fuel maxx chip
Thread Starter
|
Rookie
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
From:
fuel maxx chip
Anybody ever heard of this fuel maxx chip?? They are claming 2-4 MPG increase. Does anybody know anything about these?
[IMG]local://upfiles/83314/FC743724F1C748E3919F7CA1B3084A96.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]local://upfiles/83314/FC743724F1C748E3919F7CA1B3084A96.jpg[/IMG]
Rookie
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
From: North Port FL
RE: fuel maxx chip
#1 Google search
Fuel MAX Settles Federal Charges
[align=center]
[/align]
[/align][/align][/align]
[/align][/align][/align][/align][/align][/align][/align][/align][/align]
May 10, 2005[/i]
Operators who sent illegal spam and made deceptive claims for a bogus fuel-saving product have settled Federal Trade Commission charges that their e-mail and Web sites violated federal laws.
The settlements bar violations of the FTC Act and the CAN-SPAM Act, and bar the defendants from making or assisting others to make deceptive product claims.
In October 2004, the FTC filed a suit in U.S. District Court alleging that marketers, and the resellers working with them, were making deceptive claims for Fuel MAX and Super FuelMax products. The Web site operators and their affiliates - spammers who drove traffic to their site - made claims such as:
• Increase gas mileage 27%+ by helping fuel burn better;
• Reduce emissions by 43%;
• Smoother engine;
• Pays for itself FAST!!!!
• Gives an extra 10% more horsepower;
• Based on the size of your gas tank you will save from $8 for a typical 15-gallon gas tank, but larger V8 SUVs and trucks will save up to $20 per tank.
The FTC alleged that the magnetic "fuel saver" does not save fuel, does not increase gas mileage, and does not reduce emissions. The agency claimed that the false claims violate the FTC Act. The agency also alleges that by providing promotional materials with false claims to affiliates, the defendants provided them with the means to violate the FTC Act.
The FTC charged that by inserting the names of innocent third parties in the "from" or "reply to" fields - "spoofing" - and failing to provide a valid physical postal address, the marketers were violating the CAN-SPAM Act.
Settlements with Mark C. Ayoub, his companies, Diverse Marketing Group, Inc., and Diverse Marketing Group LLC; and Floyd and Marcia Tassin and their company, Net Marketing Croup LLC, bar them from making misrepresentations in connection with the sale of fuel-saving devices or any product or service sold over the Internet. In addition, they prohibit them from providing others with the means and instrumentalities to commit deception.
Fuel MAX Settles Federal Charges
[align=center]
[/align]
[/align][/align][/align]
[/align][/align][/align][/align][/align][/align][/align][/align][/align]
May 10, 2005[/i]
Operators who sent illegal spam and made deceptive claims for a bogus fuel-saving product have settled Federal Trade Commission charges that their e-mail and Web sites violated federal laws.
The settlements bar violations of the FTC Act and the CAN-SPAM Act, and bar the defendants from making or assisting others to make deceptive product claims.
In October 2004, the FTC filed a suit in U.S. District Court alleging that marketers, and the resellers working with them, were making deceptive claims for Fuel MAX and Super FuelMax products. The Web site operators and their affiliates - spammers who drove traffic to their site - made claims such as:
• Increase gas mileage 27%+ by helping fuel burn better;
• Reduce emissions by 43%;
• Smoother engine;
• Pays for itself FAST!!!!
• Gives an extra 10% more horsepower;
• Based on the size of your gas tank you will save from $8 for a typical 15-gallon gas tank, but larger V8 SUVs and trucks will save up to $20 per tank.
The FTC alleged that the magnetic "fuel saver" does not save fuel, does not increase gas mileage, and does not reduce emissions. The agency claimed that the false claims violate the FTC Act. The agency also alleges that by providing promotional materials with false claims to affiliates, the defendants provided them with the means to violate the FTC Act.
The FTC charged that by inserting the names of innocent third parties in the "from" or "reply to" fields - "spoofing" - and failing to provide a valid physical postal address, the marketers were violating the CAN-SPAM Act.
Settlements with Mark C. Ayoub, his companies, Diverse Marketing Group, Inc., and Diverse Marketing Group LLC; and Floyd and Marcia Tassin and their company, Net Marketing Croup LLC, bar them from making misrepresentations in connection with the sale of fuel-saving devices or any product or service sold over the Internet. In addition, they prohibit them from providing others with the means and instrumentalities to commit deception.
