http://www.nevershaveagain.com/default.aspx?source=google&adgroup=electrolysis

Can I buy this and then sue them when it doesn't work. It actually says "permanent hair removal". Not permanent reduction, how do they get away with this crap?

70 bucks and removes hair better than electrolysis huh? Whatta ya thinK?

I would see if anyone has tried it before and calculate how much it would cost you to make a case and take them to court.

It's deceptive, but they do get away with it because THAT hair IS permanently removed. Just like any other hair you pluck or wax, THAT hair will NEVER grow again.

Maybe electrolysis should be changed to Permanent Follicle Disablement?

hm, that is not true. this device is no different from plucking the hair, which doesn't do anything permanently to the follicle. the hair will return just like if you had plucked it. the problem that it's nearly impossible to prove that it's the same exact growing back in in a few months. that's mostly the issue here.

...I know you're half joking, but wouldn't it be funny if you had garnished wages because you lost their countersuit on appeal. It would be kind of a bummer, wouldn't it?

I said that it was deceptive. You have to take it literally. THAT hair that was removed by an electronic tweezing device would never grow again. THAT hair has been toss on the floor, garbage, etc. That's how those devices can claim permanency. They never claim to destroy follicles.

I understand what you mean, Choice. Makes sense in an odd way, I mean, this is shifty lawyer-speak. Sort of like the statement: "it depends on what the meaning of "is" is."

"Using patented radio frequency technology - Finally Free kills your hair at the root - by sending a cool dry wave through the hair and destroying it's ability to regrow. This incredible system works on BOTH Stubborn individual hairs and WHOLE Sections of Unwanted hair."

This is what the website at the link above says verbatum. They ARE actually claiming to kill the root and destroy the hair's ability to regrow.

I would sure like to see the technical specifications for this unit. They do not even allow a download of an operating manual. What is certainly known however is that Hair is an insulator and radio waves like electricity travel along paths of least resistance. Now if somehow two electrodes were involved, something could function using a hair like a capacitor, but then you would have to have two electrodes with basically just a hair between them. That is certainly not what they are doing. Coming from an electronics background, I can not think of any possible way, this device could work as stated.

The "root" is the portion of the hair that is below the surface of the skin. It's not the follicle, it's not the papilla, it's not the bulge.

Again, plucking a hair with a pair of tweezers and tossing THAT hair into the garbage does permanently remove and permanently destroy the root of THAT particular hair. I promise you that THAT hair will never ever get out of the garbage, find it's former follicle and grow again.

It's very sly terminology. These companies pay lawyers big buck to cover their ASSets. They scrutinize EVERY word and doublespeak as often as possible.

....

still, i do not believe anyone is allowed to use the term "permanent hair removal" unless specifically granted by the FDA.

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/01/Nov01/110501/pdn0001.pdf

Do you know for a fact that the FDA hasn't given them that right?

The Finally Free (and many others) device was around when I was in electrolysis school in 1987, before GHR. For all I know, they were grandfathered in just like electrolysis.

Don't be fooled by FDA clearance or approval of anything. It means very little regarding efficacy.

You seem to think I'm on their side. FAR FROM IT. I'm just trying to explain how they can get away with their claims.

haha. I wasn't trying to argue. Sorry if it came out that way. I know all too well what FDA means. I did mean safety, not efficacy. But as far as I know, only electrolysis is granted the right to claim permanency without the word "reduction" following it.