OT Court lets Automaker sue Consumer Reports

So you do not believe in freedom of the press? In a group reporting its
findings?

 

Maybe your average science-phobic lawyer, but not *me*. You'd be
hard-pressed to find an attorney who knows more about vehicle dynamics
off the top of his head. Not that there aren't any ...

If the law were concerned about right and wrong, or it would be a
moral code. It is not. It *is* a code of *justice*, but 'justice' is
merely what the law says it is. As for 'correctness', that depends on
your definition. If it is the equivalent of 'right or wrong', then it
is generally irrelevant. If it is the 'correct' result under law,
then it is the latter, above, and nothing more. While we like to
think we're doing what *you'd* like us to do, the reality is
different.

In terms of facts, yes. That is a jury's function. In terms of moral
or ethical judgments, it is normally *not* the jury's function. You
seem to have some basic misunderstanding of what our system of
*justice* really does, or is supposed to do.

If I'm selling bullshit, that's *exactly* the jury I want. In the
exceedingly rare event that I must litigate a case with virtually *no*
factual basis, give me the 'crap shoot' of an ignorant jury. However,
in the few cases I *have* litigated to a jury, you're exactly the guy
*I* wanted, so leave your leisure reading material at home.

Maybe ... but not by me.

 

The case isn't really about whether the car flips or not. It's about
the First Amendment and freedom of speech, the same freedom that lets
all of us read and post here.

And Suzuki's case has been rejectedly repeatedly by various courts. I
doubt they'll do any better at the Supreme Court. For the sake of the
First Amendment and the freedom anyone reading this enjoys, I hope
Suzuki loses.

If the Supreme Court agrees with Suzuki, and Suzuki and any other
maker of cars or other products decides to go after anyone who
publicly criticizes their products and publishes those opinions, a lot
of us in the newsgroup world could be in a lot of hot water. I bet
nobody reading this wants that.

 

Agree that the case is really going to be about legal issues, such as
the First Amendment and freedom of speech, not about car testing.

Suzuki's failed to make any progress in previous attempts against CR.
I expect they'll lose again in the Supreme Court, which is good news
for anyone who enjoys freedom of speech, which should be anybody
reading this or any other newsgroup.

Via a letter to the editor published recently by CR, GM is already
attempting to distance itself from the Suzuki case, even though GM
owns 20.1% of Suzuki.

CR's been covering Suzuki's (all unsuccessful) lawsuits for years. See
back issues at local library or at:

www.ConsumerReports.org

(snip)

 

It's actually about product defamation and the "right" (which does not
exist) to yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre. The "First amendment" scare
is a ploy of CU to gain sympathy for their side of things.

They might not, but they might. Fortunately, you're not in charge.

Horseshit. This case has no bearing on who's allowed to post to Usenet and
offer opinions on whatever which product you care to name. This case is
solely about product defamation.

DS

 

CR is hopelessly biased and deserves to get reamed for their years of
biased testing.

Since this is a .chrysler group - check out this year's auto issue
at you library. It really is worth the trip.

Look at the ratings they gave the Grand Cherokee for reliability.
Now, go back to the pages with the data. Notice anything?

The last 2-3 years have been all everage, above average, and excellent
ratings - not a SINGLE half black or black rating in any category.
Yet, it gets a solid black rating overall. No joke - right there in print.

So I emailed them and they spat back some nonsense about their rating
being valid and the individual data was too small a sample to be meaningful
and that their final ratings were not based upon the individual responses
received.

Then I used my wife's account(she never changed her last name) and asked a
question about the data on a 2003 Toyota - and they said the final rating
was based purely upon responses they recieved and nothing else.

Caught them in a lie, pure and simple. I hope Chrysler takes them to court
as well. The average rating for a 2002-2003 GC should be above average,
and not terrible.

Since then, CR is total junk as far as I am concerned. They plain hate
Chrysler and GM and Ford and are even willing to distort the data to
back this up.

 

Actually, no. Libel is the problem. Suzuki's sales suffered greatly
due to the all but spamming of CR's "opinion" as if it were a fact.

While CR usually just rates things they don't like down with no
explination other than "GM sucks" or simmilar, this was a major
campaign by them to stomp on Suzuki's little SUV.

Big damage award to follow. Guaranteed.

 

Sorry, but virtually every system of law in the world has a moral code
at its root.

No, I understand fully what it does. I don't agree with it in all
cases, but I understand it.

If you are selling BS, why do you want a jury who will pick up BS from 3
miles away? I don't follow your logic here.

Well, you weren't the attorney for the three times I've been called up
for jury duty...

Matt

 

IANAL, so maybe one of the lawyers reading this will chime in, but I
believe there is a difference between stating something as your opinion
vs. purporting it to be fact. I believe CU does the latter in many
cases. It's been years since I read the Suzuki test so I don't recall
the details in it.


Matt

 

CU did not yell fire in a theatre. They made the case that in their
opinion a particular product was not safe. CU had an opinion. Like lots
of people/organizations they tried to justify their opinion. They
concocted a test that showed the behavior they disliked. Concocting a
test to "support" a position is nothing new. As far as I can tell CU
never tried to hide the fact that they modified their test and they
never tried to hide the fact that it took multiple runs to get a good
video showing the behavior they disliked. Can you honestly tell me you
don't know of any person or organization that has adjusted, fine tuned,
changed their the methodology, or used questionable test methods in an
attempt to provide evidence to support a position?

I don't think CUs changing of the test was particularly fair and I don't
think the way they manipulated the release of information was ethical,
but I also do not think it rises to the level of slander. Consumer
Reports makes lots of recommendation that I find questionable, bizarre,
or just plain stupid. However, having a stupid opinion or using
questionable test methods is not the same as faking a test or lying
about the results. In the end, CU could make the Samurai tip in some
runs at a certain speed through a set course. It might not have been the
course they used before they decided that the Samurai was tippy, but it
is the same course they use today.

Suzuki should just let this case die. The publicity is not helping their
sales and in the end the testimony presented at the trail may come back
to haunt them.

Ed

 

I'd strongly suggest that you do not buy the magazine. Anybody that
actually understands cars and statistics understands that CUs little
circles are virtually meaningless and that their "recommended" models
are based solely on the opinion of the staff. Like everyone else they
have opinions and these opinions are reflected in what they write and
how they rate vehicles.

Ed

 

Check out the Buyer's Guide that just came out. Reliability is
specified in 3 areas of the car reviews. Inconsistencies are all over
the place. I suspect that the problem is that some of the reliability
reflected latest trends (in other words, the 2002 or 2003 model as
opposed to the 2001 model) but I don't see it explained anyplace.

 

But like Dr. Parker they try to pass their opinions off as being
scienitific facts. And that's the problem.

 

Lloyd,

If you are curious, go back to the original issue, many years ago
where the Suzuki was first rated unacceptable. And in fact the story
might have been told months before that if I remember correctly it was
in a preview of their formal test on the car. The whole process was
started because a staffer had an accident driving the car and that is
what made them look at re-doing the test.

As for the flimsy evidence.... it is the cheers of the staffers on
the videotape. The judge thought it flimsy evidence of malice. The
cheers could be just as well as interpreted as cheering the design of
a new test.

 

If you read the CR editorial explaining what they were fighting for,
it was very vague. Basically every libel and slander case is a first
amendment case. And reviewers certainly have a right to express
their opinion. However if they make a misleading statement malicously
it may be libel or slander. The evidence of malious was believed to
be flimsy by the judge but now he has been reversed. If the same
judge here's the case, I doubt Suzuki has a prayer of winning.

 

Are you hoping they'll admit they use a Ouija Board to formulate their
opinions? I am sure they believe their methods are fair and that their
results are significant. How is that different than almost all the rest
of the media?

Ed

 

Strawman. Invalid logic. Freedom of press does not include libel, slander,
or yelling fire in a crowded theatre when there is none.

 

And exactly how did you ascertain this "harder to roll" claim with the scientific
method? What tests have you (or someone else that you cite) done with a vehicle
with outriggers, and the same vehicle without outriggers, as a control to the
experiment to judge the handling characteristics of each? Even your claim
indicates the tested vehicle has different characteristics than a stock vehicle,
making the test useless.

 

As 'scientists and engineers' creating and doing these tests
they should know better. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to
see the flaws in their methods. It's all undergrad stuff.

So because a large segment of the media either prints outright lies and
is unknowledgable about the subject matter they write on this excuses
CR? CR isn't like the new york times, it's speciality magazine, I hold
it to a higher standard. When their tests end up having influence
on products then I have to hold them to a higher standard as well.

I am considering writing the local NBC station for the idiot story
they just ran. They did a half-assed test showing that people can't
see a toddler 25 feet from their rear bumper. Bullshit. They used
a traffic cone that was bumper high. Personally I know that something
of that height disappears aproxmately 5-6 feet from my car. And that's
just using the mirrors. Just another scare story from media types
that don't know shiznit. But, if CR were to do something like this
we'd soon be hearing how vehicles needed bumper mounted cameras
and collision sensor overrides that automatically apply th brakes
in short order. If not from CU themselves, then folks like Nader
and the rest.

 

So CR threatened the public safety? LOL!

For which they've got to prove the claim was (1) untrue and (2) done with
reckless malice.