OT Court lets Automaker sue Consumer Reports

You're hopelessly stupid.

You idiot. Read the damn magazine! The individual circles are absolute data

-- what % of readers reported a problem. The overall reliability rating is compared to the average vehicle of that model year.

You caught them in nothing. You're just too stupid to read the magazine.

No, the appeals court simply said a jury should decide; not a reversal of the judge's ruling on the evidence but a procedural one.

The latter involves a threat to the public safety, so it's irrelevant here. The first two require that the claim to false and that it be made with malice

-- reckless disregard for the truth. A high if not impossible standard. Suzuki will have to prove the Samurai does not roll. Can they do that?

It's still unethical--not to mention counterproductive--to do exactly that, no matter how common it is, in any instance where you're trying to find out what's really going on.

--Aardwolf.

You won't see me argue that CU was trying to find the truth. They were trying to provide support for their belief that the Samurai was unsafe. I don't think you can claim this is the same as lying.

Ed

They were trying to re-design the test after deciding it was inadequate to catch instability that they had already discovered in the Suzuki. The re-designed test became their new test for all SUV's in the future. Nothing wrong with that althought cheers on the videotape could be interpreted as malice towards the Suzuki. However malice alone would not make the results slander or libel. The results would also have to be a lie.

exactly that, no

don't think you can

Many tests in the real world have the effect of changing results. They had already found the Suzuki unstable. So they designed a test that would demonstrate it and could be used on other vehicles because the old test did not do the job. Seems to me that designing the test on one of the lightest vehicles to be tested was likely to ensure that it would not affect results on heavy vehicles.

unacceptable.

inertia (look

substantially

control to the

In a jury case, after the plaintiff presents his evidence the defendent can make a motion to the judge asking him to rule that the evidence was so flimsy a prima facia case was not made. Evidently the judge ruled for the defendent on the motion and has now been reversed.

malicously

reversal of the

revise

video'd

reporting

For once I almost agree with Lloyd. Now that a judge has ruled that there might be evidence of malice (enough such that a jury should get to decide) Suzuki still has to convince the jury of malice and that the car does not roll. I doubt they will be able to prove either.

revise their

video'd tests

interpret

reporting its

irrelevant here.

standard.

I think we are in violent agreement.

Ed

If they were trying to set up an experiment specifically to back a position that had already been decided upon, then lying or not, it certainly wasn't honest or even valid research. If they were trying to do a further experiment to find out whether _or not_ their first finding was correct, that would be a different matter.

--Aardwolf.

The problem was that they more than gave their opinion - they launched a full media campaign about it - it got all over the news. Their video (the one they liked the "best") was spammed all over the place reguardless of the fact that they are safe vehicles if driven correctly. The same problems were present on the old Jeeps as well, and even today's Wrangler is known to tip over much easier than most in the industry, especially if you raise the suspension(which many people do).

Millions of Jeeps and Samurais sold and I don't know of anyone who has ever had a problem with them as long as they drive them correctly.

And this is what will get them in trouble. For libel, all that has to be proven is altering the results to fit your premise(ie - doctoring the results).

Hold on to that thought.

And this is the problem. Questionable test methods are one thing. Running a test over and over and deliberately trying to make it tip over - that's a problem. Why? Because they then spammed all over the place about that last set of data where they finally got the results they wanted as if it were a routine occurance. As if it were a fact.

I suppose I could make a Hummer flip if I really tried. Of course, claiming it was normal driving would be a lie.

Yep. They repeated it again. Check out The Grand Cherokee. The vehicle is now more reliable than GM and Ford, yet they ignore the data. The whole magazine just makes no sense.

You can't pass off data in a publication as fact if it is merely opinion - that's why they have editors - to catch stuff like this.

Of course, CR never caught it, or retracted it - instead they spammed the news and their magazine for years about how the vehicle was unsafe and a virtual deathtrap.

My bet is that the original staffer that had the accident would have had the same thing happen in a Wrangler.

Where are they getting their "average" then? They plainly make it sound like their readers reviews determine that - and in 90% of the other vehicles, there is a direct parity between the reader feedback and the final ratings. Just average the individual areas.

Yet on several models, despite everyone in the industry and their readers' glowing reviews(no problems), they plunk in the old data. I can't imagine everyone i saying "we had zero problems but the car is a Yugo" - that makes no sense at all.

They just have to prove that it does not roll under normal driving conditions. CRs tests are obviously not "normal" conditions if they are purposely trying to make it tip over.

My spouse is a Ph.D. statistician at a leading pharmaceutical company. I am sure her employer pays substantially more than CR and yet they find it tremendous difficult to hire highly skilled statisticians and statistical programmers who know what they are doing. I'm not surprised to see this type of inconsistency in the CR survey results.

reliability

If you think that they made a special test for the Suzuki then you are wrong. The work they did resulted in a new test for SUV's.

However

They were trying to fix their old test which they concluded was flawed since the Suzuki passed the old test but was found by them to be unacceptable during certain maneuvers. So they used the Suzuki to come up with the design of a new test. By definition, the test would not be fully designed until the Suzuki flunked. After it flunked, that became the new specs for the test and all future SUV's would be tested that way.