The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act assertion is absurd. I can not see in any way that this could result in a violation of that. (It could be used as a tool as part of OTHER activities that are violations, but its use in and of itself would not be a violation.)
However, the "ham" part of the name indicated that it was probably using an amateur radio (ham) service. This service requires operators to be licensed, and has its own rules very different from that of the ISM bands.
In many cases, ham bands and ISM bands overlap. The ham bands sometimes extend outside of the frequency range of the ISM bands, and also licensed ham operation is subject to different rules than ISM devices. Key differences:
1) Licensed amateur radio operators can use MUCH higher power levels than ISM devices. They can legally interfere with ISM devices (although doing this is frowned upon by most hams) - In most of the ISM bands, the military is the primary user, amateur radio is secondary (In some areas, military radars operate in the ham/ISM bands. IIRC there was an interesting situation a few years ago where no one could use certain brands of garage door openers near a military base because the big radar was interfering.), ISM devices are tertiary. Lower-class users must accept interference from higher-class users and can't interfere with them. http://www.qsl.net/kb9mwr/proj...
2) Operating under Part 97 (ham) rules instead of Part 15 (ISM) rules means that you can't use encryption for the purposes of obfuscating data
I suspect that something about this device made it require operation under Part 97 rules to function, but encryption is a no-no under such rules. Also, it seems like they intended to sell this/encourage its use by unlicensed operators despite the device being a Part 97 device.