I was thinking that many of the criticisms of false marketing pertained mostly to UNregulated lights, where both the short-lived "max brightness" and the much dimmer "max burn time" are both reported (and the uninformed assume the two go together).
It's a lot harder to mislead buyers with a regulated light. The mfg will sometimes put in a high quality battery with lots of amp-hours, but generally the user can do that, too.
If I recall, Zebralight gives its specs with the commonly-used Eneloop.
And before everyone decides to break out the pitchforks and torches, remember that:
"All else held equivalent, it takes around 100% increase in lumens before a beam looks significantly brighter (appearing about one-quarter brighter to the eye)...Intensity needs to be 300% to 400% to look twice as bright."
So if an actual lumen of 300 is inflated to 330, no human eye on earth would be able to perceive being cheated of those 30 lumens. It's deceptive, yes, but you could not claim harm for the "loss" because you couldn't see it. Ie, no court would award damages. I'm not defending it, I'm just saying the offense in this case is below the level of perception.
Roger: I assume you rejoined: "You CAN'T see by moonlight?"