>> The average consumer has no idea if one of these cables will actually do what they proclaim.
Isn't that what standards compliance is supposed to be for? Shouldn't the product have to be tested against the standard in order to get labeled USB X.Y ?? Or doesn't USB have such a requirement?
Having worked at a company shipping a USB cable with our product, I know we explicitly couldn't use the USB logo on the cable without additional (expensive) testing. So our cable just didn't have the logo.
And to put in terms of real-life - in Shenzhen, China I've seen people selling whole spools of "QC PASS" stickers, as well as any logo or guarantee label you want.
To be fair, QC pass stickers are going to be sold like that just because you'll need a lot of them if your only way of identifying pass/fail is via a sticker. I don't see why you wouldn't buy those en masse, and use them on a real assembly line -- especially in a country where most plastic goods are produced.
It's the same for Android. It's open-source, but you cannot say that it's derived from Android unless you pass Google's tests (and according to Chinese independent manufacturors, you need to know people from the inside to advance your application).
Does Underwriters Laboratories do that kind of testing? I'm honestly curious-- I don't think I've ever seen their logo on anything as cheap as a single USB cable.
If so, you can look for their logo and have... some confidence at least.
The government is the one that should apply the laws to protect consumers and fair competence. Once something fishy has been detected they have to act.
Isn't that what standards compliance is supposed to be for? Shouldn't the product have to be tested against the standard in order to get labeled USB X.Y ?? Or doesn't USB have such a requirement?