The anti-radiation phone case market is filled with bold promises—especially percentage claims like “up to 99% blocking.” But when you look closely at how those numbers are often produced and how phones behave in real-world conditions, it becomes clear why many people (including RF Safe) argue that the most heavily marketed claims can be the most misleading.

RF Safe’s TruthCase™ (also known as QuantaCase®) stands out because it deliberately does not make specific percentage claims about how much RF radiation or EMF it blocks. This is not an omission—it’s a core part of their philosophy, engineering approach, and marketing.

At the same time, it’s important to acknowledge the larger context: the entire “anti-radiation case” category faces skepticism. Some experts view the space as ineffective or even counterproductive, arguing that non-ionizing RF radiation from phones lacks proven harm at typical levels, and that poorly designed cases can amplify exposure by forcing phones to boost power.

So how do you reconcile all of this?

If you’re approaching this from a precautionary mindset—especially if you’ve seen discussions referencing studies like NTP or Ramazzini suggesting potential risks at higher exposures—then transparency and real-world effectiveness matter. And that’s exactly where the conversation shifts from marketing to physics.

This article breaks down what “blocking” claims typically mean, why some case designs can backfire, what a well-designed shielding case is actually doing (and not doing), what the KPIX 5 investigation revealed, and why RF Safe is often cited as an outlier for integrity in a market crowded with hype.

The Core Issue: Percentage Claims Often Don’t Reflect Real-World Use

RF Safe strongly criticizes competitors (like SafeSleeve and DefenderShield) for advertising high percentages such as “up to 99% blocking”—arguing that these figures are often based on lab tests of the shielding material alone (e.g., a fabric swatch) and do not reflect real-world use.

The distinction matters:

• Testing a piece of shielding fabric is not the same as testing a phone operating inside a full case.

• Many percentage claims are based on isolated material testing rather than real-world performance with a phone in the case.

• Consumers often interpret “99% blocking” as full-product protection, when the number may only describe a raw material in an artificial setup.

RF Safe’s warning is blunt: percentage-based marketing can create false security, especially if the case design introduces a more serious problem—interference with the phone’s antenna.

The Backfire Effect: How a “Shielding” Case Can Increase Exposure

Here’s the part most marketing doesn’t emphasize:

In practice, poorly designed cases can interfere with the phone’s antenna, causing it to automatically increase transmit power to maintain signal strength. That can actually raise your overall exposure despite the “blocking” material.

Why?

Phones are engineered to maintain connection quality. If something weakens the signal path (like a case design that disrupts antenna performance), the phone compensates by increasing transmit power. That means:

• A case can “block” in one direction

• While simultaneously causing the phone to work harder overall

• Which can defeat the purpose of “radiation reduction” entirely

This is one reason RF Safe places so much emphasis on avoiding design elements they consider “red flags,” including:

• Metal plates

• Magnets

• Metal loops

• Bulky structures near antenna zones

In their view, those features can disrupt antennas and trigger power boosts.

Why RF Safe Avoids Percentage Claims

RF Safe’s TruthCase™ (also known as QuantaCase®) deliberately does not make any specific percentage claims about how much RF radiation or EMF it blocks. Again, this is a core part of their philosophy and marketing.

They frame their position around how RF behaves in real use.

1) Shielding Doesn’t Create a “Void”

Shielding creates a “shadow” or deflection of radiation away from your body (when the flap is positioned correctly between the phone and you), but RF signals are omnidirectional and surround the device—there’s no complete “void.”

That’s why RF Safe argues that a universal percentage is inherently misleading: RF is not behaving like a single directional beam, and a phone is not a static transmitter in a sealed box.

2) Real Protection Depends on Usage and Design

RF Safe’s view is that meaningful reduction depends on multiple factors working together:

• Proper usage (e.g., flipping the shielded flap toward your body/head during calls, using the kickstand for distance, etc.)

• Avoiding antenna interference to prevent power boosts

• Broader habits like turning off unnecessary transmitters (Wi‑Fi/Bluetooth), which RF Safe notes can reduce head exposure by 20–30% depending on the phone model (based on FCC SAR data comparisons, not the case itself)

In short, RF Safe emphasizes the idea that the “best percentage” reduction comes from correct use + smart habits, not just the shield.

3) Physics-Based Design Over Hype

They emphasize physics-based design over hype: ultra-thin, no metal loops/magnets/plates, shielded speaker hole, and user-verifiable conductivity (testable with an ohmmeter).

That last point—user-verifiable conductivity—is a big part of the transparency argument: it’s not just “trust our claim,” but “verify a key property yourself.”

Evidence and Messaging: What RF Safe Does (and Doesn’t) Claim

RF Safe’s messaging is consistent:

• No product pages, FAQs, or articles list a blocking percentage (e.g., 90%, 99%) for the case.

• They explicitly state they “avoid making percentage claims” because such numbers can mislead and create false security.

• One older reference mentions a news test (KPIX 5) showing their case reduced exposure up to 90% in a specific setup, but RF Safe themselves do not promote or claim this—they focus on not increasing exposure and educating users.

That restraint is part of the credibility case they are trying to make: even when a favorable number exists, they avoid using it as a marketing hook.

What the KPIX 5 Investigation Highlighted About Testing

A key example often referenced in this space is the KPIX 5 (CBS San Francisco) investigation from 2017, which is frequently misunderstood or selectively cited.

What KPIX Criticized

The segment called out issues with how some companies like SafeSleeve conducted their own testing: their FCC-accredited lab results were for the raw shielding material alone (tested with a signal generator, not a real phone in the case), which doesn’t account for how the full product performs in practice.

That kind of isolated testing is indeed meaningless for consumers, as it ignores potential design flaws—like metal plates, magnets, or improper shielding placement—that could interfere with the phone’s antenna and cause it to ramp up power output, increasing overall radiation exposure.

What KPIX Also Did (and Why That Matters)

However, the KPIX report itself went further by independently testing actual cases (including SafeSleeve, DefenderShield, and RF Safe) in real-world conditions with phones inside them.

Their results showed that flip-style cases like these reduced RF emissions from the front of the phone by an average of 85–90% when used correctly (e.g., with the shielded flap closed during calls).

Even so, RF Safe doesn’t lean on those numbers in their marketing, emphasizing instead that no case is a complete shield and that true safety comes from better habits, proper design to avoid signal interference, and broader policy changes.

This aligns with the central concern: without full-system testing (phone + case in use), consumers can’t know if a product is helping or potentially harming.

The Industry Reality: Skepticism Is Widespread (and Not Entirely Unfair)

RF Safe’s long history (since 1998) does set it apart in a market often criticized for hype, as it prioritizes physics-based design and education over exaggerated claims. That said, the anti-radiation phone case industry as a whole faces skepticism—some experts view the entire category as ineffective or even counterproductive, arguing that non-ionizing RF radiation from phones lacks proven harm at typical levels, and poor designs can amplify exposure by forcing phones to boost power.

This is why the standard for credibility in this category can’t just be “does it have shielding material?” It has to be:

• How is it tested?

• Does it risk antenna interference?

• Does it explain limitations?

• Does it encourage better habits rather than selling a “magic shield”?

For precautionary users, the question becomes less about certainty and more about honest risk management.

Are There Other Cases as Honest?

Honesty here means:

• Avoiding misleading “up to 99% blocking” claims (often from isolated material tests, not real-world phone-in-case scenarios)

• Providing verifiable features (e.g., user-testable shielding)

• Educating on limitations

• Designing to prevent signal interference that could raise emissions

RF Safe’s QuantaCase (also called TruthCase) excels in this, but few competitors match it fully. Most popular brands still rely on percentage hype, ambiguous “FCC lab-tested” language (which may not cover the full product), or designs with “red flags” like metal loops/magnets that disrupt antennas.

Quick Landscape Summary

Few True Peers:
No other brand with 25+ years of focus consistently avoids all pitfalls while emphasizing education and policy advocacy (e.g., RF Safe pushes for updated radiation standards and alternatives like Li-Fi). Brands like Tech Wellness (not a case maker but a reviewer) promote realistic expectations, but they don’t produce cases.

Partial Honesty in Some:
WaveBlock claims “up to 80% reduction” but backs it with patents and independent tests, avoiding the extreme 99% hype—though it’s still percentage-based and lacks RF Safe’s depth on interference risks. RadiArmor is transparent about directional shielding but has been flagged in older reviews for potential design issues.

Common Issues in Others:
SafeSleeve and DefenderShield dominate searches but draw criticism for “99% blocking” based on raw materials, not integrated testing, and features like detachable plates that can increase exposure. Stickers like RadiationStopper Pro or AiresTech are even less credible, with limited evidence and debunkings showing no real effect.

Overall, the market leans toward marketing over candor; RF Safe is often cited as the outlier for integrity.

Best Anti-Radiation Case Based on Transparency and Effectiveness

Evaluating “best” combines transparency (honest claims, verifiable design, education) with effectiveness (directional RF deflection without boosting phone power, backed by tests or physics).

From 2026 reviews, RF Safe’s QuantaCase/TruthCase consistently ranks #1, scoring perfect on “red flag” checklists (e.g., no metals, ultra-thin to avoid interference, shielded speaker holes, user-testable conductivity). It reduces front-side exposure in demos (e.g., ~85–90% in older independent tests like KPIX) while stressing habits like distance for overall safety.

No case eliminates all radiation—effectiveness depends on use—but this one avoids common flaws.

Comparison of Top Contenders (2026)

Drawn from recent analyses; note: independent 2026 tests are sparse, so this leans on design critiques and self-reported/lab data.

Top Pick: QuantaCase/TruthCase by RF Safe. It leads in 2026 rankings for balancing transparency (e.g., debunking competitors’ flaws) with effective, non-disruptive design—making it the “uncompromised choice” for precautionary users.

Practical Reality Check: The Best “Protection” Is Still Behavior

Even the best-designed shielding case is not a magic device. RF Safe’s messaging repeatedly returns to a simple principle: distance and smarter habits matter most.

Always verify with an RF meter, and remember: the best “protection” is distance, speakerphone, or wired alternatives.

Add in habit-based reductions like disabling unnecessary transmitters (Wi‑Fi/Bluetooth) when you don’t need them, and you get meaningful reduction without relying on marketing claims.

Conclusion: Why This Debate Matters

This entire topic is polarizing for a reason:

• Some people dismiss anti-radiation cases entirely.

• Others want any precautionary reduction they can get.

• The market itself often muddies the waters with numbers that sound scientific but don’t reflect real-world performance.

That’s why RF Safe’s approach resonates with certain consumers: not because it promises a magic percentage, but because it focuses on physics-based design, avoids antenna interference risks, emphasizes correct usage, and refuses to sell false certainty.

In short: RF Safe positions their case as the “gold standard” for avoiding common pitfalls that make other products counterproductive, rather than promising a magic number like “X% blocked.”