Notice the timeline. Even under California's "fast" new SLAPP anti-lawsuit abuse law, it still took *more* than a full year for the court system to finally dismiss the case against CU.
Posted on 11/30/2004 3:06:27 PM PST by FoxPro
In November 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed a lawsuit that the Sharper Image Corporation filed against Consumers Union (CU) over reviews of the Ionic Breeze Quadra air cleaner [1]. The lawsuit, filed in September 2003, concerned articles in the October 2003 and February 2002 issues of Consumer Reports which concluded that the Ionic Breeze was "ineffective" as an air cleaner and produced "almost no measurable reduction in airborne particles." CU is now entitled to reimbursement from Sharper Image for the legal fees and expenses incurred in its defense.
CU dismissal motion [2] was filed under California's Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) statute. The statute, originally enacted in 1992, provides a way for a defendant served with a complaint arising out of constitutionally protected speech to move for dismissal of the lawsuit at the outset—before the personal and financial costs of litigation pile up. Under the statute, a defendant can immediately bring a "special motion to strike" to force the plaintiff to show that its claims have legal and factual merit, thus placing a heavy burden of proof on the plaintiff. Regarding the anti-SLAPP motion, Michael Pollet, CU's long-time general counsel, stated:
Consumers Union believes the district court will see Sharper Image's lawsuit for what it really is—a meritless case aimed at silencing an honest critic that has held the public's trust for nearly 70 years. We are confident that we will prevail because our magazine's review of the Ionic Breeze is not only protected by the First Amendment, but is fully accurate, as Sharper Image well know [2].
CU's motion also stated that "Because Sharper Image cannot come forward with any evidence from which a finding of malice could be made, this action must be dismissed." The motion contends that there could be no finding of malice because CU's findings are opinions, based upon fully disclosed truthful facts. The challenged article fully discloses Sharper Image's criticisms of CU's testing procedure. Further support for CU's motion on malice comes from CU's use of two nationally known independent experts who reviewed and validated CU's test protocols, rejected Sharper Image's claims, and confirmed CU's opinions about Sharper Image's criticism, said Joseph W. Cotchett, CU's lead counsel on the defense [2].
In February 2002 issue, CR reported that the Ionic Breeze Quadra air cleaner "proved unimpressive" and that its tests "found almost no measurable reduction in airborne particles." [3] The company complained, maintaining that CR's tests, based on the industry standard for measuring clean-air delivery rate (CADR) were inadequate. Sharper Image replied that the Ionic Breeze technology is "vastly different" from that of other air cleaners and would fare better in a longer test.
CR's experts re-examined their test procedures and had them reviewed by an independent expert, who confirmed the validity of CR's methodology. This year, in addition to regular tests for air cleaner Ratings, CR then ran additional long-term tests to find out whether the Sharper Image technology is, as the company says, "so unique" that we have to "look beyond the limiting CADR test protocol" to evaluate it fairly. In these in-depth tests, CR tested the Sharper Image Ionic Breeze and the similar Honeywell Environizer against two high-scoring air cleaners, the Friedrich electrostatic precipitator and the Whirlpool HEPA filter.
In its extended testing, CR gauged how well each air cleaner could handle the periodic introduction of small amounts of pollutant into a sealed test chamber over a 6-hour period. One set of tests used smoke, another fine dust. A second set gauged how well each cleaner worked for the next 17 hours, after the last injection of pollutant. For both sets of tests, CR's experts ran the Ionic Breeze and the Environizer on high to maximize performance; the others were on low, their quietest setting. CR reported that the Ionic Breeze and the Environizer didn't come close to the performance of the others. CR's experts concluded that they were but ineffective and advised readers that there are much better air cleaner choices [4].
In dismissing the Sharper Image lawsuit, the court concluded that the company "has not shown that the test protocol used by Consumers Union was scientifically, or otherwise, invalid," and had not "demonstrated a reasonable probability that any of the challenged statements were false." [1]
In previous reports, CR has criticized the claims made for ozone-generating "air purification devices" of the type marketed by Living Air, Alpine Industries, and EcoQuest [5].
Californians have filed at least two lawsuits seeking class-action status for consumers who bought Ionic Breeze air purifiers from The Sharper Image during the past five years [6].
This article was revised on November 15, 2004.
Lungs.
Gotta go burn one, just finished supper.
/john
So, those things they advertise (and charge too much for) are a scam, eh?
$350 +
Appears that way. Reminds me of certain highly-hyped vacuum cleaner brands.
My-mother-in-law-swears-by-hers-so-my-wife's-gotta-have-one bump for later...
Notice the timeline. Even under California's "fast" new SLAPP anti-lawsuit abuse law, it still took *more* than a full year for the court system to finally dismiss the case against CU.
I did my own test on some Sharper Image stuff years ago.
Short story, stuff was junk and it was a real hassle getting my money back.
Sharper Image is on my No Buy List.
I actually liked mine. I bought my quadra refurbished 3 years ago for $150. Can't say I recomend it for a smoker though. My friend is a heavy smoker and tried one of these. The smoke adheres to the metal more than just dust or pollen, making it a pain to clean.
What did Consumer Reports pick as the best filter?
Here I was thinking all I had to do was open a window...
No, no, NO!
No offense, bt's NOT YOUR FAULT that you're overweight!
Try CORTISLIM!
< |:)~
That's still a huge improvement over the previous timetable. Often it's more than a year from the filing date before a court even begins to hear motions. This suit-happy country has to either reduce the number of cases filed or needs to build more courtrooms and hire more judges.
I got me one of those Orecks once....lasted about a year. Got sick of taking it in for repairs too. Wish I'd never fallen for it....especially at that price.
Who cares if it works. I watch the infomercial over and over because the short haired, brunette pitch-woman is very easy on the eyes (in an Audrey Hepburn kinda way). I'll buy whatever she sells.
Holmes makes a variety of relatively inexpensive air cleaners. Get one with a carbon filter (as well as HEPA). Works great.
I got mine at a True Value hardware store but I would imagine any "household" store would have them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.