How can Consumer reports keep companies from quoting their ratings?
January 20, 2012 11:54 AM Subscribe
How can Consumer reports keep companies from quoting their ratings?
The explanation is on their website at http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/aboutus/adviolation/read-the-policy/index.htm
I don't understand why their magazine doesn't fall under fair use, and how they can legally get away with telling people they can't use the reviews, even as a quote. Has this been tested in courts?
The explanation is on their website at http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/aboutus/adviolation/read-the-policy/index.htm
I don't understand why their magazine doesn't fall under fair use, and how they can legally get away with telling people they can't use the reviews, even as a quote. Has this been tested in courts?
When companies give review copies to CR, I would imagine that they'd have to sign a contract forbidding them from citing CR in their advertisements.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:04 PM on January 20, 2012
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:04 PM on January 20, 2012
FYI, CR buys all of their test units at retail, they're not "given" anything. Seconding kindall though, while they probably couldn't legally prevent you from quoting their ratings, they can definitely stop reviewing your products.
posted by Oktober at 12:06 PM on January 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by Oktober at 12:06 PM on January 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
Shows what I know.
Either way, I would imagine that, even in addition to CR no longer reviewing your products, CR would be all too happy to throw a PR stinkbomb your way should you violate their policy.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:07 PM on January 20, 2012
Either way, I would imagine that, even in addition to CR no longer reviewing your products, CR would be all too happy to throw a PR stinkbomb your way should you violate their policy.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:07 PM on January 20, 2012
They mention that it violates N.Y. General Business Law §397:
No person, firm, association or corporation shall use, for advertising purposes or for purposes of trade, the name, symbol, device or other identification of any non-profit corporation, association, society or organization organized exclusively… to inform or educate the consumer by publishing and disseminating the results of tests and evaluations of goods and services, without having first obtained the written consent of such non-profit corporation, association, society or organization. Any violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor.posted by grouse at 12:09 PM on January 20, 2012 [6 favorites]
CR would be all too happy to throw a PR stinkbomb your way should you violate their policy.
I bet that would backfire onto CR. Their ratings are only worthwhile if they are objective for the tested set. If they refuse to review the iPad in with their tablets, I can take those results for what they're worth. If they give the iPad a 1/2 star rating because they are pissed at Apple, their ratings have lost credibility.
posted by gauche at 12:21 PM on January 20, 2012
I bet that would backfire onto CR. Their ratings are only worthwhile if they are objective for the tested set. If they refuse to review the iPad in with their tablets, I can take those results for what they're worth. If they give the iPad a 1/2 star rating because they are pissed at Apple, their ratings have lost credibility.
posted by gauche at 12:21 PM on January 20, 2012
I bet that would backfire onto CR. Their ratings are only worthwhile if they are objective for the tested set. If they refuse to review the iPad in with their tablets, I can take those results for what they're worth. If they give the iPad a 1/2 star rating because they are pissed at Apple, their ratings have lost credibility.
That's not what I meant. I mean, putting out a press release indicating that Apple would be the first, sad company to break the trust that CR has with its readers and with manufacturers, etc. etc. etc. People like and respect CR.
But anyway, breaking a New York law would be even worse than bad PR.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:28 PM on January 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
That's not what I meant. I mean, putting out a press release indicating that Apple would be the first, sad company to break the trust that CR has with its readers and with manufacturers, etc. etc. etc. People like and respect CR.
But anyway, breaking a New York law would be even worse than bad PR.
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:28 PM on January 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Here is some background on Quantum Dishwashing Detergent using the CR test results in recent advertisements.
posted by dpaul at 12:45 PM on January 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by dpaul at 12:45 PM on January 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
Here is some background on Quantum Dishwashing Detergent using the CR test results in recent advertisements.
Interesting. It also contains a comment by someone who purports to be a senior director of CR. But it doesn't look like CR will do anything about it besides whine.
posted by grouse at 2:16 PM on January 20, 2012
Interesting. It also contains a comment by someone who purports to be a senior director of CR. But it doesn't look like CR will do anything about it besides whine.
posted by grouse at 2:16 PM on January 20, 2012
They mention that it violates N.Y. General Business Law §397
That's a weird law. I don't see how that passes first amendment scrutiny.
posted by jayder at 2:46 PM on January 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
That's a weird law. I don't see how that passes first amendment scrutiny.
posted by jayder at 2:46 PM on January 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
I've been a CR subscriber for many years...this is from my memory of things described in the editorials of the magazine:
Several companies have used the words "leading consumer publication" over many years - at least 30 years. CR always objects to that but legally seem to leave that alone. Over the same period, a company or two quoted "Consumer Reports" by name, and CR sent cease-and-desist and followed with lawsuits. Usually these were resolved with a settlement and the companies stop. Over the years, the magazine has called for a boycott (not using that word) on a company or two for ads too closely implying Consumer Reports or using the name outright.
The one big stick CR has is that it can do another test and leave that company out, and that fact or threat seems to reduce the future improper commercial use of CR ratings.
Note that it is always a new company or a small company with its first ad campaign that ever tries this. Well established companies don't.
posted by caclwmr4 at 4:23 PM on January 20, 2012
Several companies have used the words "leading consumer publication" over many years - at least 30 years. CR always objects to that but legally seem to leave that alone. Over the same period, a company or two quoted "Consumer Reports" by name, and CR sent cease-and-desist and followed with lawsuits. Usually these were resolved with a settlement and the companies stop. Over the years, the magazine has called for a boycott (not using that word) on a company or two for ads too closely implying Consumer Reports or using the name outright.
The one big stick CR has is that it can do another test and leave that company out, and that fact or threat seems to reduce the future improper commercial use of CR ratings.
Note that it is always a new company or a small company with its first ad campaign that ever tries this. Well established companies don't.
posted by caclwmr4 at 4:23 PM on January 20, 2012
Best answer: Nothing legally, but morally, CR is one of the most honest publications out there, so violating the spirit of their work, well, sucks. If you want to keep your brand clean you don't do it.
I don't think there's any law that specifically prohibits it, but since they are a non-profit, they cannot appear to be biased or sponsoring anything they review. Mature companies understand this.
posted by roboton666 at 4:35 PM on January 20, 2012
I don't think there's any law that specifically prohibits it, but since they are a non-profit, they cannot appear to be biased or sponsoring anything they review. Mature companies understand this.
posted by roboton666 at 4:35 PM on January 20, 2012
I cannot find a link for this, but I seem to remember that they sued a company over this issue. If I'm remembering correctly, it fell into a copyright issue.
posted by Houstonian at 4:47 PM on January 20, 2012
posted by Houstonian at 4:47 PM on January 20, 2012
Best answer: The statement on their website seems like a bunch of hoo-ha. They forbid even mentioning the name Consumer Reports in a commercial context? That would never stand. No company gets to decide "you can't even mention us."
Furthermore, "fair use" is not optional. Companies can not decide that their publications are exempted from it. So yes, they can threaten, and they can sue, but a lot of what they are forbidding is stuff that certainly falls under fair use.
posted by jayder at 4:50 PM on January 20, 2012
Furthermore, "fair use" is not optional. Companies can not decide that their publications are exempted from it. So yes, they can threaten, and they can sue, but a lot of what they are forbidding is stuff that certainly falls under fair use.
posted by jayder at 4:50 PM on January 20, 2012
Best answer: I found the case. They sued the makers of Regina vacuum cleaners. Apparently they lost, but I think it speaks to the power of Consumer Reports' reputation that the only facts I remembered was that somebody did this, and they got sued for copyright issues -- a memory from 1983. And honestly, I'd think twice about buying a Regina even today, now that the memory has been refreshed in my mind. So maybe they can't legally prevent it, but companies face long-term consequences.
posted by Houstonian at 5:18 PM on January 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by Houstonian at 5:18 PM on January 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
Best answer: Here's what the Second Circuit had to say about the New York law in that case:
posted by grouse at 5:27 PM on January 20, 2012
Section 397 of the New York General Business Law prohibits use of the name of a non-profit corporation for advertising purposes without first obtaining written consent. We do not believe that the legislature intended that Sec. 397 should apply to a situation where the non-profit corporation's business is that of evaluating products and where it widely disseminates the results. Not only does CONSUMER REPORTS favorably assess the Regina Powerteam, but it attempts to spread this assessment through newspapers and radio announcements. The purpose of Sec. 397 and similar state statutes is to protect the right to privacy. By going public with its views, CU places itself in a position where its privacy is not infringed when these views are repeated.The statute must have changed to specifically include associations organized "to inform or educate the consumer by publishing and disseminating the results of tests and evaluations of goods and services" after and as a result of this case.
Absent state decisional law to the contrary, we hold that Sec. 397 is not intended to bar the use of the name of a non-profit corporation where it injects itself into the commercial world by publicly evaluating commercial products.
posted by grouse at 5:27 PM on January 20, 2012
jayder: IIRC, commercial/business speech generally enjoys less 1st Amendment protection than individual speech, but I'm not sure how much that would help CR.
posted by Hither at 11:53 PM on January 20, 2012
posted by Hither at 11:53 PM on January 20, 2012
Yes, I'm aware of that, but commercial speech DOES enjoy first amendment protection, and even under the reduced protection afforded commercial speech, these strictures seem constitutionally untenable.
posted by jayder at 5:43 AM on January 21, 2012
posted by jayder at 5:43 AM on January 21, 2012
This thread is closed to new comments.
On the other hand, it sure would be a shame if Consumer Reports stopped reviewing Dryzall clothes dryers...
posted by kindall at 12:01 PM on January 20, 2012