The issue really isn't the product. The primary issue is the claims being made by persons educated and familiar in the art that cannot be substantiated by sound and obvious methods.
Well, thats just it. Most of their claims are backed up with disclamers and "up-to"s to the point that they actually mean nothing. They are
inferring the product will actually meet somewhere close to what these claims sound like they're claiming at first glance and doing it in a way which will mislead many (if not most) people but most of their claims seem to be very carefully worded to avoid
actually making any claims at all.
Then there is the issue of the test protocols that are being submitted to test laboratories that bear little resemblance to the actual normal operation region of the device. I fully understand the need for a passive load in an RF chamber. Using a 1K ohm resistor to generate a 2.25 mW load on a device that supposedly works best on a high drain device with a 100-200X load does not make a representative test. It is surprising that someone would submit such a "test" to the FCC as the basis for approval. I could understand the 2.25 mW load as part of a *series* of tests, but certainly not as the one and only test.
Again, they seem to be doing all of this intentionally. Instead of actually having their product tested for performance in real-world scenarios, they supply a test hand-picked to be meaningless and misleading. Instead of having their product tested for radiated emissions in worst-case scenario tests as you should when using sound engineering principles, they have it tested with a very light load to virtually assure passing the test but tell nothing about real-world applications and usage...
It's all very underhanded and misleading but carefully disecting their claims shows most of them to actually mean nothing. Very, very deceptive!