Archive
2 postsFilters: category: marketing-claims Clear
RF Safe’s Market Position and Industry Skepticism
RF Safe argues that while it has operated since 1998 and emphasizes “physics-based” design and education, the broader anti-radiation phone case market is widely criticized for hype and potentially misleading “blocking” claims. The post says some experts consider the category ineffective or even counterproductive, including concerns that poorly designed cases may interfere with antennas and prompt phones to increase transmit power. It positions RF Safe’s QuantaCase/TruthCase as an outlier for transparency and design choices, while noting that independent 2026 testing is limited and some claims rely on demonstrations, older tests, and design critiques.
Why Percentage Claims in Anti-Radiation Phone Cases Are Deceptive: The Truth Behind RF Shielding
RF Safe argues that common marketing claims for anti-radiation phone cases (e.g., “99% shielding”) are misleading because they often rely on controlled lab fabric tests that do not reflect real-world phone use. The post claims factors like shield orientation, phone transmit-power increases under obstruction, frequency differences (including 5G bands), and user/body interactions can reduce or even reverse purported exposure reductions. It also criticizes current regulatory testing frameworks for not requiring phones to be tested with cases and promotes RF Safe’s own “TruthCase/QuantaCase” approach as a more honest alternative.