the numbers came from.

 

[MitchReef]

I could be wrong but didnt tunze conduct their own test and confirm that the original test was accurate?

I don't really dispute the numbers. Sanjay is pretty highly regarded as a true recearcher and I don't think he is swayed in his science.

Something with this magnitude should be tested in an independent research facility. Yes, they acknowledged the study and from my understanding, there was an accuracy error in their testing methods. It is one thing to write down numbers that are exaggerated and it is another thing to have some sort of explanation on where the numbers came from.

And if I'm not mistaken, this test was effectively performed by an independent body. This was university research, sponsored by a manufacturer, but not unlike the sponsoring that virtually all research receives. Without a sponsor colleges would not be able to afford to do research. The independence of the research is as good as the scientist's word. Again, I feel confident in Sanjay et al.

 

[ja4207]

Here is my best explanation why with proof that this suit has a chance.

proof requirement for false advertisement

To establish that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove five things: (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity; (2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience; (3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience; (4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff. The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement's potential to injure a customer. The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading. False statements can be defined in two ways: those that are false on their face and those that are implicitly false.

case in point

Flawed and Insignificant Research Advertisements based on flawed and insignificant research are defined under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act as "representations found to be unsupported by accepted authority or research or which are contradicted by prevailing authority or research." These advertisements are false on their face.

Alpo Pet Foods v. Ralston Purina Co., 913 F.2d 958 (D.C. Cir. 1990), shows how basing advertising claims on statistically insignificant test results provides sufficient grounds for a false advertising claim. In this case, the Ralston Purina Company claimed that its dog food was beneficial for dogs with canine hip dysplasia, demonstrating the claims with studies and tests. Alpo Pet Foods brought a claim of false advertising against Purina, saying that the test results could not support the claims made in the advertisements. Upon looking at the evidence and the way the tests were conducted by Purina, the court ruled not only that the test results were insignificant but also that the methods used to conduct the tests were inadequate and the results could therefore not support Purina's claims

So whether the reef is thriving or not is irrelevent. The damages in this suit has to do with monies lost or spent on a product that advertised a product falsely. See proof requirement below, specifically " The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading''. Basically would the consumer have purchased the pump had they known the actual output flow? Would the consumer had chose a different manufacturer had they known the output flow is the same? Add at a significant savings (Koralia)? I assure you a judge will not look at thier past business ethics, customer service, years in business or contibution to the industry. The current relevent facts are all that matters.

If they find the plantiffs IMO this is a guaranteed winner. If any of the competitors file they are absolutely screwed! Finding plantiffs maybe difficult based on what I've seen along all the forums, seems regardless to thia study Tunze followers are still highly loyal. Like I said before I don't favor a lawsuit, I'm a capitalist at heart. The market, consumer in this case will decide whether or not they are held accountable. If the industry consumer still trusts them after this they will continue to buy, if not they were held accountable by losing confidence and trust whereas profits will suffer.

One last point. The study may not be independant and could very well be funded intentionally by Ecotech. However Tunze has basically already shot themselves in the foot from ever arguing that point. In a matter of days they issued an apology and explanation to why thier research was wrong and explained in detail what they were going to do to remedy the situation. Consider your competion issuing a study about the company you own or work for that is innaccurate, slanted towards them or baseless. Your officially response wouldn't be an explanation of why you thought your product preformed better than it did and you certainly wouldn't give a layed out plan to remedy the problems that "don't exist". It would be a vehement denial pointing out the holes and conflict of interest contained. Also consider that this research was done and issued to all the companies involved months before it was publically available. Tunze as well as all the other manufacturers were given plenty of time to test and consider the research. Tunze has accepted it as correct and are moving forward to correct thier pumps issues.