A Public Entreaty in Suzuki Lawsuit
Consumer Reports magazine is enlisting its readers in a campaign to defend against an 8-year-old lawsuit that alleges it doctored road tests to conclude that the Suzuki Samurai tipped over easily.
A California jury trial is scheduled for October in the case.
The magazine’s March issue includes a column highly critical of the lawsuit filed by Suzuki Motor Corp. over 1988 road tests of its Samurai model.
The column tells readers they can “write to Suzuki expressing your concern regarding its punitive lawsuit.” It also urges letters to General Motors Corp., which has a 20% stake in Suzuki, and gives the names and addresses of the companies’ top officers.
George Bell, Suzuki’s managing counsel, called the column “highly inappropriate.”
“For Consumers Union to try to try its case in the media is deplorable,” he said. “They are trying to mislead, and they are trying to influence the potential jury pool.”
Jim Guest, president of the magazine’s parent organization, Consumers Union, said the move was necessary to counter “a fierce attack on us in the court of public opinion.” Guest, who wrote the column, said it was the first time the magazine had sought such support from readers in any of the 15 lawsuits that have been filed against it.
Samurai sales plunged after Consumer Reports’ tests led the magazine to brand the SUV “not acceptable.” Other news organizations also reported possible dangers.
Samurai production ended in 1995, and Suzuki sued in 1996 in Santa Ana, claiming Consumer Reports employees designed their road tests to make the Samurai tip and then used the reports to make money in fundraising and subscription drives.
The case was thrown out by the trial judge, but the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated it. In allowing the suit to go to trial, the justices said it was up to a jury to decide whether the magazine’s report was rigorous but fair or false and deceptive.
In November, the Supreme Court declined to stop it from going forward, clearing the way for a jury to decide it.
Lawyers for Consumers Union, joined by a number of news organizations, had urged the high court to block the trial, arguing that the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press should shield the magazine from being forced to stand trial for a report critical of a product it saw as a public danger.
The court, however, refused to hear the appeal, returning the case to federal court in Santa Ana, where the Japanese automaker -- which has its U.S. headquarters in Brea -- filed its complaint.
