Air Ioniser - Consumer Reports Court Case

Consumer Reports Court Case

Consumer Reports, a non-profit U.S.-based product-testing magazine, reported in October 2003 that air ionizers do not perform to high enough standards compared to conventional HEPA filters. The exception was a combination unit that used a fan to move air while ionizing it. In response to this report, The Sharper Image, a manufacturer of air ionizers (among other products), sued Consumer's Union (the publishers of Consumer Reports) for product defamation. Consumer Reports gave the Ionic Breeze and other popular units a "fail" because they have a low Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR). CADR measures the amount of filtered air circulated during a short period of time, and was originally designed to rate media-based air cleaners. The Sharper Image claimed that this test was a poor way to rate the Ionic Breeze, since it does not take into account other features, such as 24-hour a day continuous cleaning, ease of maintenance, and silent operation. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California subsequently struck down The Sharper Image's complaint and dismissed the case, reasoning that The Sharper Image had failed to demonstrate that it could prove any of the statements made by Consumer Reports were false. The Court's final ruling in May 2005 ordered The Sharper Image to pay US$ 525,000 for Consumer Union's legal expenses.