Claimed False and Inaccurate Statements from Advanced LED

In February 2016 I received the following letter threatening legal action from Advanced LED over this website:

I have redacted email addresses, phone numbers and other potentially sensitive information.

My reply follows:


Re: False & inaccurate statements regarding Advanced LED Lights


Dear Ms. Laurent,

I strive to keep all information as accurate as possible on CompareLEDGrowLights.com, although with the sheer amount of information I am collecting and collating some mistakes are inevitable. I will address each of Advanced LED's claims of "false and misleading" statements on my website individually:

MODELS: DS100, DS200, DS300, DS400
Drummond & Associates / Advanced LED ClaimsCompare LED Grow Lights Claims
Compare LED Grow Lights StatementTypeAdvanced LED Lights ResponseTypeCompare LED Grow Lights Response
Less than 75% coverage than statedFALSEStated coverages are within 4" generally; Core Coverage and Total Coverage are 100% accurate. Straw ManThe actual statement I believe you are referring to on this page says "Less than 75% coverage of advertised footprint shape" and links to a full description, and only for the DS100 and DS400 models. My method for determining coverage of advertised footprint shape based on simple geometry is exhaustively described on my Footprint Shape page, and using this methodology, the DS100 and DS400 lights cover 67% of their advertised "Core Coverage" footprint shapes. Addressing the specific wording of your reply here, it is self-contradictory to state that a measurement is generally within 4 inches and also 100% accurate.
Deceptive Wattage StatementsFALSEWattage draw is 100% accurate. Straw ManThe actual statement on this page links to this description of what I consider to be a "deceptive wattage statement". I am not saying that Advanced LED is lying about their wattage draw, but by including a "w" after the model name on the Advanced LED product page in multiple places, such as the size drop-down selection list and the "Available Models" bullet point, consumers may believe that the DS300 (for example), which is listed in these places as "300w", actually pulls 300 watts. Only further down on the page is the actual wattage draw given as 260 watts for the DS300 – 13% less than the implied "300w". This practice is deceptive to prospective customers, which is why I call it out as such.
Inconsistent HID replacementsFALSEThousands of our customer reviews state otherwise. Our lights are tested and proven that they replace head to head. Straw ManThe actual statement I believe you are referring to on this page says "Inconsistent HID replacement claims" and links to the description of this statement on this page. I am not saying with this statement that Advanced LED lights do not replace the advertised HID light wattages, just that the comparisons Advanced LED makes with LED wattages replacing HID wattages are inconsistent.
Secondary Lenses BewareFALSESecondary lenses are industry standard, and allow for "Deeper Penetration" and "More Intensity," which leads to higher yield and better crops. Straw ManThe actual statement I believe you are referring to on this page says "Secondary lenses" and is located in the "Be Aware" column, and links to my discussion of secondary lenses which discusses the pros and cons of secondary lenses. Nowhere do I say "Secondary Lenses Beware". Furthermore, just because a practice is "industry standard" does not mean it is a good thing; for example, the industry standard material for vehicle brake pads was asbestos for many years.
HeatFALSEThere is little to no heat compared to an HPS/HID system. It is proven that LEDs run cooler and save on electricity. False / Straw ManI never state that LED grow lights do not run cooler than equivalent (growing-ability-wise) HID lights; in fact I explicitly state that "One of LED grow lights' many advantages is the reduction in heat compared to MH and HPS lights." The actual statement of a lie about heat on this page links to my heat discussion, which points out that my issue with Advanced LED is their statement on their website that "The lights are just warm to the touch, and they don't heat up the growing area at all, so no additional cooling is necessary." All electronic devices generate heat directly proportional to the amount of electricity they use, provided all of the output is contained within an area (as it is with LED grow lights)- ask any physics professor. The statement that Advanced LED lights "don't heat up the growing area at all, so no additional cooling is necessary" is absolutely false. No additional cooling may be required in smaller, single-light setups if the room itself is losing heat quickly enough, but every LED grow light heats up the growing area when it is on, including Advanced LEDs', and when scaled up to a higher-wattage light or multiple lights, additional cooling will be necessary unless the growing area is completely open to the outside. Your statement here that the lights create "little to no heat" is also incorrect; if the lights are on, it is physically impossible for them to create "no heat".
DS100 does not flowerFALSEThis light will sustain 1 large flowering or fruiting plant. Straw ManThe actual statement I believe you are referring to on this page says that the DS100's "Likelihood of Sufficient Power to Flower Cannabis Within all of Smallest Advertised Footprint" is "No", as discussed fully on my footprint watts page. I am certainly not saying that it will not flower 1 plant, if that plant is small enough and placed directly under the light. Your description of a "large" plant is highly subjective; a DS100 certainly would not provide sufficient light to satisfactorily flower a 4 foot by 4 foot wide plant, which I would consider "large".
DS200, DS300, and DS400 is "Highly Unlikely" to flowerFALSEEach light supports flowering plants. Straw ManAgain, the actual statements I believe you are referring to on this page say that these lights' "Likelihood of Sufficient Power to Flower Cannabis Within all of Smallest Advertised Footprint" is "Highly Unlikely", as discussed fully on my footprint watts page. I am certainly not saying that these lights will not sustain flowering or fruiting plants, just that they are highly unlikely to have enough power to flower Cannabis plants adequately everywhere within the advertised "Core Coverage" footprint.


MODEL: DS600
Drummond & Associates / Advanced LED ClaimsCompare LED Grow Lights Claims
Compare LED Grow Lights StatementTypeAdvanced LED Lights ResponseTypeCompare LED Grow Lights Response
Does not allow returnsFALSEOur return policy permits returns within 90 days, subject to a restocking fee. The restocking fee is waived if the light is returned for an upgrade within 90 days. Unclear on your websiteOn the Advanced LED website "Terms & Conditions" page at http://advancedledlights.com/terms-conditions/ it explicitly states under "Returns and Refunds" in the section "90 Day Risk Free Trial Policies" that "The following products are considered stock items: DS100, DS200, DS300, DS400, XML150, XML350, DS XTE 100, DS XTE 200, DS XTE 300, DS XTE 400. All other products sold at AdvancedLEDLights.com are considered non-stock items and are not offered as part of the 90 Day Risk Free Trial." As the DS600 is not listed among the stock items, it is by the policies stated on Advanced LED's own website "not offered as part of the 90 Day Risk Free Trial." What this means for the return policy on this light is incredibly unclear in your stated policies, as I will discuss below after addressing the individual claims. I have removed the "No returns allowed" statement from my website.
"Possible" flower powerMISLEADINGThis light will sustain 4 to 5 flowering or fruiting plants. Straw ManThe actual statement I believe you are referring to on this page says that the DS600's "Likelihood of Sufficient Power to Flower Cannabis Within all of Smallest Advertised Footprint" is "Possible", as discussed fully on my footprint watts page. I am certainly not saying that the DS600 will not sustain 4 to 5 flowering or fruiting plants; I am almost certain the light would work for 4 to 5 plants as long as they were small enough and placed directly under the light.
Less than 75% coverage than statedFALSEStated coverages are within 4" generally; Core Coverage and Total Coverage are 100% accurate. Straw ManThe actual statement I believe you are referring to on this page says "Less than 75% coverage of advertised footprint shape" and links to a full description of my method for determining coverage of advertised footprint shape based on simple geometry on my Footprint Shape page. Using this methodology, the DS600 light covers 67% of the advertised "Core Coverage" footprint shape for this light. Addressing the specific wording of your reply here, it is self-contradictory to state that a measurement is generally within 4 inches and also 100% accurate.
Deceptive Wattage StatementsFALSEWattage draw is 100% accurate. Straw ManThe actual statement on this page links to this description of what I consider to be a "deceptive wattage statement". I am not saying that Advanced LED is lying about their wattage draw, but by including a "w" after the model name on the Advanced LED product page in multiple places, such as the size drop-down selection list and the "Available Models" bullet point, consumers may believe that the DS600, which is listed in these places as "600w", actually pulls 600 watts. Only further down on the page is the actual wattage draw given as 535 watts – 11% less than the implied "600w". This practice is deceptive to prospective customers, which is why I call it out as such.
Inconsistent HID replacementsFALSEThousands of our customer reviews state otherwise. Our lights are tested and proven that they replace head to head. Straw ManThe actual statement I believe you are referring to on this page says "Inconsistent HID replacement claims" and links to the description of this statement on this page. I am not saying with this statement that Advanced LED lights do not replace the advertised HID light wattages, just that the comparisons Advanced LED makes with LED wattages replacing HID wattages are inconsistent.
Secondary Lenses BewareFALSESecondary lenses are industry standard, and allow for "Deeper Penetration" and "More Intensity," which leads to higher yield and better crops. Straw ManThe actual statement I believe you are referring to on this page says "Secondary lenses" and is located in the "Be Aware" column, and links to my discussion of secondary lenses which discusses the pros and cons of secondary lenses. Nowhere do I say "Secondary Lenses Beware". Furthermore, just because a practice is "industry standard" does not mean it is a good thing; for example, the industry standard material for vehicle brake pads was asbestos for many years.
HeatFALSEThere is little to no heat compared to an HPS/HID system. It is proven that LEDs run cooler and save on electricity. False / Straw ManI never state that LED grow lights do not run cooler than equivalent (growing-ability-wise) HID lights; in fact I explicitly state that "One of LED grow lights' many advantages is the reduction in heat compared to MH and HPS lights." The actual statement of a lie about heat on this page links to my heat discussion, which points out that my issue with Advanced LED is their statement on their website that "The lights are just warm to the touch, and they don't heat up the growing area at all, so no additional cooling is necessary." All electronic devices generate heat directly proportional to the amount of electricity they use, provided all of the output is contained within an area (as it is with LED grow lights)- ask any physics professor. The statement that Advanced LED lights "don't heat up the growing area at all, so no additional cooling is necessary" is absolutely false. No additional cooling may be required in smaller, single-light setups if the room itself is losing heat quickly enough, but every LED grow light heats up the growing area when it is on, including Advanced LEDs', and when scaled up to a higher-wattage light or multiple lights, additional cooling will be necessary unless the growing area is completely open to the outside. Your statement here that the lights create "little to no heat" is also incorrect; if the lights are on, it is physically impossible for them to create "no heat".


MODEL: DS800
Drummond & Associates / Advanced LED ClaimsCompare LED Grow Lights Claims
Compare LED Grow Lights StatementTypeAdvanced LED Lights ResponseTypeCompare LED Grow Lights Response
Does not allow returnsFALSEOur return policy permits returns within 90 days, subject to a restocking fee. The restocking fee is waived if the light is returned for an upgrade within 90 days. Unclear on your websiteOn the Advanced LED website "Terms & Conditions" page at http://advancedledlights.com/terms-conditions/ it explicitly states under "Returns and Refunds" in the section "90 Day Risk Free Trial Policies" that "The following products are considered stock items: DS100, DS200, DS300, DS400, XML150, XML350, DS XTE 100, DS XTE 200, DS XTE 300, DS XTE 400. All other products sold at AdvancedLEDLights.com are considered non-stock items and are not offered as part of the 90 Day Risk Free Trial." As the DS800 is not listed among the stock items, it is by the policies stated on Advanced LED's own website "not offered as part of the 90 Day Risk Free Trial." What this means for the return policy on this light is incredibly unclear in your stated policies, as I will discuss below after addressing the individual claims. I have removed the "No returns allowed" statement from my website.
"Very likely" flower powerMISLEADINGThis light will sustain 6 to 8 flowering or fruiting plants. ?"Very likely" is my highest ranking for lights in the "Likelihood of Sufficient Power to Flower Cannabis Within all of Smallest Advertised Footprint" comparison category. I am directly saying that the DS800 is very likely to have sufficient power to flower Cannabis plants within all of the smallest advertised "Core Coverage" footprint, as discussed fully on my footprint watts page. This should be considered a compliment or endorsement for the DS800 in this comparison category- I don't give any higher praise to any lights in this aspect of my comparison, and I do not understand why Advanced LED finds this "misleading".
Deceptive Wattage StatementsFALSEWattage draw is 100% accurate. Straw ManThe actual statement on this page links to this description of what I consider to be a "deceptive wattage statement". I am not saying that Advanced LED is lying about their wattage draw, but by including a "w" after the model name on the Advanced LED product page in multiple places, such as the size drop-down selection list and the "Available Models" bullet point, consumers may believe that the DS800, which is listed in these places as "800w", actually pulls 800 watts. Only further down on the page is the actual wattage draw given as 730 watts – 9% less than the implied "800w". This practice is deceptive to prospective customers, which is why I call it out as such.
Inconsistent HID replacementsFALSEThousands of our customer reviews state otherwise. Our lights are tested and proven that they replace head to head. Straw ManThe actual statement I believe you are referring to on this page says "Inconsistent HID replacement claims" and links to the description of this statement on this page. I am not saying with this statement that Advanced LED lights do not replace the advertised HID light wattages, just that the comparisons Advanced LED makes with LED wattages replacing HID wattages are inconsistent.
Secondary Lenses BewareFALSESecondary lenses are industry standard, and allow for "Deeper Penetration" and "More Intensity," which leads to higher yield and better crops. Straw ManThe actual statement I believe you are referring to on this page says "Secondary lenses" and is located in the "Be Aware" column, and links to my discussion of secondary lenses which discusses the pros and cons of secondary lenses. Nowhere do I say "Secondary Lenses Beware". Furthermore, just because a practice is "industry standard" does not mean it is a good thing; for example, the industry standard material for vehicle brake pads was asbestos for many years.
Footprint coverage is falseFALSEStated coverages are within 4" generally; Core Coverage and Total Coverage are 100% accurate. Straw ManI'm guessing the actual statement you are referring to on this page is the one saying "Poor coverage of advertised footprint shape", which links to a full description of my method for determining coverage of advertised footprint shape based on simple geometry on my Footprint Shape page. Using this methodology, the DS800 light covers 88% of the advertised "Core Coverage" footprint shape for this light. Addressing the specific wording of your reply here, it is self-contradictory to state that a measurement is generally within 4 inches and also 100% accurate.


MODELS: DS XTE 100, DS XTE 200, DS XTE 300, and DS XTE 400
Drummond & Associates / Advanced LED ClaimsCompare LED Grow Lights Claims
Compare LED Grow Lights StatementTypeAdvanced LED Lights ResponseTypeCompare LED Grow Lights Response
Only has 2 wavelengthsFALSEWe have 11 wavelengths. Not claimed on your websiteI'm guessing the actual statement you are referring to on this page is in the column "# of Different LED Colors", which is referring to the number of different LED colors in each LED grow light. Nowhere on the Advanced LED page for the XTE series lights is any mention made of these lights having 11 different colors; the only mention of what colors are included is the statement "the XTE series comes with high-output 5w CREE XT-E LED running at 3.9 watts each (2x higher than other 5w LEDs) and the OSRAM 660nm" and the statement in the "LED Specs" column of the model comparison table saying "5w CREE XT-E, 3w OSRAM SSL". Since the Cree XT-E series LEDs come in only 2 colors (royal blue and phosphor-coated white) and only the 660nm OSRAM was mentioned in the product description, I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that only 2 different colors of LEDs were used: the white variant of the Cree XT-E as pictured on the page, and the 660nm OSRAM. If 11 different colors of LEDs are being used in the Advanced DS XTE series, I suggest you state so on the product page; almost all of my information on compareledgrowlights.com comes from what the light companies are saying about their own products. I have fixed this statement on my website based on what you are claiming here.
Do not have UV/InfraredFALSEThese lights include UV/Infrared. False for UV, Straw Man for InfraredNowhere on my site do I say that the DS XTE lights do not have infrared. I get my information from what the light companies themselves say about their own products, and nowhere on the Advanced LED page for the XTE series lights is any mention made of these lights having UV, and the only indication that they have infrared is in the spectrum graph titled "Spectrograph Reading of the XTE Series". This same spectrum graph shows no UV light in the spectrum of the XTE Series lights. The statement in the "LED Specs" column of the model comparison table saying "5w CREE XT-E, 3w OSRAM SSL" implies that only Cree XT-E and OSRAM SSL LEDs are used– neither Cree XT-E nor OSRAM OSLON SSL LEDs offer UV wavelengths at this time, so either the claim that the lights have UV is false, or the claims of the LEDs used is false. Your own spectrum graph combined with the statements of which LEDs are being used indicate that there is no appreciable UV light in the spectrum of XTE series lights, directly contradicting your statement here.
These lights are "White Dominant"FALSEThey are red dominant. My MistakeI am not certain how this mistake was made, but thank you for pointing it out. I strive to have the most accurate information possible, but considering the sheer volume of data I am collecting, some mistakes are bound to slip through. I have fixed this statement on my website.
DS XTE 100 does not flowerFALSEThis light will sustain 1 large flowering or fruiting plant. Straw ManThe actual statement I believe you are referring to on this page says that the DS XTE 100's "Likelihood of Sufficient Power to Flower Cannabis Within all of Smallest Advertised Footprint" is negligable, as discussed fully on my footprint watts page. I am certainly not saying that it will not flower 1 plant, if that plant is small enough and placed directly under the light. Your description of a "large" plant is highly subjective; a DS XTE 100 certainly would not provide sufficient light to satisfactorily flower a 4 foot by 4 foot wide plant, which I would consider "large".
DS XTE 200 and DS XTE 300 are "Highly Unlikely" to flowerFALSEThese lights will sustain flowering or fruiting plants. Straw ManAgain, the actual statements I believe you are referring to on this page say that these lights' "Likelihood of Sufficient Power to Flower Cannabis Within all of Smallest Advertised Footprint" is "Highly Unlikely", as discussed fully on my footprint watts page. I am certainly not saying that these lights will not flower plants or sustain fruiting plants, just that they are highly unlikely to have enough power to flower Cannabis plants adequately everywhere within the advertised "Core Coverage" footprint.
Inconsistent HID replacementsFALSEThousands of our customer reviews state otherwise. Our lights are tested and proven that they replace head to head. Straw ManThe actual statement I believe you are referring to on this page says "Inconsistent HID replacement claims" and links to the description of this statement on this page. I am not saying with this statement that Advanced LED lights do not replace the advertised HID light wattages, just that the comparisons Advanced LED makes with LED wattages replacing HID wattages are inconsistent.
Secondary Lenses BewareFALSESecondary lenses are industry standard, and allow for "Deeper Penetration" and "More Intensity," which leads to higher yield and better crops. Straw ManThe actual statement I believe you are referring to on this page says "Secondary lenses" and is located in the "Be Aware" column, and links to my discussion of secondary lenses which discusses the pros and cons of secondary lenses. Nowhere do I say "Secondary Lenses Beware". Furthermore, just because a practice is "industry standard" does not mean it is a good thing; for example, the industry standard material for vehicle brake pads was asbestos for many years.
HeatFALSEThere is little to no heat compared to an HPS/HID system. It is proven that LEDs run cooler and save on electricity. False / Straw ManI never state that LED grow lights do not run cooler than equivalent (growing-ability-wise) HID lights; in fact I explicitly state that "One of LED grow lights' many advantages is the reduction in heat compared to MH and HPS lights." The actual statement of a lie about heat on this page links to my heat discussion, which points out that my issue with Advanced LED is their statement on their website that "The lights are just warm to the touch, and they don't heat up the growing area at all, so no additional cooling is necessary." All electronic devices generate heat directly proportional to the amount of electricity they use, provided all of the output is contained within an area (as it is with LED grow lights)- ask any physics professor. The statement that Advanced LED lights "don't heat up the growing area at all, so no additional cooling is necessary" is absolutely false. No additional cooling may be required in smaller, single-light setups if the room itself is losing heat quickly enough, but every LED grow light heats up the growing area when it is on, including Advanced LEDs', and when scaled up to a higher-wattage light or multiple lights, additional cooling will be necessary unless the growing area is completely open to the outside. Your statement here that the lights create "little to no heat" is also incorrect; if the lights are on, it is physically impossible for them to create "no heat".
Footprint coverage is falseFALSEStated coverages are within 4" generally; Core Coverage and Total Coverage are 100% accurate. Straw ManI'm guessing the actual statements you are referring to on this page are the ones saying "Poor coverage of advertised footprint shape" for the DS XTE 200 and DS XTE 300, and the statement "Less than 75% coverage of advertised footprint shape" for the DS XTE 100 and DS XTE 400. Each of those statements links to a full description of my method for determining coverage of advertised footprint shape based on simple geometry on my Footprint Shape page. Using this methodology, the DS XTE 100 covers 69%, the DS XTE 200 covers 83%, the DS XTE 300 covers 79%, and the DS XTE 400 light covers 70% of the advertised "Core Coverage" footprint shape for each light. Addressing the specific wording of your reply here, it is self-contradictory to state that a measurement is generally within 4 inches and also 100% accurate.


MODELS: DS200 EX-VEG, DS300 EX-VEG
Drummond & Associates / Advanced LED ClaimsCompare LED Grow Lights Claims
Compare LED Grow Lights StatementTypeAdvanced LED Lights ResponseTypeCompare LED Grow Lights Response
Only has 1 wavelengthFALSEThe EX-VEG series covers 50+ wavelengths of blue. Straw ManI'm guessing the actual statement you are referring to on this page is in the column "# of Different LED Colors", which is referring to the number of different LED colors in each LED grow light, not the number of wavelengths. On the Advanced LED page for the EX-VEG lights it is stated that these lights contain "100% 5w Royal Blue XT-E LEDs"; this means there is only 1 color of LEDs included- royal blue. Your choice of using the word "wavelengths" to mean "nanometers of spectrum coverage" here and for the EX-VEG lights is inconsistent with your use of the word "wavelength" to mean "number of different colors of LEDs" for other lights, such as the Diamond Series page which states "11+ Wavelengths of Color Output: 760nm, 740nm, 720nm, 660nm, 630nm, 615nm-480nm, 460nm, 440nm, 415nm, 380nm"- even though more nanometers of the spectrum are covered by those LED colors than the EX-VEG lights, you're claiming only "11+ Wavelengths". This is why in my comparison I include both the "Claimed Wavelengths" and "# of Different LED Colors" to differentiate between the two meanings. I would like to point out that for the DS EX-VEG lights I say the "Claimed Wavelengths" are from 410-510nm, based on your spectrum graph — I am being more generous in my comparison with the nanometer range of spectrum coverage for these lights than Advanced LED's own claims.
Does not allow returnsFALSEOur return policy permits returns within 90 days, subject to a restocking fee. The restocking fee is waived if the light is returned for an upgrade within 90 days. Unclear on your websiteOn the Advanced LED website "Terms & Conditions" page at http://advancedledlights.com/terms-conditions/ it explicitly states under "Returns and Refunds" in the section "90 Day Risk Free Trial Policies" that "The following products are considered stock items: DS100, DS200, DS300, DS400, XML150, XML350, DS XTE 100, DS XTE 200, DS XTE 300, DS XTE 400. All other products sold at AdvancedLEDLights.com are considered non-stock items and are not offered as part of the 90 Day Risk Free Trial." As the DS EX-VEG lights are not listed among the stock items, they are by the policies stated on Advanced LED's own website "not offered as part of the 90 Day Risk Free Trial." What this means for the return policy on these lights is incredibly unclear in your stated policies, as I will discuss below after addressing the individual claims. I have removed the "No returns allowed" statement from my website.
"BEWARE" there is no UV/InfraredMISLEADINGBlue spectrum light cannot possibly include UV/Infrared. We have never suggested that it does. Straw ManThe actual statement I believe you are referring to on this page says "No UV, No IR" and is located in the "Be Aware" column. Nowhere do I say "Beware there is no UV/Infrared". I am simply pointing out that the light does not have UV or Infrared, as I do with all of the lights in my comparison if they do not have these wavelengths.
Inconsistent HID replacementsFALSEThousands of our customer reviews state otherwise. Our lights are tested and proven that they replace head to head. Straw ManThe actual statement I believe you are referring to on this page says "Inconsistent HID replacement claims" and links to the description of this statement on this page. I am not saying with this statement that Advanced LED lights do not replace the advertised HID light wattages, just that the comparisons Advanced LED makes with LED wattages replacing HID wattages are inconsistent.
HeatFALSEThere is little to no heat compared to an HPS/HID system. It is proven that LEDs run cooler and save on electricity. False / Straw ManI never state that LED grow lights do not run cooler than equivalent (growing-ability-wise) HID lights; in fact I explicitly state that "One of LED grow lights' many advantages is the reduction in heat compared to MH and HPS lights." The actual statement of a lie about heat on this page links to my heat discussion, which points out that my issue with Advanced LED is their statement on their website that "The lights are just warm to the touch, and they don't heat up the growing area at all, so no additional cooling is necessary." All electronic devices generate heat directly proportional to the amount of electricity they use, provided all of the output is contained within an area (as it is with LED grow lights)- ask any physics professor. The statement that Advanced LED lights "don't heat up the growing area at all, so no additional cooling is necessary" is absolutely false. No additional cooling may be required in smaller, single-light setups if the room itself is losing heat quickly enough, but every LED grow light heats up the growing area when it is on, including Advanced LEDs', and when scaled up to a higher-wattage light or multiple lights, additional cooling will be necessary unless the growing area is completely open to the outside. Your statement here that the lights create "little to no heat" is also incorrect; if the lights are on, it is physically impossible for them to create "no heat".
Footprint coverage is falseFALSEStated coverages are within 4" generally; Core Coverage and Total Coverage are 100% accurate. Straw ManI'm guessing the actual statements you are referring to on this page are the ones saying "Poor coverage of advertised footprint shape" for the DS300 EX-VEG and the statement "Less than 75% coverage of advertised footprint shape" for the DS200 EX-VEG. Each of those statements links to a full description of my method for determining coverage of advertised footprint shape based on simple geometry on my Footprint Shape page. Using this methodology, the DS200 EX-VEG covers 69%, and the DS300 EX-VEG covers 84% of the advertised "Core Coverage" footprint shape for each light. Addressing the specific wording of your reply here, it is self-contradictory to state that a measurement is generally within 4 inches and also 100% accurate.
Lists DS200 EX-VEG at $2.70FALSE$2.45 My data was correct at time of publicationI'm guessing the actual statement you are referring to on my conclusions page is in the "Cost Per Watt" column. As I state on that page, "All of the information I used in the comparison categories was current as of November 2015"; in November 2015 the EX-VEG page on Advanced LED's website listed the DS200 EX-VEG with an MSRP of $499 and as pulling 185 watts (this is specified under the "Gross Weight" bullet for some reason). $499 / 185 watts = $2.70 per watt, so this number was correct at the time I posted the data. As Advanced LED's claimed wattage pull for the DS200 EX-VEG has since been changed to 191 watts, I have updated the given cost per watt to $2.61 (the MSRP is still $499, and $499 / 191 watts = $2.61 per watt). All of my cost and cost-per-watt numbers are based on MSRP for all lights I compare, as sale prices change and can vary by reseller.
Lists DS300 EX-VEG at $2.65FALSE$2.80 My data was correct at time of publicationI'm guessing the actual statement you are referring to on my conclusions page is in the "Cost Per Watt" column. As I state on that page, "All of the information I used in the comparison categories was current as of November 2015"; in November 2015 the EX-VEG page on Advanced LED's website listed the DS300 EX-VEG with an MSRP of $795 and as pulling 300 watts. $795 / 300 watts = $2.65 per watt, so this number was correct at the time I posted the data. As Advanced LED's claimed wattage pull for the DS300 EX-VEG has now been decreased to 283 watts, I have updated the given cost per watt to $2.81 ($795 / 283 watts = $2.8091 per watt, which rounds to $2.81).


MODELS: DS XML 150 and DS XML 350
Drummond & Associates / Advanced LED ClaimsCompare LED Grow Lights Claims
Compare LED Grow Lights StatementTypeAdvanced LED Lights ResponseTypeCompare LED Grow Lights Response
The 10w Chip is a gimmickFALSEThe 10w CREE XML-2 White Chip allows for more yield and more intensity in the white spectrum. My OpinionThe actual statement you are referring to on my conclusions page links to my full discussion of this statement where I point out that this is my opinion; I will let you read it there rather than duplicating it here.
Inconsistent HID replacementsFALSEThousands of our customer reviews state otherwise. Our lights are tested and proven that they replace head to head. Straw ManThe actual statement I believe you are referring to on this page says "Inconsistent HID replacement claims" and links to the description of this statement on this page. I am not saying with this statement that Advanced LED lights do not replace the advertised HID light wattages, just that the comparisons Advanced LED makes with LED wattages replacing HID wattages are inconsistent.
HeatFALSEThere is little to no heat compared to an HPS/HID system. It is proven that LEDs run cooler and save on electricity. False / Straw ManI never state that LED grow lights do not run cooler than equivalent (growing-ability-wise) HID lights; in fact I explicitly state that "One of LED grow lights' many advantages is the reduction in heat compared to MH and HPS lights." The actual statement of a lie about heat on this page links to my heat discussion, which points out that my issue with Advanced LED is their statement on their website that "The lights are just warm to the touch, and they don't heat up the growing area at all, so no additional cooling is necessary." All electronic devices generate heat directly proportional to the amount of electricity they use, provided all of the output is contained within an area (as it is with LED grow lights)- ask any physics professor. The statement that Advanced LED lights "don't heat up the growing area at all, so no additional cooling is necessary" is absolutely false. No additional cooling may be required in smaller, single-light setups if the room itself is losing heat quickly enough, but every LED grow light heats up the growing area when it is on, including Advanced LEDs', and when scaled up to a higher-wattage light or multiple lights, additional cooling will be necessary unless the growing area is completely open to the outside. Your statement here that the lights create "little to no heat" is also incorrect; if the lights are on, it is physically impossible for them to create "no heat".
Footprint coverage is falseFALSEStated coverages are within 4" generally; Core Coverage and Total Coverage are 100% accurate. Straw ManNowhere on my website do I say that the DS XML 150 or DS XML 350 do not cover their advertised footprint shape; in fact on my footprint shape page both lights are ranked as covering 100% of their advertised "Total Coverage" and "Core Coverage" footprints.
DS XML listed at $4.58FALSE$4.19 My data is correctI'm guessing the actual statement you are referring to on my conclusions page is in the "Cost Per Watt" column for the DS XML 150, since you do not specify the light here. As Advanced LED's own page for the DS XML series says, the MSRP for this light is $595 and the light pulls 130 watts. $595 / 130 watts = $4.5769 per watt, which rounds to $4.58. All of my cost and cost-per-watt numbers are based on MSRP for all lights I compare, as sale prices change and can vary by reseller.


MODEL: DS XML 650
Drummond & Associates / Advanced LED ClaimsCompare LED Grow Lights Claims
Compare LED Grow Lights StatementTypeAdvanced LED Lights ResponseTypeCompare LED Grow Lights Response
Does not allow returnsFALSEOur return policy permits returns within 90 days, subject to a restocking fee. The restocking fee is waived if the light is returned for an upgrade within 90 days. Unclear on your websiteOn the Advanced LED website "Terms & Conditions" page at http://advancedledlights.com/terms-conditions/ it explicitly states under "Returns and Refunds" in the section "90 Day Risk Free Trial Policies" that "The following products are considered stock items: DS100, DS200, DS300, DS400, XML150, XML350, DS XTE 100, DS XTE 200, DS XTE 300, DS XTE 400. All other products sold at AdvancedLEDLights.com are considered non-stock items and are not offered as part of the 90 Day Risk Free Trial." As the DS XML 650 is not listed among the stock items, it is by the policies stated on Advanced LED's own website "not offered as part of the 90 Day Risk Free Trial." What this means for the return policy on this light is incredibly unclear in your stated policies, as I will discuss below after addressing the individual claims. I have removed the "No returns allowed" statement from my website.
The 10w Chip is a gimmickFALSEThe 10w CREE XML-2 White Chip allows for more yield and more intensity in the white spectrum. My OpinionThe actual statement you are referring to on my conclusions page links to my full discussion of this statement where I point out that this is my opinion; I will let you read it there rather than duplicating it here.
Inconsistent HID replacementsFALSEThousands of our customer reviews state otherwise. Our lights are tested and proven that they replace head to head. Straw ManThe actual statement I believe you are referring to on this page says "Inconsistent HID replacement claims" and links to the description of this statement on this page. I am not saying with this statement that Advanced LED lights do not replace the advertised HID light wattages, just that the comparisons Advanced LED makes with LED wattages replacing HID wattages are inconsistent.
HeatFALSEThere is little to no heat compared to an HPS/HID system. It is proven that LEDs run cooler and save on electricity. False / Straw ManI never state that LED grow lights do not run cooler than equivalent (growing-ability-wise) HID lights; in fact I explicitly state that "One of LED grow lights' many advantages is the reduction in heat compared to MH and HPS lights." The actual statement of a lie about heat on this page links to my heat discussion, which points out that my issue with Advanced LED is their statement on their website that "The lights are just warm to the touch, and they don't heat up the growing area at all, so no additional cooling is necessary." All electronic devices generate heat directly proportional to the amount of electricity they use, provided all of the output is contained within an area (as it is with LED grow lights)- ask any physics professor. The statement that Advanced LED lights "don't heat up the growing area at all, so no additional cooling is necessary" is absolutely false. No additional cooling may be required in smaller, single-light setups if the room itself is losing heat quickly enough, but every LED grow light heats up the growing area when it is on, including Advanced LEDs', and when scaled up to a higher-wattage light or multiple lights, additional cooling will be necessary unless the growing area is completely open to the outside. Your statement here that the lights create "little to no heat" is also incorrect; if the lights are on, it is physically impossible for them to create "no heat".
Footprint coverage is falseFALSEStated coverages are within 4" generally; Core Coverage and Total Coverage are 100% accurate. Straw ManNowhere on my website do I say that the DS XML 650 does not cover its advertised footprint shape; in fact on my footprint shape page the DS XML 650 is ranked as covering 100% of its advertised "Total Coverage" and "Core Coverage" footprints.

I apologize for the incorrect information about the DS XTE lights being "White dominant"; as I said earlier I strive to have the most accurate information possible, but mistakes can happen, especially with the huge volume of data I am collecting. I have removed these erroneous statements from my website. The other 3 statements for which Advanced LED has provided new information about the number of LED colors in the DS XTE lights in your letter, or changed the claimed wattage pull for the DS EX-VEG lights on their website since the November 2015 publication date of the statements you are referring to with your letter have also been fixed on my website, as noted above.

The majority of Advanced LED's claimed "false and misleading statements" addressed above are actually distorted, misrepresented or entirely fabricated "straw man" fallacies. It is surprising to me that legal counsel did not verify these claimed "false and misleading statements" from Advanced LED before threatening me with legal action over them.

For the claimed "false and misleading statements" that I have marked above as "False", I have provided proof that my statements are not false or misleading. I respectfully decline to change these truthful statements on my website.

For the claimed false statements about returns that I have marked above as "Unclear", I believe my original interpretation of your stated terms and conditions as not allowing returns on these lights is understandable, although the terms could be interpreted differently, as you are apparently choosing to do here.

On your "Terms & Conditions" page, the 90-day risk free trial is described in two places. At the top of the page:

90 DAY RISK FREE TRIAL

Try our exclusive LED grow lights for 12 weeks and if you are unhappy for any reason, just send it back for a 100% refund of your purchase price. No questions asked. No restocking fees no surprise shipping charges or any other hidden fees!


Further down on the page:

90 Day Risk Free Trial Policies

Damaged, broken or altered lights will void this offer and not be accepted. Only "as new" products with all accessories and in original packaging will be accepted for a full refund. Large orders exceeding $1,500.00 or combinations of orders exceeding $1,500.00 in aggregate or any non-stock products will be charged a twenty percent restocking fee.

The following products are considered stock items: DS100, DS200, DS300, DS400, XML150, XML350, DS XTE 100, DS XTE 200, DS XTE 300, DS XTE 400.

All other products sold at AdvancedLEDLights.com are considered non-stock items and are not offered as part of the 90 Day Risk Free Trial. Large orders exceeding $5,000.00 or combinations of orders exceeding $5,000.00 in aggregate does not fall under our 90 Day Risk Free Trial.


The DS600, DS800, DS EX-VEG 200, DS EX-VEG300 and XML650 are not listed among the stock items, so by this policy, these lights "are not offered as part of the 90 Day Risk Free Trial", under which all of the terms for returns are listed. This would imply that the 20% restocking fee given under the "90 Day Risk Free Trial Policies" does not apply to these lights, and leaves it entirely unclear whether these lights can be returned at all. Perhaps you meant to have the statements about 20% restocking fees apply to the lights excluded from the stock items, but it is not clearly worded this way. If it is interpreted in such a way that things excluded from the 90 Day Risk Free Trial can be returned with a 20% restocking fee, then the last statement that "Large orders exceeding $5,000.00 or combinations of orders exceeding $5,000.00 in aggregate does not fall under our 90 Day Risk Free Trial" would also mean that orders over $5,000, since they are not part of the "90 Day Risk Free Trial" just as the "non-stock items", would be returnable with a 20% restocking fee.

Your terms and conditions in the 90 Day Risk Free Trial Policies are self-inconsistent, and either way they are interpreted, they contradict the statement higher up on the page that no restocking fees or any other hidden fees are charged. Similarly, on the main products page, you assure customers "Remember we offer a 90 Day No Risk Trial on all our Diamond Series LEDs. If you are not 100% satisfied with your purchase, simply send it back and we will provide you with a full refund, no questions asked." This is a deceptive, false statement if some of your light models have a 20% restocking fee.

So, depending on how your terms and conditions are interpreted, I may have been incorrect in saying that no returns are allowed on the lights excluded from the policy as "non-stock items". However, no matter how your terms and conditions are interpreted, you have deceptive, false statements about "Try our exclusive LED grow lights for 12 weeks and if you are unhappy for any reason, just send it back for a 100% refund of your purchase price. No questions asked. No restocking fees." and "we offer a 90 Day No Risk Trial on all our Diamond Series LEDs. … we will provide you with a full refund". I have changed the statement on my website to better indicate this.

I have no motivation to disparage your client's products in particular; I am simply collecting and collating data from many different vendors' websites to provide the best comparison I can. I do point out deceptive and false advertising I find for all companies; as I point out on the bottom of my homepage, I encourage everyone including yourselves to point out any deceptive or false statements any of the vendors make that I have missed. Some LED grow light vendors have chosen to remove confusing, deceptive or false statements from their website after I have pointed them out, and they have consequently increased in my ranking; I invite you to do the same.

Regards,
   Compare LED Grow Lights


Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *