OT Court lets Automaker sue Consumer Reports

There was never any mention of a "snow rut."

Wrong. That's why the judge dismissed the case -- he found Suzuki had no evidence.

Reply to
Lloyd Parker
Loading thread data ...

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

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

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.

-- C.R. Krieger "I've never *had* a maid! Probably never *will*!" - Margaret Dumont

Reply to
C.R. Krieger

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.

Reply to
Neil

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:

formatting link

(snip)

Reply to
Neil

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

Reply to
Daniel J. Stern

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.

Reply to
Joseph Oberlander

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.

Reply to
Joseph Oberlander

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

Reply to
Matthew S. Whiting

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

Reply to
Matthew S. Whiting

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

Reply to
C. E. White

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

Reply to
C. E. White

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.

Reply to
Art Begun

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

Reply to
Brent P

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.

lifted

,

extreme

interpret

Reply to
Art Begun

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.

extreme

interpret

Reply to
Art Begun

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

Reply to
C. E. White

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

Reply to
Greg Johnson

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.

Reply to
Greg Johnson

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.

Reply to
Brent P

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.