Brass instead of copper: Watercool reacts, but differently than expected

I have linked the relevant article again below, but today’s text is actually clear enough. In the Watercool HEATKILLER RAD 120-S Black I tested yesterday, I found simple and only average brass in the cooling channels instead of the advertised copper. Watercool reacted quite quickly after publishing the article and my video, but not in the way you might expect as a customer and reviewer. If you follow the law against unfair competition (UWG), then this serves to protect competitors, consumers and other market participants from unfair business practices. To explain why I have a problem with the issue of false advertising and, above all, Watercool’s behavior, the UWG also explains it quite well:

In the original article, being the benevolent person that I am, I didn’t even accuse Watercool of knowing about the wrong material or even being intentional, on the contrary. In fact, I recommended stepping on the OEM’s toes very quickly and emphatically. Which of course only makes sense if you really didn’t know about it. And that’s exactly where my doubts lie. All the other parties involved, to whom I was able to prove various deviations, contacted me immediately and I also provided all the documents and findings for the confrontation with the OEMs free of charge and unconditionally. Bykski even confirmed the results within just one day with an independent material analysis on site and promised to act accordingly. Alphacool even discussed the screws with me, so there was a noticeable interest there too.

Let us first read again what Watercool itself writes on its own homepage:

The company therefore advertises that quality control takes place in Germany. However, as a minimum, they should have at least randomly tested the material. And anyone who cannot visually tell the difference between pure copper and a 65% alloy should go to a trusted optician. Even surface tests would certainly have revealed the harder material, so you don’t even have to use six-figure Keyence guns. Accepting the brass implies at least the theoretical possibility that the whole thing was even known about.

From my point of view, however, today’s reaction is really bad, in that they did not contact me and/or the public (I would certainly have benevolently included a corresponding statement in the article), but simply changed the article description on the homepage without comment and in secret. This is not only tantamount to an admission of guilt, but is above all unfair to customers who have already purchased these items. Not to mention all the websites and reviews that continue to falsely advertise copper with a clear conscience. Let’s start with the Watercool homepage and yesterday’s status, which I documented with a screenshot and can easily reproduce at any time using waybackmachine.org. One writes (and the customer believed it):

Unfortunately, Watercool’s marketing and reality did not match and the way text is secretly, quietly removed from the website is just as shabby as the false claim. Instead of the advertised copper, we find normal brass with only average thermal conductivity in the channels, here once again the cooling circuit as a mix of materials:

The text was then quietly changed yesterday, apparently in the hope that nobody would notice:

However, it’s almost silly to make the texts in the product descriptions suitable, but not to adapt the news for the respective product at the same time. You could certainly have thought of that, but it seems to be a bit too demanding:

To make it clear once again, it’s anything but a private pastime of mine to have to show companies where the limits of what is tolerable are, I actually have better things to do. Because from the point of view of customers and other market participants, this is about nothing other than unfair competition. A few pages smoothed out afterwards won’t help. I would have liked to see honest and fair communication with all customers, but not such a secret deletion.

If I were Watercool, I would really think about the publicly localized quality management in Germany (see opening quote). Either they have one, in which case it has failed spectacularly, or they knew about it and tacitly tolerated it. I don’t want to imply that this was intentional. But I don’t want to judge which is worse. Or you don’t have one at all, in which case this statement about quality testing in Germany is also unfair. Watercool had its chance, but unfortunately it didn’t take it. It’s a shame, but it can’t be helped.

Der große Radiator-Material-Test: Zwischen Versprechen, Realität und Verbotenem – Wasserkühlung auf dem Prüfstand! | Teil 1