Isuzu defamation suit against Consumer Reports goes to jury

The Associated Press

04.03.00

Printer-friendly page

LOS ANGELES — Isuzu Motors Ltd. sued the publisher of Consumer Reports for defamation, not because the organization lied about the tendency of the Isuzu Trooper to roll over but to find a scapegoat for declining sales, Consumer Union's lawyer told jurors during his closing argument last week.

Attorney Joseph Cotchett also said during the March 31 hearing that the lawsuit represents a dangerous challenge to Consumers Union's free-speech and free-press rights.

"This is all about the First Amendment and the ability to speak freely in this country," he told the jury.

Earlier that day, Isuzu attorney Andrew White told jurors that Consumers Union rigged tests of the Isuzu Trooper and then reported the false results to boost declining circulation for Consumer Reports magazine and to pressure the federal government to halt sales of sport-utility vehicles.

"What they did is morally wrong, what they did is legally wrong, and what they did hurt Isuzu's reputation and Isuzu's sales," he told the jury, which was to begin deliberations today after taking the weekend off.

Isuzu says it suffered $244 million in lost sales and damage to its reputation after Consumers Union released the test results at an August 1996 news conference and then published them in Consumer Reports.

Isuzu's lawsuit accuses Consumers Union of defamation, product disparagement and unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices.

In his closing argument to the jury of eight women and two men, Cotchett said it was actually Isuzu that was trying to bolster faltering sales by suing over the Trooper tests.

"This case is an excuse case," he said.

He said Consumers Union would not have published its findings just months after being sued by Suzuki for making similar claims about its Samurai sport-utility vehicle if it wasn't sure they were true.

"Does it make sense for Consumers Union to take another automobile and tip it over intentionally?" he asked. "What was the motive for the Consumers Union to take a 60-year reputation and throw it out the window?"

But in any case, the attorney said, Consumers Union's right to express its opinion was protected by the First Amendment, even if some of the statements at issue might be inaccurate.

"They're an organization that gives advice. They're an organization that deals in opinion," he said, adding that opinion cannot be libelous.

But, he said, the organization stands by the claims it made about the Trooper, including that in 75 out of 192 test runs, two of the vehicle's wheels left the ground when the driver simulated an emergency swerve.

"There is not a single bit of untruthfulness in any statement that was made," he said.

White said Consumers Union used "driving stunts" and falsified documents to make it appear the Trooper was vulnerable to a rollover.

He said evidence presented during the U.S. District Court trial that began Feb. 9 showed the 1995-96 Trooper was "one of the best-built and safest SUVs on the road."

"Consumers Union knew the safety record of the Trooper in 1996 but they hid these facts from the public," White said.