Buyer Beware: Projector Brands with History of Misleading Brightness Claims

In an era where home entertainment options continue to expand, projectors have emerged as a popular alternative to traditional televisions for consumers seeking larger screen sizes on limited budgets. While entry-level smart TVs can be found for under $100, their screen sizes typically remain modest. For those desiring immersive 60-inch-plus viewing experiences without breaking the bank, projectors often seem like an attractive solution.

However, a troubling pattern has emerged in the projector market, with several manufacturers facing legal action for significantly overstating their products’ capabilities. Industry leader Epson has spearheaded a campaign against deceptive advertising practices, particularly targeting brands that exaggerate brightness levels—a critical specification measured in lumens that directly impacts image quality.

AuKing, one of Amazon’s best-selling projector brands, represents perhaps the most egregious case. Despite boasting thousands of positive reviews and strong sales figures for models like the $87.99 M8-F, the company was found to have dramatically misrepresented its performance specifications. According to Epson’s 2024 lawsuit, one AuKing projector claimed to produce 9,500 lumens while actual testing revealed it delivered less than 1% of that figure. This deception resulted in a $500,000 fine for unfair competition through “false, deceptive, or misleading statements,” along with a sales suspension until the company corrected its advertising.

Even more established names like XGIMI haven’t escaped scrutiny. Despite being recommended by tech reviewers for its portable projector lineup, XGIMI reached a settlement with Epson in 2023 after being sued for deceptive practices. Multiple models showed significant discrepancies: the XGIMI Horizon and Horizon Pro claimed 2,200 lumens but produced only 1,500, while the Halo and Elfin models overstated their brightness by 200 lumens. As part of the settlement, XGIMI agreed to revise all specifications to reflect actual performance.

Wemax, another projector manufacturer with offerings at various price points including the premium Nova Pro 4K ultra-short throw model, faced similar legal challenges. The company’s Wemax Nova projector was advertised as producing 2,100 lumens when testing revealed just 1,300—a 60% exaggeration. Unlike some competitors, Wemax’s issues appeared limited to this single model, according to company testing of its broader portfolio.

Vava, founded in 2015, demonstrated particularly confusing marketing tactics. Its 4K Laser TV projector carried wildly inconsistent brightness claims across different retail channels, variously advertised as producing either 6,000 or 2,500 lumens. Epson’s testing revealed the actual output was just 1,800 lumens. Following a 2022 settlement, Vava agreed to standardize its specifications with accurate figures.

Perhaps most surprising is the inclusion of a subsidiary from a respected accessories manufacturer—Nebula by Anker. Despite Anker’s strong reputation for chargers, power banks and audio products through its Soundcore brand, its Nebula projector line fell into the same pattern of exaggeration. The Nebula Cosmos Laser and Cosmos Laser 4K models claimed 2,400 lumens but delivered only 1,840, while the standard Cosmos model overstated its brightness by nearly 100 lumens.

These five manufacturers represent just a portion of Epson’s broader industry campaign, which has also targeted Philips, Vankyo, WiMiUS, GooDee, and Bomaker. The lawsuits aim to standardize how projector brightness is reported, pushing manufacturers to adopt “internationally recognized and accepted brightness standards” that allow consumers to make informed comparisons.

For consumers navigating the projector market, these cases highlight the importance of skepticism toward specifications from lesser-known brands offering seemingly unbeatable values. While these manufacturers may have corrected their marketing following legal action, their history of deceptive practices suggests caution remains warranted when evaluating their current product claims.