Maybe so, but for the consumer is there any difference?
If you say your product does a thing, and it definitely does NOT do that thing (but you fully believe it does that thing perhaps on the basis of believing really really really hard), and you sell it on the basis of that belief, especially when said belief is easily disproven with a tiny bit of due diligence…
under those conditions I think it’s perfectly reasonable to call it a scam. Especially colloquially, when intent is near impossible to know, and the average consumer does not have the means to launch an investigation to prove intent.
The "NOT do that thing" is the questionable part, lots of devices that measure things can claim to do so when they aren't "accurate". The difference is how inaccurate is the device and is the margin of error something that should be communicated.
The classic example are scales, you can buy scales and weigh yourself on them and they might not be 100% accurate. But you can still sell a product that claims you can weigh yourself. Should we require standards that require companies to provide a +/- variance against exact measurements? Some products do such as power meters.
If a product is outside of a particular variance then could we call those scam products?
If you say your product does a thing, and it definitely does NOT do that thing (but you fully believe it does that thing perhaps on the basis of believing really really really hard), and you sell it on the basis of that belief, especially when said belief is easily disproven with a tiny bit of due diligence…
under those conditions I think it’s perfectly reasonable to call it a scam. Especially colloquially, when intent is near impossible to know, and the average consumer does not have the means to launch an investigation to prove intent.