Suzuki vs. CU: What you could lose

	PILED HIGH Just a few of many boxes of documents CU has had to assemble for the Suzuki lawsuit.

Amendment 1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.--U.S. Constitution

Since 1936 Consumers Union has published the objective, unbiased, accurate results of our consumer-product testing to tell consumers which products we found were effective, reliable, and safe--and which were not.

In 1988 we published the results of tests of four SUVs, including the Suzuki Samurai, which had tipped up severely on two wheels on CU's emergency-avoidance-maneuver course. The other three vehicles did not tip up. Consumer Reports judged the Samurai "Not Acceptable" because of the risk of rollover. In 1996 Suzuki sued us for product disparagement.

In 2000 a federal district judge dismissed the case, finding Suzuki's evidence too paltry to warrant a trial. Suzuki appealed and won a ruling that the case should go to trial. In May, CU's effort to have the full Court of Appeals rehear that ruling was denied by a vote of 13-to-11.

Writing the dissent, Judge Alex Kozinski said, "If Suzuki can get to trial on evidence this flimsy, no consumer group in the country will be safe from assault by hordes of handsomely paid lawyers deploying scorched-earth litigation tactics." He continued: "The ultimate losers will be American consumers denied access to independent information about the safety and usefulness of products they buy with their hard-earned dollars."

This is not just a lawsuit against Consumers Union. At risk is your right as a consumer to read independent opinions in any publication--not just of cars, but of movies or software or books or any other product.

CU was not the Samurai's only critic. In the 1980s, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Off-Road Magazine, among others, also raised concerns about its stability. The Philadelphia Daily News wrote, "Make a sudden, abrupt maneuver at speed and you’re courting Highway Hari-Kari."

But Suzuki chose to sue Consumers Union, a fight mischaracterized as "David [Suzuki] vs. Goliath [CU]." Yet Suzuki is a $12.5 billion company, 20.1 percent owned by General Motors, a $186.8 billion company; CU is a $165 million nonprofit owned by no one and accountable only to consumers.

CU is determined to fight for its constitutional right to state facts truthfully and express a considered judgment about them. The First Amendment is meaningless if honest critics can be bled dry by expensive court battles when deep-pocketed commercial interests file frivolous lawsuits like this one.

We're confident that CU will prevail, either on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court or, if necessary, in what will be an expensive, time-consuming trial. We appreciate the support of concerned consumers in this long battle for the right to speak candidly on critical safety issues.

Jim Guest President