Truth and consequences: Suzuki vs. consumers union.(have you heard?)

Every month, one of the best-read pages in CONSUMER REPORTS is Recalls & Safety Alerts. That's because you read this magazine not just to learn about the good stuff, but also to find out about the bad: the disappointing, the flawed, the dangerous. You want to know what went bang in our labs and bust on our test track. You use that information to make informed choices about what you want to buy and what you don't.

Most manufacturers recognize that our test reports are independent, objective, and honest. They frequently use our results as one measure of how their products compare with others, and they often make improvements if their products fall short.

Not so with Suzuki. The company was alerted that its Samurai had stability problems not only by CONSUMER REPORTS, but also by General Motors, federal judges, customers filing accident reports, and at least nine other news organizations that reviewed the vehicle. Suzuki sold the SUV anyway. It has since used what a Federal Appeals Court judge called "scorched-earth litigation tactics" to single out and punish us for publishing out findings.

In 1988, when we tested four SUVs on our track, the Samurai was the only one that tipped up--severely and repeatedly. "We judged the vehicle "Not Acceptable." Suzuki did not sue; nor did it change the product. Then, in 1996, the year after it stopped selling the Samurai in the U.S., Suzuki filed a lawsuit charging that we had deliberately tipped up the vehicle to generate a sensational story that would sell magazines. Those charges are false and were made to discredit CU.

We anticipate that the jury trial in this matter will start later this year--16 years after we initially published our conclusions about the Samurai test results. It's not the first time this case has been in court. In 2000, the trial judge dismissed the case after reviewing all the evidence and concluding that the record did not support the charges. Suzuki appealed, and in 2003, over the strenuous objections of almost hall of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the case was sent back for a trial.

Writing the dissent on behalf of himself and 10 other judges, Judge Alex Kozinski said, "I have read CU's review of the Samurai and Suzuki's criticism of its methodology After all that, I can only say I would long hesitate before letting anyone I care about ride or drive in one of these vehicles."

Out test results were not the only grounds for concluding that the Samurai was unsafe. Consider these facts: