QuantaDose Press Releases

The TruthCase Standard

Why RF Safe’s QuantaCase Refuses Percentage Claims—and Why That’s the Point

The anti‑radiation phone case market has a recurring pattern: big percentage claims, vague “lab tested” language, and a consumer left trying to guess what actually happens when a real phone is placed inside a real case, on a real network, in real life. Independent reporting has repeatedly shown why that distinction matters—because shielding products can reduce exposure when used correctly, but can also backfire or vary dramatically depending on design, network conditions, and how the case is used.

RF Safe’s QuantaCase—also known as TruthCase™—takes an unusual position in this market: it does not sell a universal “% blocked” promise. It positions the case as a reference design, a teaching tool, and a published standard for what anti‑radiation case design should and should not do. In a category saturated with marketing, that refusal is not a weakness; it is a deliberate engineering and communications strategy built around first principles.

The KPIX Lesson: Real-World Results Can Be Strong—and Still Misleading as a Marketing “Number”

In 2017, CBS San Francisco (KPIX 5) commissioned “real‑world” testing of popular RF‑reducing products and found that flip‑style shielding cases (including Safe Sleeve, Defender Shield, and RF Safe) substantially reduced RF coming out of the face of the phone when used properly with the front cover closed. The report states that the flip cases reduced RF by an average of 85%–90% out of the face of the phone when used properly.

But the same report is also the clearest argument against “percentage marketing”:

  • KPIX warns that when not used properly, some RF‑reducing products may increase exposure.

  • In one example, with the flip cover open and folded behind the phone (a common real‑world behavior), the case doubled RF from the face of the phone.

  • The report explicitly describes why KPIX chose not to publish exact readings or rank products: performance varied with location, network, tower proximity, phone model, and user position.

This is the core point: the “85–90%” headline is real in a defined setup—but it is still conditional. A case that advertises one clean number can still fail the most important real‑world test: preventing consumer misuse and preventing antenna/power‑control behaviors that can raise emissions in uncontrolled scenarios.

Why “Percent Blocked” Often Becomes Consumer Misinformation

KPIX’s report also explains a second problem: what many brands call “lab tested” often isn’t a test of the product in use. The story notes that many product claims reference shielding technology rather than the assembled product. Often the “FCC certified” labs are testing raw shielding material, not a functioning phone in the case on a real call—sometimes using a controlled signal generator rather than real network conditions.

That distinction matters because phones are not passive RF emitters. They manage power dynamically: weak signal conditions and obstructed antenna paths can prompt the phone to work harder. The Federal Trade Commission has warned consumers to be skeptical of products claiming to “shield” them from phone emissions and notes that by interfering with a phone’s signal, “phony shields may cause it to draw even more power and possibly emit more radiation.”

So the “percentage claim” problem is not just marketing hype—it can be a category‑wide misunderstanding of systems behavior: materials are not products; swatches are not phones; and static tests are not how phones behave in a live network environment.

The First Principles of Anti-Radiation Case Design

The Standard Most Products Never Disclose

If “anti‑radiation cases” are evaluated like engineering systems (not like influencer products), the category collapses into a few non‑negotiable first principles. In practice, a case must do two things at once:

  1. Create meaningful directional shielding (a “shadow” effect) when placed correctly between the phone and the body.

  2. Avoid provoking the phone into compensating behaviors that can increase emissions (e.g., signal interference that triggers power ramp‑ups).

From those requirements, a first‑principles checklist emerges:

1) No antenna-interference hardware

Any case design that introduces metal plates, metal loops, strong magnets, or detachable “mount” hardware near the phone can alter antenna behavior and signal quality—raising the risk of power compensation. This is not a theoretical concern; it is explicitly the kind of mechanism both consumer warnings and independent testing flags as a real‑world variable.

2) No detachable shielding configurations

A detachable shield or modular structure encourages misuse: users separate pieces, fold them the wrong way, or use the case open. KPIX specifically found that “open” usage can reverse outcomes and even increase exposure in some configurations.

3) Fully addressed “ear-side” leakage points

If the shield is directional (front‑flap shielding), then the ear‑side geometry matters. Large, unshielded speaker holes create direct leakage routes toward the head. A serious design must treat speaker openings as engineering constraints, not aesthetic defaults.

4) Clear, behavior-linked instructions (not just “features”)

Because the largest real‑world variable is use, the case must be designed to teach correct orientation. KPIX notes that correct use of flip cases “may not be intuitive” for many users, which means education is not optional.

5) Radical transparency: what is tested, what is not tested, and what a case can never do

A legitimate “risk reduction” product should be explicit about limitations and should avoid language that creates false security through overgeneralized metrics.

RF Safe’s Differentiator: A Case Built to Teach, Not to Sell a Number

RF Safe’s public framing of TruthCase™ is unusually direct. It describes TruthCase™ (QuantaCase®) as three things at once:

  • “A training tool that teaches correct phone orientation and everyday habits that actually reduce dose.”

  • “A physics‑first product that refuses the hardware gimmicks that make many ‘radiation’ cases worse, not better.”

  • “A conversation starter and proof‑of‑concept for the policy roadmap” it argues is necessary to protect families.

That is an explicit attempt to shift the category away from “buy this and stop thinking” toward “learn how the system behaves, then reduce exposure through correct design and correct habits.”

The case’s messaging makes the underlying logic unambiguous:

You cannot buy your way out of wireless risk with marketing.
You can only reduce it with correct orientation, correct design, and correct policy.

The Point Everyone Misses: RF Safe Published the Design Rules as Open Source

One of the most consequential claims in RF Safe’s public materials is not about shielding at all—it’s about standard-setting.

RF Safe states that it “introduced its design standards online to the world in the 1990s as an open-source design,” allowing others to copy the approach.

This is the conceptual backbone of the TruthCase story:

  • TruthCase is positioned as a reference implementation of first principles.

  • The standards are presented as something the market can adopt—yet many products still incorporate “red flag” design choices that undermine real‑world performance.

In other words, the case is framed as a “teaching tool” not just for consumers, but for the entire market: remove the red flags, stop selling swatch‑tests as full‑system results, and stop pretending one percentage applies to all phones in all conditions.

Why RF Safe Doesn’t Lean on the 85–90% KPIX Result

Even when the number is flattering

KPIX’s report states that flip cases reduced RF by an average of 85%–90% from the face of the phone when used properly.

Yet the same report also establishes exactly why RF Safe’s “no percentage claims” posture is rational:

  • Results varied meaningfully with network, phone, location, and orientation.

  • Misuse could reverse the effect and even double the reading in at least one scenario tested.

  • KPIX declined to publish exact readings because variability was the core finding.

In that context, a brand that makes “percentage blocking” the centerpiece of its marketing is incentivized to oversimplify the system.

RF Safe’s approach is to make the opposite incentive visible: the “number” is not the point; the system is.

The Teaching-Tool Detail KPIX Highlighted—and Why It Matters

KPIX makes a specific observation that functions almost like a “credibility tell” for this category:

“The RF Safe case was the only case to explicitly say on the product packaging itself that the case should only be used with the front flap closed while on a call.”

That single detail supports the broader “TruthCase” framing: a case that reduces exposure only when used correctly is only as good as its capacity to teach correct use—because “correct use” is not intuitive for many consumers.

Why This Case Exists Inside a Larger “Protection Through Knowledge” Toolset

The TruthCase narrative does not stand alone. RF Safe repeatedly positions the case within a broader ecosystem of tools intended to educate rather than to persuade through marketing.

1) SAR comparison tools for phone selection

RF Safe describes tools that allow side‑by‑side comparisons and emphasizes comparative decision‑making rather than generic compliance assumptions.

2) Kids vs. adult exposure context (including 5-year-old and 10-year-old views)

RF Safe provides a “Thinner Skulls” / “Kids SAR Viewer” framework that compares modeled SAR levels for a 5‑year‑old, 10‑year‑old, and adult.

3) Wi‑Fi and Bluetooth toggle tools (showing dose deltas)

RF Safe’s SAR tools include a “Wi‑Fi and Bluetooth Radiation Reduction Tool” concept—explicitly aimed at showing what changes when transmitters are disabled.

4) A large, searchable research directory

RF Safe’s “tools‑not‑hype” framing describes a “4,000+ Study Research Viewer” as part of the education stack.

The throughline is consistent: the case is presented as one component in a training framework that teaches consumers how to reason about exposure—through device selection, settings, distance, and correct orientation—not through a single marketing number.

A Practical “TruthCase Standard” for Consumers

How to eliminate most products in minutes

A useful review is not “top 10 affiliate picks.” A useful review is a filter that quickly eliminates designs likely to mislead or backfire. Based on the FTC’s warnings about “phony shields” and KPIX’s real‑world findings about variability and misuse, the following screen is defensible:

Elimination Checklist

A product fails immediately if it has any of the following:

  • Detachable plates, detachable magnetic shields, or modular shielding parts that encourage “open” phone use while claiming protection.

  • Magnets, metal plates, or hardware likely to interfere with signal behavior (especially near antenna zones).

  • “99% blocking” claims supported only by raw material tests, with no clarity on phone‑in‑case testing under real call conditions.

  • Marketing that implies a universal number across environments, despite known variability and known misuse risks.

Surviving the Filter

A case that survives the filter tends to share these characteristics:

  • Directional shielding implemented in a way that supports correct use (closed flap between phone and user).

  • Minimal interference design philosophy rather than “more metal everywhere.”

  • Plain-language instructions that anticipate how people actually use flip cases in the real world.

This “standard” is exactly what TruthCase claims to embody: minimal hardware gimmicks, orientation‑dependent shielding, and education-first framing.

Conclusion: The Case as a Proof, Not a Promise

Independent reporting has already shown what matters most: shielding can reduce exposure significantly in the correct orientation—but can also vary widely and even backfire if misused.

RF Safe’s TruthCase/QuantaCase positions itself around that reality rather than trying to paper over it. It explicitly frames the product as a training tool, rejects the “magic percentage” marketing structure, and claims its design rules were published openly as a standard others could copy.

For readers trying to “solve” the anti‑radiation case category, the cleanest takeaway is not a brand name. It is the standard:

  • If a case sells a number but hides the system, it is selling confidence—not clarity.

  • If a case teaches orientation, avoids interference hardware, and refuses universal percentage claims, it is at least aligned with what independent testing and consumer protection guidance say matters in the real world.