Why RF Safe’s TruthCase™ / QuantaCase® is built on first principles—and why that matters more than “99% blocking”
The topic of cell phone radiation sits in a complicated place: it is widely discussed, frequently misunderstood, and often marketed with a level of certainty that the underlying science and real‑world device behavior do not always support. While the debate continues over whether non‑ionizing RF/EMF exposure from phones creates meaningful health risk at typical consumer levels, some readers take a precautionary approach—reducing exposure where practical, simply because the cost of precaution can be low. Major institutions have also acknowledged uncertainty in different ways; for example, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B) in 2011.
For precaution‑minded consumers, the obvious question becomes: if a case claims to reduce exposure, does it actually help in real‑world use—or can it inadvertently make things worse?
That question is precisely where RF Safe has attempted to differentiate itself for nearly three decades. Founded in 1998 by John Coates, RF Safe positions its products and advocacy around a consistent design philosophy: avoid misleading percentage claims, avoid designs that can provoke increased transmit power, and focus on “physics‑first” mitigation plus user education.
RF Safe’s TruthCase™ (also known as QuantaCase®) is the clearest expression of that philosophy—and the most controversial part of its approach is also its most distinctive: RF Safe deliberately refuses to market a “% blocked” number.
The seduction of “up to 99% blocking”
Why the biggest number is often the wrong metric
The anti‑radiation phone case market frequently leads with percentage claims—“up to 99% blocking” being the most common shorthand. RF Safe’s critique is direct: these numbers are often derived from isolated material tests (for example, testing a swatch of shielding fabric under controlled conditions), rather than a whole‑system evaluation of a live phone operating inside a finished case.
The difference is not academic. A phone is not a fixed transmitter. Its output varies depending on signal conditions, network behavior, and how the device is being used. The design of a case—especially anything that interacts with antenna regions—can influence how the phone behaves.
RF Safe’s position is that the phrase “99% blocking” often answers a narrower question (“How does the material behave in a lab?”) while consumers assume it answers a broader one (“How much does this reduce my real exposure in everyday use?”).
The failure mode the market rarely emphasizes
When “protection” becomes antenna interference and power increases
The central engineering concern is straightforward: if a case degrades antenna performance or changes the device’s effective radiation pattern, the phone may compensate by transmitting differently—sometimes at higher power.
Real‑world reporting has underscored this variability. In 2017, CBS San Francisco / KPIX 5 tested several EMF‑blocking products in multiple orientations and conditions. Their reporting included two findings that often get separated—but matter most when taken together:
-
When flip‑style cases were used properly (with the shielded front flap closed between the phone and the meter), the cases reduced RF out of the face of the phone by an average of 85%–90%.
-
However, depending on network and case position, the test also found that some cases could amplify RF—most notably in a configuration that mirrors common real‑world use (front flap open and folded behind the phone), where one tested “RF blocking” flip case doubled RF measured from the face of the phone.
That second detail is the heart of the credibility problem in this category: a product can appear highly effective in the “ideal” orientation, while producing very different results when used in an intuitive but technically problematic way.
KPIX also noted a practical consumer‑education gap: using the flap closed during a call is not intuitive for many users. The report stated that RF Safe’s case was the only one that explicitly said on the product packaging that it should only be used with the front flap closed while on a call.
RF Safe’s defining stance
Why a company would refuse to market even a favorable test result
Here is where RF Safe’s story becomes unusually consistent compared to typical category marketing.
Even though third‑party reporting cited strong front‑side reductions in specific test setups, RF Safe repeatedly states that it has never claimed its cases block a specific percentage of radiation, and that leaning on a single percentage can be misleading and create false security.
RF Safe’s own reasoning—stated across its materials—is that:
-
shielding is directional and creates a “shadow”/deflection, not a total “void,”
-
RF is omnidirectional around a device,
-
results depend on orientation and use,
-
and a simplified percentage can cause consumers to misinterpret what a case can and cannot do.
In other words, RF Safe treats the KPIX 85%–90% figure as contextual, not as a marketable guarantee—explicitly acknowledging it as third‑party reporting while maintaining a refusal to build marketing around a single number.
This is the core “conviction” story: the refusal to sell a number is not presented as a limitation—it is presented as a first principle.
Founded on first principles and still built the same way
John Coates, continuity since 1998, and the QuantaCase / TruthCase design philosophy
RF Safe states it was founded in 1998 by John Coates and grew out of a mission that combines education, tools, and product design aimed at reducing exposure.
What RF Safe positions as unusual in the current market is continuity: the claim that the same “physics‑first” principles that shaped early RF Safe thinking still govern the modern TruthCase / QuantaCase design.
RF Safe’s TruthCase page explicitly frames the product as “QuantaCase designed to obey these first principles,” then lists specific design prohibitions and requirements. This includes repeated emphasis on avoiding the most common “red flags” associated with cases that can behave unpredictably in real‑world use.
The “first principles” checklist
What TruthCase is explicitly designed to avoid
RF Safe’s own TruthCase documentation lays out a set of product red flags—principles it claims many competing products violate—and positions TruthCase as intentionally engineered to avoid them.
Key examples include:
-
No metal loops / decorative metal near antenna edges (described as a detuning risk)
-
No detachable magnet/plate “sandwich” designs (explicitly rejecting magnet/steel plate stacks between phone and shield)
-
Rejection of “99% protection” claims without whole‑device tests (explicitly distinguishing a fabric swatch test from phone‑in‑use exposure)
-
Orientation training as a core concept: the barrier must be between the phone and the body/head when it matters, rather than assuming a product works regardless of how it’s used
RF Safe frames these as “first principles” because they address failure modes (interference, misuse, misleading tests) rather than chasing the highest material attenuation statistic.
Notably, TruthCase is also framed as a consumer‑education tool. RF Safe describes it as a product designed not only to reduce exposure on the shielded side when used correctly, but also to help consumers recognize and avoid deceptive design patterns in the category.
“The only case that follows all the principles”
A market claim framed as an awareness claim
RF Safe and its supporters often characterize TruthCase / QuantaCase as an outlier—less because of a single performance statistic and more because of its refusal to rely on common marketing shortcuts (especially percentage claims) and its deliberate avoidance of common design pitfalls.
Rather than presenting “best” as “highest advertised %,” RF Safe’s argument is structural:
-
If the category’s primary consumer harm is false confidence driven by misleading testing and interference‑prone design,
-
then “best” becomes the product that most consistently avoids those failure modes while educating the user.
This framing is central to why RF Safe does not market the KPIX 85%–90% number despite the obvious marketing value: the company’s stated concern is that a number without context becomes a promise—and a promise becomes a substitute for correct orientation, correct design, and better habits.
A case is not the whole strategy
Why RF Safe keeps bringing the conversation back to habits and systems
RF Safe’s materials repeatedly emphasize that no case eliminates RF exposure and that the most significant reductions come from behavior (distance and usage patterns), not from any single accessory.
That message appears not only in narrative form but also in tools RF Safe publishes. For example, RF Safe hosts SAR comparison pages suggesting that turning off Wi‑Fi and Bluetooth transmitters can reduce head (and body) exposure by varying amounts depending on phone model and configuration.
RF Safe also positions its mission beyond accessories, advocating for broader shifts such as LiFi adoption as a long‑term alternative to RF‑based wireless systems.
Whether one agrees with every policy position or not, the through‑line is consistent with the product philosophy: avoid oversimplified promises; emphasize mechanisms, habits, and systems.
Conclusion
In a market built on numbers, refusing the number is the message
The anti‑radiation phone case category often markets certainty: “up to 99% blocking.” RF Safe markets a refusal: no percentage claims, even when third‑party reporting describes large reductions in a specific setup.
That is the core narrative behind TruthCase / QuantaCase:
-
It is designed as a directional shield that depends on correct orientation rather than promising a “void.”
-
It is designed to avoid red‑flag components and structures that can degrade antenna behavior and produce counterproductive outcomes.
-
It acknowledges third‑party results like the KPIX 85%–90% finding while refusing to turn them into a universal marketing claim.
-
It treats consumer education—how to use a case properly and how to recognize deceptive testing—as part of the product itself.
For readers who take a precautionary posture, RF Safe’s argument is that credibility in this category is less about the biggest percentage and more about a consistent, physics‑first approach: avoid interference, avoid misleading numbers, and focus on real‑world use.
