Certain Rockville Pro Sound & Lighting Gear Advertised with False Power Ratings, Class Action Claims

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Rockville Pro Sound & Lighting’s K6 and K9 line of car audio and RVP and RVW models of professional audio equipment have roughly half the power capacity advertised by the company, a proposed class action alleges. 

According to the case, E-Distributors, Inc., which operates as Rockville Audio and Rockville Pro Sound & Lighting, has deceptively and falsely touted its car amplifiers, subwoofers and speakers, as well as a number of pro audio equipment models, as having higher root mean square (RMS) or “root sine wave” power ratings than they actually have, meaning the products cannot produce the continuous volume expected by buyers.

When a consumer attempts to use the defendants’ car and pro audio gear at their advertised RMS power capacities, the products can “fail or blow,” causing smoke, a stench and other damage, the 38-page suit alleges. 

In truth, the following products’ true RMS power ratings are “approximately half” of what Rockville has advertised, the plaintiff, an Indiana consumer, claims:

• K9 and K6 lines of car amplifiers, subwoofers and speakers; and
• RVP and RVW pro audio products, including, but not limited to, model numbers RVP15W8; RVP15W4; RVP18W8; RVP18W4; RVW1500P8; RVW1500P4; RVW1800P8; RVW1800P4. 

The power-handling capabilities of amplifiers, speakers and subwoofers are typically measured by an RMS rating, the measure of continuous power an amplifier can output or a speaker/subwoofer can handle, the suit relays. A product’s RMS wattage is derived from the root mean square, a statistical measurement of the magnitude of a varying quantity, and is applied to voltage or current, the lawsuit says.

A product with a higher RMS rating is capable of producing louder sounds continuously, and tends to be more expensive than one with a lower RMS rating, the case adds.

In addition to an RMS power rating, some of the defendant’s amps, speakers and subwoofers are advertised with a “peak power wattage” that usually indicates the maximum amount of power the product can handle without damage, according to the case. The suit relays, however, that “peak power” does not reflect a product’s continuing power-handling capability, and is often touted by manufacturers given most consumers are unaware that the term is used “to make a product seem more powerful than it actually is.”

The lawsuit says the defendant touts its products as offering the “best quality for your money,” and represents itself as “the culmination of years of development involving a team of dreamers, engineers, and designers” working on high-end audio equipment. Rockville’s own representations notwithstanding, the company has misled consumers with regard to how much power certain products are capable of handling—often with disastrous consequences, the lawsuit alleges: 

“Instead of truthfully marketing its Products with accurate RMS power ratings, which are the industry standard for determining the true power of a product, Rockville deceptively and falsely advertises its Products with vastly overstated and inflated RMS power ratings, often advertising the speakers as having an RMS rating of twice the true RMS rating of the Product (for example, advertising a speaker as having an RMS rating of 600W (wattage), when the true RMS rating is 300W).”

As an example, the case provides that while a 600W RMS speaker should be able to handle a continuous tone at that power level, the speakers sold by Rockville can only handle a song that may peak at 600W, the complaint says, noting the speakers’ inability to continuously handle 600W RMS power can cause them to blow. 

“One practical difference between a speaker with a 600W RMS power rating and a speaker that merely peaks at 600W is that the speaker that peaks at 600W is significantly less loud than the speaker with the 600W RMS power rating,” the suit explains. 

Despite possessing exclusive knowledge that its RMS ratings were false, and that consumers could not reasonably discover the products’ true power-handling capacities, Rockville has nonetheless deceived buyers into believing its products were capable of operating at power levels consistent with the advertised RMS power ratings, the lawsuit charges.

“Rockville is aware that the RMS ratings it advertises on its Products are false,” the case alleges. “Upon information and belief, the ‘RMS’ ratings Rockville advertises on its Products are not truly RMS ratings at all. The ‘RMS’ rating that Rockville displays on its products is not a measure of the level of constant power—which means that it is not actually an RMS rating, as ‘RMS rating’ is defined, calculated and understood.”

Moreover, in the event a product fails or blows, Rockville “refuses” to repair or replace the item under warranty, the suit says, alleging Rockville, in addition to blaming damage on “misuse,” has continued to conceal power-capacity information about its products “in order to sell even more falsely advertised and labeled Products and to wrongfully transfer costs of repair or replacement” to buyers. 

More from the case: 

“No reasonable consumer expects to purchase an amplifier, speaker, or subwoofer with an RMS rating that is actually half of the RMS rating that is advertised on the Product and with an RMS rating that actually represents the peak power of the Product instead of the continuous power capacity of the Product. The misrepresentation is material to Plaintiff and other purchasers because when they purchased the Products, they reasonably expected that they would be able to operate them with a continuous power level matching the advertised RMS power rating. Had Rockville disclosed the true RMS ratings of the Products, Plaintiff and other purchasers of the Products would not have purchased the Products or would have paid substantially less for them.”

Included in the lawsuit are a number of reviews posted online by customers who the case says were disappointed to find the RMS power ratings of their Rockville gear were substantially inflated, and that the products failed or blew as a result. 

The suit looks to represent anyone who bought any of the above-listed products in the 50 United States and the District of Columbia within the applicable limitations period through the present, proposing a separate subclass consisting of Indiana-only buyers.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s newsletter here.