Summary

Sharper Image Corporation v. Consumers Union of United States (2004)

“ In the October 2003 article, Consumers Union provided an example of an “irrelevant” study: “For example one Virginia study used the Ionic Breeze only as a particle sampler, not an air cleaner.” (See Heim Decl., filed January 23, 2004, Ex. B at 27.) As both Dr. Hammond and Prof. Lippmann have stated, “measuring or sampling air to determine the quantity of a pollutant in the air is irrelevant to the determination of whether a device is effective in cleaning, or removing, the pollutant from the air.” ”
Source: Wikisource

Sharper Image Corporation v. Consumers Union of United States (2004)

“ Consumers Union, in an article titled “Household Air Cleaners,” published in the October 1992 issue of Consumer Reports, states:
There is no universally accepted performance standard for comparing air cleaners. The closest thing to one is the clean air delivery rate (CADR) , which expresses the number of cubic feet of clean air a unit delivers each minute. The CADR, developed and certified by [AHAM] is used by some air-cleaner manufacturers on their products. For rooms of various sizes, the CADR is based on both the percentage of particles removed and how quickly they are removed.
”
Source: Wikisource

Sharper Image Corporation v. Consumers Union of United States (2004)

“ As the Supreme Court recognized in New York Times, “would-be critics . . . may be deterred from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed to be true and even though it is in fact true, because of doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so.” To the extent this occurs, consumers would be less informed, less able to make effective use of their purchasing power, and generally less satisfied in their choice of goods. ”
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature