Theos Medical Systems and Chummie’s Grand Deceit – Amazon and Costco’s Dilemma!

Continued from the previous blog entry.

Overall, the Honorable Federal Judge of the Northern District of California’s Order/Decree relating to Theos Medical Systems, Inc. and Saket Bhatia provides a rather complete validation of our complaints against them, pointing out the many ways in which they were misleading and "fooling" the public into buying Chummie products. And it is now obvious that the public were not the only ones "fooled."

We strongly suspect that this illegitimate behavior was instrumental in Theos/Chummie being perceived by Amazon as a "disruptor" in the bedwetting alarms industry. What Amazon did not know, or was unwilling to accept when it was pointed out to them, is how illegitimate Bhatia's behavior was, which very possibly resulted in Amazon making the mistake of making a commitment to purchase a substantial number of items from Theos/Chummie/Bhatia for sale by Amazon. Common sense suggests that Amazon would likely not make such a decision today, especially after the Judge's Order about Theos/Bhatia. It is also obvious that Chummie sales on Amazon have dropped substantially this year, and it is very possible that this may be another reason that Amazon may now regret having to handle its commitments on the Chummie products.

As pointed out in our blog entry just prior to this, the signing of this Judge's Order/Decree by Bhatia was delayed as long as possible, so that Bhatia could convince Costco to accept his product. Common sense again suggests that Costco would be unlikely to make such a decision today, especially after the Judge's Order about Theos/Bhatia.

We now have Amazon and Costco being swayed by Theos/Chummie/Bhatia into accepting their products through unethical means and false information that have a consent order about their continued or future use by a Federal Judge, and corrections ordered of past abuses in these areas.

How will Amazon and Costco extricate themselves from poor commitments to sell obsolete products with obsolete technology at absurd prices? Perhaps the extensive false information provided to both Amazon and Costco, including exaggerations and false “facts” about their Chummie products by Theos Medical Systems and Saket Bhatia, sustained and developed over several years, can be used by both Amazon and Costco to extricate themselves from a costly commitment that was very probably influenced by this fake information.

The poor value of Chummie’s bed-wetting alarms as compared to some others is very evident in our prior blog entry:

Abusing and Misinterpreting Amazon Reviews: The Case Against Chummie, Dry-Knight and Lil' Jumble.

We continue to wonder why any moral, ethical and sensible buyer would want to conduct any business with Theos Medical Systems or purchase their Chummie products.

Grand Deceit by Theos Medical Systems and Chummie – A Judge's Order! (Part 2)

Continued from the previous blog entry - Part 1 

2.         We have complained for years that Bhatia was using grossly exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims for his Chummie products on his website(s) and the websites of parties such as Amazon and eBay. Consumers and buyers were being grossly misled by these fake facts. The Judge‘s Order stipulates that the following statements be modified or removed from such related sites in all countries:

a).        Change the statement “#1 doctor recommended bedwetting alarm” to “doctor recommended bedwetting alarm.”

b).        Change the statement “world’s #1 pediatrician recommended alarm” to “widely recommended by pediatricians.”

c).         Remove the statement “urine detection is 50x faster than other bedwetting alarms.”

d).         Remove the statement “more pediatric urologists recommend Chummie over other alarms.”

e).         Change the statement “Chummie is the only alarm that stops bedwetting” to “Chummie alarms stop bedwetting.”

f).          Change the statement “Chummie’s urine detection area is 100x larger than other alarms” to “Chummie’s urine detection area is significantly larger than other clip sensors.”

g).         Remove all references to the safety of PLAINTIFFS’ products, including references to “dangerous safety pins,” “sharp sensors - can cut skin,” and “contain lead and mercury.”

h).         Change references to “over 100,000” to “over 20,000.” [We were pointing out that Chummie was absurdly claiming over 100,000 units sold about the time they started their business in the U.S.].

i).          Change the statement “only alarm carried by major retailers in USA, Europe, and Asia” to “carried by major retailers in USA, Europe, and Asia.”

j).          Change the statement “does not cause skin rash caused by all other alarms” to “does not cause skin rash.”

k).        Remove the statement “only bedwetting alarm that has passed the test required to be registered with the United States FDA.”

l).         Change the statement “96% success rate” to “in a study . . . 96% success rate.”

m).       Change the statement “smallest and lightest bedwetting alarm available” to “small and lightweight.”

n).        Change the statement “loudest alarm available” to “loud.”

o).        Remove the statements “faster urine detection equals rapid treatment,” or “faster detection equals quicker treatment.”

A question that deserves to be asked is how many of Chummie’s sales were a consequence of buyers reading these false and/or exaggerated claims about the Chummie products! 

3.            The Judge pointed out that Chummie/Theos/Bhatia made false claims about patents owned by or applicable to Chummie, and ordered:
"Remove from their website all references to patented claims for which no patent has been approved within 10 days of entry of this Consent Decree. DEFENDANTS will also remove these references from Amazon and eBay websites within 45 days of entry of this Consent Decree."

Quite unconscionable! But then that is what we have been pointing out about Theos/Chummie for a long time.

4.            We have pointed out in some depth that Bhatia was making cash payments to persons solicited on Craigslist and other sites for posting fake product reviews on Amazon. These were used to grossly exaggerate the positives of Chummie products, and negatives for competitors' products. The Judge’s Order states that

"DEFENDANTS will refrain from making cash payments to individuals in exchange for reviews of their products."

You, the reader of this blog, can expect to be reading much more in this matter!

5.            The judge also ordered that Theos/Chummie/Bhatia should remove these illegitimate reviews from Amazon:
"DEFENDANTS will submit, through Amazon Vendor Central, a letter from their attorneys to Amazon’s Buyers Review Team and Item Update Creation Team. The letter will ask for the removal of all nonverified reviews of Chummie products on all Amazon websites posted between June 1, 2014 and March 31, 2015 on the grounds that the validity of the reviews has come into question. This letter will be sent within 10 days of entry of this Consent Decree. If the subject reviews are not removed within 45 days of the date the letter is sent, DEFENDANTS will send, through Amazon Vendor Central, a second letter from their attorneys to Amazon’s Buyers Review Team and Item Update Creation Team. The second letter will reference this Agreement and the Court’s Consent Decree, and will identify the specific nonverified reviews to be removed."

We can postulate that this is unlikely to happen till the end of the ordered period, and it would not surprise us if it did not happen even by that time. We have not seen Theos/Chummie/Bhatia do anything on a timely basis if it could be disadvantageous to them. This includes negating or erasing their fake claims. We’ll just have to wait and see.

We suspect, based on Bhatia's proclivity for trying to get away with whatever he can get away with, or delaying doing what is right if it may have any adverse effect on his business, that
1.       He has procrastinated in this matter of signing the order and consent decree as much as he believed that he could get away with, and   
2.       An important reason for the delays was to put in place other plans of his which could very possibly be adversely affected by the Judge’s Order! 

Continued in the next blog entry...

Grand Deceit by Theos Medical Systems and Chummie – A Judge's Order! (Part 1)

Part 1

For the past two years we have been pointing out the deceit (some may call it fraud) indulged in and perpetuated by Theos Medical Systems, Inc. with respect to their Chummie products and also disparaging the reputation and facts about Theos's competitors and their products. This has been confirmed by an order/decree from a U.S. Federal Judge for the Northern District of California which validates and confirms (through Theos's consent to the order/decree) much of what we have written about with respect to Theos/Chummie and imposes controls on them. This further confirms our claims of excessive hype and false claims by Theos about their Chummie products, and their abuse of Amazon Reviews to hype their products and degrade their competition, and the general lack of good ethics on the part of Theos Medical Systems. We continue to wonder why any moral, ethical and sensible buyer would want to conduct any business with Theos or purchase their Chummie products.

Now let us examine Theos/Chummie’s motives and methods further.

From the very beginning Theos/Chummie, through its owner Saket Bhatia (“Bhatia"), who is also a defendant and to whom the afore-mentioned order applies, were intent on disrupting the bed-wetting alarm industry for their personal gain. Why the bed-wetting alarm industry? We can only surmise that Bhatia was looking for an opportunity where the industry and competitors were small and dispersed, and it might be relatively easy to become a “big fish in a small pond.” Bhatia had identified a Chinese manufacturer Qingdao Bercon Medical Device Co. who made several inexpensive medical products some of which appealed to Bhatia. One was a bed-wetting alarm, the Model M300 , which Quingdao Bercon had been attempting to sell, together with some other medical devices (such as an inexpensive ultrasound device) for which Bhatia thought that there would be some demand. He established Theos Medical Systems in Mumbai, India, and opened a sales office in Santa Clara, California. The M300 alarm used standard technology and was a typical alarm with nothing innovative and obsolete technology. But it was cheap. Nothing unique about its old-fashioned technology and no development costs or related mental acumen!

Bhatia’s modus operandi was to run a “no frills” business, focused on building sales at a minimum cost. There is nothing wrong with this approach, and it is legitimately used by many small start-up businesses. So Bhatia had a web site developed, which would be his primary means of sales. On it he attempted to sell the M300 bed-wetting alarm (now called Chummie) and also mentioned some other devices including the ultrasound device. His initial efforts were not successful. So he obtained the services of a marketing “consultant” who put a “smile” on the face of the Chummie alarm box, made the packaging more attractive, and helped in promoting the item(s). Again, not an issue in and of itself, if everything Bhatia said and did, whether on the website or elsewhere, was ethical and “above board.” However Bhatia’s approach to developing his business was extremely unethical.

In this post (and the following one) we shall only examine the specific orders from the Federal Judge towards Theos Medical Systems and Bhatia (Defendants):

1.         Bhatia obtained the U.S. trademark for "Malem," a bedwetting alarm that has been on the market since the last century. Bhatia also attempted to prevent the trademark for "Bedwetting Store," a name that has been used by a competitor of Bhatia for many years. We can only attribute this behavior of Bhatia to mischief intended to harass a competitor. This mischievous attitude is further validated by the fact that Bhatia got an insurer to pay any legal fees if his trademark claim to Malem was legally challenged. The Judge ordered that the Defendants cannot oppose the "Bedwetting Store" application of the Plaintiff, and must also not use or attempt to trademark "Malem," "Bedwetting Store," and other names and trademarks, and remove such items and copyrighted materials and meta materials from their website, and not use such materials in the future. 

Continued in the next blog entry ...