If anything, I'd say the FCC ably performed the job they're charged with. Though it's not clear how long it took them to crack down.
Well going by the copyright date Someone listed, and the date the Wikipedia article states they took action, then it sounds like they got away with it for 2-3 years, assuming they weren't forced to immediately change their design.
And with unknown outcomes -- discard/recall/fine users/fine mfg/etc.
If nothing else, it shows they had to redesign the product; if they had done it right in the first place, they could've saved that NRE. (How much did it really cost? Obviously, not enough for them to tank. Was it less than the initial sales, with no loss of customers, so it was a net win? Did it hurt instead? No idea.)
Well, I have plenty of arguments to make regarding that:
Consider Uber, AirBNB, and Paypal. And all those handling bitcoin. All businesses which were/are outright illegal under current codes, or whose legality was in an extreme grey area. These companies exist and are worth billions because the people running them didn't let a few pesky laws deter them.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere!

Gray area, yes. Illegal, no. If they sat there, asking lawyers and politicians whether their thing is right or not, they wouldn't have gotten anywhere. Better to put it out in the market and see how well it does.
And indeed, they did quite well.
But be very mindful of the humongous selection bias: these are four successful companies, out of how many thousands that fail for various reasons?
How about another selection: Silk Road. Obviously, facilitating the sales of illicit products is suuuper illegal...
Likely a lot of white-to-gray market stuff was sold there, too. Does that make it wrong?
Well..... yes, as it turns out.
Now add Segway and all those electric scooter/skateboard/hoverboard companies. All selling products whose use, under the law as written, are illegal.
Don't believe I'd ever heard the Segway called illegal, since its introduction. But that was a long time ago, and I didn't follow the news about it.
Here's a current appraisal:
https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=36294TLDR it's local only, YMMV.
As for the Hoverboards -- that's under a different rule than present subject.
Or, I'm honestly not really sure if it's a rule or more of a suggestion, but in any case: UL approved products must meet design and inspection standards, and must be tested in a lab (again, for a pretty penny..).
Relevant blurb:
http://www.ul.com/hoverboards/As with other rules, if you don't pass the certification, you're at risk of getting pricked with a nasty action. Getting sued for bodily and property damages, by just one person, would be a rather bad sight worse than getting dinged $5k by the FCC, or having to recall your products. So, UL safety is rather a bigger concern.
What you get from being certified, is a guarantee that, if someone comes after you for xyz reason, you simply point to the test results and say "sorry dude, lab said go". Zero liability.
That's a HUGE deal in the US. Most business operations can be followed, not so much even by the flow of money, but from the minimization of liability.
Again, manufacturers, importers and sellers are at risk here. It would be unwise for them to import anything that's uncertified (or counterfeit).
It looks like a Hoverboard lawsuit is brewing, but as these sorts of things happen, it'll probably be a few years (and however many more clients) before it closes. So until then, the jury's literally still out (well, literally only if it goes to trial).
So... you're saying you'd much rather make a few bucks now, and... somehow dodge or neglect or avoid or abdicate your eventual liability from selling something uncertified..? Because if that's your business plan, you'd better have an aggressive plan to grow your business
significantly by the time those liabilities hit.
It's like getting a loan, except the bill comes randomly, at an unknown interest rate...
Well, if the US / UK wants to remain a competitive player in a global market, in a world were more and more people, like me are able to design and sell electronics online, people who, like me, can't afford to spend over $14K on testing alone (https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-cost-to-get-FCC-and-CE-certification-for-a-very-simple-electronic-gadget), and where competition from China and Hong Kong (and soon India), aren't bound by such pithy things as regulations, and who have their shipping costs subsidized by the government on top of that, then regulations are going to have to change. If the FCC wants products to be tested, then the government, not the small business owner, should bear the brunt of those costs. And regulations, which are clearly too strict, because even with all those billions of untested products coming in from China the world has not devolved into chaos, need to be relaxed.
Well,
1. You're a small player. You've never mentioned making billions of things. Yes! Scale matters! You're not special, you're a nobody. If you make a billion of something, your product is in the mind of the whole country, and they will collectively bend to make that popular thing, a sure thing.
2. Importers and retailers are liable for this sort of stuff, all the time. They usually have enough (capital or credit) to take a few blows. Sometimes, even if you do everything right, import good stuff, inspect it for all the marks, give it a go yourself; you still end up losing. You have to absorb that cost, and roll it into your bottom line. Retail is expensive, and this is part of the reason why. This is why consumer protection laws exist: to ensure that, okay yeah fine you'll have to pay extra for a variety of reasons, but you're much more likely to get a functioning, safe product. (EU is far more strict about this, of course.)
3. You mention direct China sellers. In these cases, the buyer is the importer. They probably don't realize it, but they are liable for their own safety. There's not much they can do about the seller, except complain with some nasty e-mails or a bad rating. Absolutely no teeth. Indeed, a very large part of why that crap is so cheap, is because it's direct import and buyer-beware --
caveat emptor.
Indeed again: if enough people purchase goods in this way, and enough people wind up injured as a result (defective, unsafe, interfering), the ultimate effect will be even worse: an overall chill on direct-China sales. In the extreme (perhaps it wouldn't go *this* far..), trade restrictions could be increased. In short: a few bad apples spoil the bunch. Tragedy of the commons!
4. Back on topic, the FCC will not raise limits, and should not. I am an electrical engineer, and I like my airwaves clean and functional. Just as I want my air clear and breathable, and my water pure and drinkable. The FCC's primary responsibility is to its licensees. There are a great many radio operators, licensed to use their segments of spectrum, who expect that spectrum to be available, and whom are given rights to take action (c/o FCC) against any sources of interference. ...Have you heard of the Tragedy of the Commons?
A possible example, combining both aspects: wireless power.
There's been articles about residential heating, using microwaves. In reality, it's not nearly as unsafe as it sounds, and it literally heats only the squishy meatbags that need it, so it's maximally efficient!
There's been articles about chargers, using various means (ISM band RF wireless; GHz wireless; even ultrasonic power transfer!).
All of these have the same liabilities -- filling the air with a huge amount of energy, that will cause a wide variety of problems (both for bodily safety, and functionality of standard devices). No matter how viral these schemes go, they cannot succeed, because you can't beat physics.
Do you think Adafruit and Sparkfun got big by rigorously testing every device they sold? Of course not.
Most of what they sell, is an incomplete component, and sold as such. These are FCC exempt -- given that the final manufacturer / end user still meets Part 15 requirements.
Likewise, dev kits and application boards. I've seen some truly awful ones. The LTC3810 application board makes pulses <5ns, >50% overshoot, and there's nothing you can do about it. The pulse shows up all over the board. In other words, I had the same experience you did: crap everywhere.
The FAE* was clueless; the best he had to offer was: "eh, toss some ferrite beads on it?"
(*Field Applications Engineer; the guy who comes to your office when you phone up Linear Technologies and ask for some help with a particular product of theirs.)
That particular product ended up in a heavy metal box, and the customer wound up with something like 30% higher unit cost than they wanted. That reflects poorly on us. At least it wasn't so bad they couldn't market the complete system; that would've been a disaster for all parties involved.
And why should they, when their parts are just going to be stuck in people's art projects or whatever with wires going everywhere and no attempt at shielding being made? Now, legally, they might be in the clear because those items are classified as electronic kits, but speaking from an ethics standpoint, is what they're doing really any different from releasing a finished product that you know is going to emit EMF? I would say not really. The end result is the same, whether someone has to solder the battery holder and neopixels onto their blinky shoe thing or not.
Just to be specific -- electronic kits have a specific clause in Part 15. Whereas components don't need to meet any ratings (because... how could they?), kits, assembled according to instructions, must meet regulations.
It's probably a worse deal for the manufacturer, because it's much harder to ensure the end user builds the product to their spec. In theory, they should be off the hook if the user
doesn't follow spec, but who knows.
In any case, the offending user is the first target (by the FCC). If it's just some dumb art project (good example

), they can simply turn it off, and probably take it apart and move on to the next cutesy thing to lash together. (Hopefully being a little more cautious next time?)
For much of those electronic components and Arduinos and kits things, that's about the end of it. They're not meant to be operated as a finished product, and operational performance is the user's responsibility (again, whether they realize it or not; it would be prudent of the seller to provide reminders of this..).
I don't know Adafruit's full product line, but I would suppose they sell things meant for office use (e.g., computer peripherals?), or stand-alone (soldering station..?), and those should meet regulations.
Tim