NEW YORK - A judge cited photos of rats wandering around a rodent-killing device designed to make them escape, and he filed a class action lawsuit against a company that sells and markets rats on Wednesday.

"People often say that a picture is worth a thousand words," U.S. District Judge William H. Poly III wrote in the three pictures above. These pictures depict mice approaching the device. In one case, they were parked on top of the device. . "Moreover, in this case, the three photos in a study conducted by the plaintiff experts are more valuable."

He then pointed out that the lawyer submitted more than 42,000 words to try to convince him how to rule.

"As the photo shows, the mouse can obviously relax comfortably under the insect repellent, and even seems to be attracted by the sound of its police siren, so that people will climb the wall just to take a nap on it," Pauly said, citing a mouse In the photo, this is the tail dangling under it, climbing up the wall to reach the device.

More: Ford recalls 2 million F-150 pickup trucks to repair seat belt defects that caused fires

More: NFL's streaming media offensive makes it easier for you to watch games this season

More: Edmonds' list of 10 new cars to watch for 2019 includes Ram, Volvo, Subaru and Ford

The 2015 lawsuit was filed by women in Palm Desert, California and Woodville, Texas. They seek unspecified damages and hope that the litigation will represent others who have purchased more than 2.4 million devices.

They said that they bought Bell + Howell ultrasonic insect repellents based on an advertisement that claimed that these devices “repelled “rats, mice, cockroaches, spiders and ants” and “repelled pests quickly and effectively”.

After they concluded that the equipment plugged into the power outlet was invalid, they filed a lawsuit in Manhattan Federal Court, listing New York-based BHH, LLC. as the defendant, whose business names are Bell + Howell and Van Hauser LLC.

In the ruling, Poly pointed out that some of the packaging of these devices included a disclaimer stating that ultrasonic signals lose their strength when transmitted, and can be absorbed by soft objects such as carpets and reflected by hard surfaces such as furniture.

"But whether this disclaimer draws consumers' attention is a question of the jury," Poly said. He added that the jury can decide whether these devices are completely invalid and falsely marketed.

Adam H. McCabe, a lawyer representing these companies, said Pauley's decision to dismiss the lawsuit without trial was disappointing.

"Our customers support their products and the effectiveness of their products," he said. "Many scientists and laboratories have tested ultrasonic insect repellents to confirm their effectiveness. Unfortunately, this photo was taken by the plaintiff’s paid expert in stages and without verification, and was included in the order. ."

Poly said that based on the warning letter issued by the Federal Trade Commission’s law enforcement to 60 manufacturers and retailers of ultrasonic pest control equipment, the company may have noticed that ultrasonic repellents are usually ineffective, and said that the claims about these products must be scientifically proven. support. evidence.

He pointed out that the plaintiffs also cited "a series of studies" published before 2011, which they said proved that these devices are generally ineffective.