Background:
Find a person asking about what tune to purchase:
There’s a good chance there will be a response from Equilibrium Tuning owner Ed Susman bullshitting:
Legal Issues:
Under U.S. law, making a broad reliability claim –
EQT tunes have shown to be at least as reliable as the rest out there.
Ed Susman – Owner of Equilibrium Tuning Inc.
without competent, objective evidence can run afoul of both Federal and State “truth in advertising” rules.
Federal Law
1. Substantiation
FTC Act (Section 5) – Unfair or Deceptive Acts and Practices includes requirements for substantiation of claims. Any objective claim (e.g., “as reliable as the rest out there”) must be backed by competent and reliable scientific evidence.
Ed Susman needs to present the testing protocols, failure‐rate data, or other verifiable studies showing EQT’s reliability relative to competitors.
If Ed cannot point to that evidence, his claim is “unsubstantiated” and, therefore, deceptive.
2. Comparative Claims
When a company explicitly (or implicitly) compares its product to “all others,” the company must have a sound basis for every product included in “all others.”
Ed Susman needs some defensible way to compare against the entire field of available tunes.
State Law
Lanham Act (Section 43(a)) – False or Misleading Advertising
Under the Lanham Act, a competing tuner (or any business) can sue if they believe EQT’s comparative reliability statement is likely to mislead consumers and cause harm.
Saying “EQT tunes are at least as reliable as the rest” is a direct comparison to all other tunes on the market. If EQT cannot point to industry-wide testing or aggregated failure‐rate data, a competitor could argue it’s a false or unsubstantiated comparative claim under Lanham.
California’s Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200)
EQT operates from California, a state that treats unsubstantiated comparative reliability statements as deceptive advertising, meaning the California Attorney General or even private plaintiffs could pursue EQT if no evidence exists.
Issues for EQT
Any claim of “as reliable as” must be backed by data. EQT should have documented test results or aggregated failure statistics across a large, representative sample of vehicles.
Consumer Protection
A phrase like “as reliable as the rest” invites you to believe that every other product on the market has been objectively tested side-by-side with EQTs.
1. Because Ed Susman hasn’t publicly shared any evidence, consumers should interpret the claim cautiously.
2. Some questions consumers should ask Ed Susman are: how many tunes have you tracked? Have you recorded long-term failure rates?
3. Words like “have shown” are a sign of marketing spin. Ask, can you show me the reliability data?
Conclusion:
In short, any claim that “EQT tunes are as reliable as all others” must be backed by solid, objective evidence.
Under the FTC Act and the Lanham Act, unsubstantiated comparative reliability statements can be deemed deceptive.
Consumers should watch for vague language (“has shown”) and ask for real metrics, such as sample sizes, long‐term failure rates, or third‐party test results, before accepting broad reliability guarantees.
When in doubt, treat sweeping “best‐in‐class” claims as marketing puffery unless you see concrete proof.
Ed Susman has a history of making deceptive and false claims to consumers. Therefore, consumers must be on their guard when discussing matters that relate to the Equilibrium Tuning business.