Source: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Sharper_Image_Corporation_v._Consumers_Union_of_United_States
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 23:18:07+00:00

Document:
related portals: Case law, California.
On January 23, 2004, Consumers Union filed the instant motion, to which plaintiff Sharper Image Corporation (“Sharper Image”) responded by filing substantive opposition, as well as a request for a continuance to allow Sharper Image to engage in further discovery. By order filed February 23, 2004, the Court denied the motion in part, and made the following findings: (1) Consumers Union met its burden to show that Sharper Image’s claims against Consumers Union arise from acts in furtherance of free speech in connection with a public issue and, accordingly, under § 425.16(b), Sharper Image must show a “reasonable probability” it will prevail on its claims; (2) Sharper Image, in the Amended Complaint (“AC”), sufficiently pleaded that it has incurred pecuniary loss, and demonstrated a reasonable probability of establishing that it, in fact, has incurred such loss; (3) Consumers Union’s statements do not constitute nonactionable subjective comment; and (4) with respect to the elements of falsity and malice, Sharper Image demonstrated the propriety of Sharper Image’s conducting further discovery. (See Order Denying in Part and Continuing in Part Def.’s Mot. to Strike, filed February 23, 2004, at 1:24-2:19.) Accordingly, the Court denied Consumers Union’s motion to the extent it was based on grounds other than lack of falsity and malice, and, with respect to those two elements, continued the hearing on the motion and set a further briefing schedule.
The matter came on regularly for hearing on July 30, 2004. e. robert wallach of the Law Offices of e. robert wallach, P.C., and Alan L. Barry of Bell, Boyd & Lloyd LLC appeared on behalf of Sharper Image. Steven N. Williams of Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy appeared on behalf of Consumers Union. Having considered the papers submitted in support and in opposition to the motion, and the arguments of counsel, the Court rules as follows.
Sharper Image alleges that Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports magazine, made false statements concerning the IBQ in the February 2002 and October 2003 issues of Consumer Reports, (See AC¶¶ 3-4, 6-7), and that Consumers Union “knew its statements were false and misleading, or it acted with a reckless disregard for whether its statements in its reports were true or false,” (See AC¶ 55). According to Sharper Image, although Consumers Union knew the “IBQ’s electrostatic technology does not rely upon a mechanical fan to effectively move air,” Consumers Union used test criteria that were “inaccurate, unreliable, misleading, and entirely dependent on the existence of a mechanical fan.” (See AC¶ 8.) Moreover, Sharper Image alleges, Consumers Union “failed to conduct [the test employed] properly.” (See AC¶¶ 23-24.) As a result of the allegedly “false and disparaging statements,” Sharper Image claims it “lost . . . product sales it would have made,” (See AC¶ 11), and “experienced an overall increase in customer returns of Ionic Breeze products,” (See AC¶ 12).
Based on these allegations, Sharper Image asserts four causes of action, all arising under California law: (1) Product Disparagement; (2) Unfair Competition under § 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code; (3) Tortious Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage; and (4) Negligence.
Under California law, “[a] cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(b)(1).
“Once it is determined that an act in furtherance of protected expression is being challenged, the plaintiff must show a reasonable probability of prevailing in its claims for those claims to survive dismissal.” Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. Wornick, 264 F. 3d 832, 840 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation and citations omitted). “To do this, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the complaint is legally sufficient and supported by a prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). “This burden is much like that used in determining a motion for nonsuit or directed verdict, which mandates dismissal when no reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff.” Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). The court “accepts as true all evidence favorable to the plaintiff.” See Consumer Justice Center v. Trimedica Int’l, Inc. , 107 Cal. App. 4th 595, 605 (2003). If the defendant offers “opposing affidavits, the court cannot weigh them against the plaintiff’s affidavits, but must only decide whether the defendant’s affidavits, as a matter of law, defeat the plaintiff’s supporting evidence.” See Paul for Council v. Hanyecz, 85 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1365 (2001) (emphasis in original), disapproved on other grounds, Equilon Enterprises v. Consumer Cause, Inc., 29 Cal. 4th 53, 68 n.5 (2002). “Thus, a defendant’s anti-SLAPP motion should be granted when a plaintiff presents an insufficient legal basis for the claims or when no evidence of sufficient substantiality exists to support a judgment for the plaintiff.” Metabolife Int’l., 264 F. 3d at 840 (internal quotation and citation omitted).
“The First Amendment presupposes that the freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.” Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. , 466 U.S. 485, 503-04 (1984). The First Amendment also “presupposes that right conclusions are more likely to be gathered out of a multitude of tongues, than through any kind of authoritative selection.” See< New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964) (internal quotation and citation omitted). As the Supreme Court has noted, “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and [ ] it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks . . . .” See id. Indeed, the Supreme Court has recognized that “erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and that it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the breathing space that they need to survive.” See id. (internal quotation and alteration omitted). As the Supreme Court has further observed, “[w]hatever is added to the field of libel is taken from the field of free debate.” See id. at 722 (internal quotation and citation omitted). Accordingly, “significant constitutional protections [are] warranted in this area.” Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. , 497 U.S. 1, 15 (1990).
Consumer reporting enables citizens to make better informed purchasing decisions. Regardless whether particular statements made by consumer reporters are precisely accurate, it is necessary to insulate them from the vicissitudes of ordinary civil litigation in order to foster the First Amendment goals mentioned above. 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.
Moreover, “[t]hose who, by reason of the notoriety of their achievements or the vigor and success with which they seek the public’s attention, are properly classed as public figures . . . may recover for injury to reputation only on clear and convincing proof that the defamatory falsehood was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth,” See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. , 418 U.S. 323, 342 (1974), i.e., with “actual malice,” See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 279-80.
With these principles in mind, the Court turns to the issues of whether Sharper Image, which is a public figure and which challenges statements made on issues of public concern, has demonstrated it has a reasonable probability of proving any of the challenged statements are false and, if so, whether Consumers Union made such statements with knowledge of the falsity thereof or with reckless disregard for the truth.
Consumers Union describes itself as a “non-profit, independent organization providing consumers with information on goods, services, health, and personal finance,” (See Heim Decl., filed January 23, 2004, Ex. A at 4), and which has “performed product testing and reported the results of its testing since 1936,” (See id. 3). The statements Sharper Image challenges arise from Consumers Union’s reporting the results of its testing of certain portable air cleaners, including the IBQ.
For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds Sharper Image has not provided sufficient evidence to support a finding that, under any of these theories, whether alone or in combination, it has a reasonable probability of establishing that any of the challenged statements are false.
Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR) is defined as the measure of the delivery of contaminant free air by a portable household electric cord-connected room air cleaner, expressed in cubic feet per minute. More technically, Clean Air Delivery Rates are the rates of contaminant reduction in the test chamber when the unit is turned on, minus the rate of natural decay when the unit is not running, times the volume of the test chamber as measured in cubic feet.
At the outset, the Court observes that CADR is not itself a “test.” Rather, CADR is a “measure of air cleaner performance.” (See Parker Decl., filed December 15, 2004, Ex. B at 4.) AHAM has designed one specific test, the ANSI/AHAM AC-1-2002 (“AC-1"), to measure CADR. (See id. Ex. B.) The test designed by Consumers Union to measure CADR is, as discussed below, another such test. In any event, Sharper Image argues that any test measuring CADR is “inappropriate for evaluating the IBQ’s performance, at least when applied in isolation from other factors such as noise, energy consumption and consumer-use patterns.” (See Pl.’s Renewed Opp., filed May 21, 2004, at 9:18-20.) Consumers Union, however, rated each tested model in the category “noise” and included, as to each model, the annual energy cost. Thus, contrary to Sharper Image’s argument, Consumers Union expressly tested, and disclosed its results on, the factors of noise and energy consumption.
(3) In an article written by Bruce McDonald (“McDonald”) of Donaldson Company, Inc., which Sharper Image states was published in the “October 1999 Proceedings of the American Filtration and Separation Society,” McDonald states “there has been a substantial amount of action in air filter test standards and practices over the past several years.” (See id. Ex. 30 at 1; Ex. 31, second unnumbered page.) Among the examples of “action in air filter test standards and practices” that McDonald discusses are two, new, multi-part “cleanroom standards,” (See id. Ex. 30 at 1-2), and a “draft international standard” for “cabin air filters for automobiles,” (See id. Ex. 30 at 2). McDonald’s article, however, makes no reference to any standards and/or practices applicable to portable air cleaners.
(4) Katherine Hammond, PhD (“Dr. Hammond”), an environmental scientist retained by Consumers Union in June 2003 to “review and evaluate test protocols employed by [Consumers Union] in evaluating household air cleaners,” (See Hammond Decl., filed January 23, 2004, 1), stated in a handwritten note: “[I]t is a good measurement, but it has its limitations <– CADR <– the concepts are standard[;] takes into account flow rate,” (See Burke Decl., filed May 21, 2004, Ex. 25).
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. Tests performed to [AHAM’s] specifications provide CADR numbers for dust, smoke, and pollen. We believe the CADR numbers alone don’t provide a complete picture of an air cleaner’s effectiveness. It’s also necessary to know the unit’s total air-flow rate to properly assess efficiency. Two cleaners may have the same CADR, but the one with the lower total air flow will be the more efficient.
Sharper Image’s evidence of “criticism” of the CADR does not support a finding that Consumers Union’s statements that the IBQ is ineffective, unimpressive, removed few particles, performed poorly, or statements of a similar nature, are false. Consumers Union’s statements concerning the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of the IBQ are based, as Consumers Union states in its articles, on the results of its tests measuring the CADR of the air cleaners. None of the scientists or other parties who have “criticized” the CADR have stated, or even suggested, that a test result based on CADR measurements is scientifically unreliable. Cf. Consumer Justice Center, 107 Cal. App. 4th at 605 (holding where plaintiff offered evidence that defendant’s statement that its product was “scientifically proven” to increase breast size was “not supported by any reliable scientific proof,” plaintiff’s showing was sufficient to “withstand a special motion to strike pursuant to section 425.16”). On the contrary, each of the above-quoted sources has stated that a CADR measurement is, at least in the United States, a common or standard measurement of an air cleaner’s performance.
In short, although Sharper Image’s evidence indicates that some scientists and others are of the view that factors in addition to the CADR should be considered in measuring the performance of portable air cleaners, there is no evidence that the CADR is, as a scientific matter or otherwise, an invalid consideration. The fact that some scientists may be attempting to develop other or additional ways of measuring the performance of portable air cleaners does not support a finding that test results based on CADR measurements are false.
Sharper Image’s argument, that Consumers Union lied by equating effectiveness with the results of Consumers Union’s CADR measurements, essentially boils down to a marketing dispute, or, as Sharper Image put it at the hearing on the motion to strike, a “merchandising competitive battle,” (See Transcript of Proceedings, July 30, 2004, at 47-49), i.e. , whether consumers considering a purchase of a portable air cleaner would prefer a device that purports to clean air faster, but with potentially higher usage costs and noise, or would prefer a device that purports to clean air more slowly, but with potentially lower usage costs and no noise. Consumers Union, however, fully disclosed in its articles the potential benefits of the IBQ, specifically, very low annual energy costs, no filter costs, and lack of noise. Consumers Union also stated that it did not find such benefits to be advantageous in light of the fact that the IBQ, as Sharper Image concedes, does not clean the air quickly.
Consumers Union’s statements that the IBQ is ineffective are predicated on its determination that the speed at which portable air cleaning devices remove dust and smoke particles from the air is of concern to its readers and, accordingly, it gave the IBQ a “poor” rating in both articles. Sharper Image has not shown any probability, let alone a reasonable probability, that Consumers Union’s statements in that respect are false by reason of Consumers Union’s reliance, in forming such opinions, on the results of a test measuring CADR.
Additionally, with respect to Consumers Union’s statement that its tests were “based on the industry standard for measuring clean-air delivery rate (CADR),” Sharper Image has not shown such statement is false, given that Sharper Image’s own evidence shows that CADR is a common or standard measurement of an air cleaner’s performance.
In particular, Sharper Image argues that Consumers Union’s test deviated from AHAM’s AC-1 test protocol in the following ways: (1) Consumers Union did not test for pollen removal, (See Parker Decl., filed December 15, 2003, Ex. B at 2 (stating AC-1 “test particulate matter” is cigarette smoke, road dust, and pollen); Wallace Dep. at 43-44 (testifying Consumers Union tested for removal of cigarette smoke and road dust, but not pollen)); (2) Consumers Union’s test chamber was larger than that identified in the AC-1 test protocol, (See Parker Decl., filed December 15, 2003, Ex. B, Appendix A (stating AC-1 test chamber should be 1008 cubic feet, or “10 ½ ft. x 12 ft. x 8 ft”); Wallace Dep. at 76 (testifying Consumers Union’s test chambers was 1700 cubic feet); Nanni Dep. at 62-63 (testifying dimensions of Consumers Union’s test chamber “roughly like 12 by 17 or 12 by 18”)); (3) Consumers Union did not use a continuous fan, (See Parker Decl., filed December 15, 2003, Ex. B at 5 (stating, for AC-1, “recirculation fan is to be operated throughout all tests”); Wallace Dep. at 99 (testifying Consumers Union did not run continuous fan during its testing)); and (4) Consumers Union turned on the air cleaners manually, rather than remotely, (See Parker Decl., filed December 15, 2003, Ex. B at 7-8 (stating, for AC-1, air cleaners should be “turn[ed] on” after “chamber valve” is closed); Wallace Dep. 182 (testifying Consumers Union’s staff manually turned on air cleaners by “dash[ing] in and dash[ing] out” of test chamber)).
Consumers Union did not represent, in either of the two subject articles or in any statement republished by third parties, that the test protocol it employed to measure CADR was the AC-1 test protocol designed by AHAM. Consequently, to the extent Sharper Image argues that Consumers Union’s test protocol “deviated” from the AHAM-designed test, such evidence, standing alone, is insufficient to support a finding that any of Consumers Union’s statements were false. Rather, the issue presented by evidence of any “deviation” is whether Consumers Union’s statements concerning the effectiveness of the IBQ, which were based on the results of tests whose protocol differed from the AC-1, were false because the deviations from the AC-1 test protocol rendered Consumers Union’s results unreliable. See, e.g., Consumer Justice Center, 107 Cal. App. 4th at 605 (holding plaintiff had reasonable probability of proving statements about efficacy of product were false where statements “not supported by any reliable scientific proof”).
The above-discussed testimony by Dr. Hammond is insufficient to “support a prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if [it] is credited.” See Metabolife, 264 F. 3d at 840. First, Sharper Image has not shown that the test discussed in Dr. Hammond’s July 18, 2003 memorandum, specifically, the test described in the “July 2000 report for Performance Analytical, Inc,” was conducted under conditions similar to those under which Consumers Union’s test was performed. See Unelko Corp. , 912 F. 2d at 1056-57 (holding, where plaintiff alleged defendant’s statement that plaintiff’s product “didn’t work” was false and offered evidence that its own tests showed product was effective, plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient to establish falsity in absence of showing that tests performed by plaintiff and defendant occurred “under same conditions”). Second, even assuming the results of a test measuring an air cleaner’s CADR would be unreliable if particles entered or exited the chamber as a result of a person’s entering the test chamber to manually turn on the air cleaner, Consumers Union has offered evidence that its “particle counter showed no effect at all” as a result of its staff entering the chamber to turn on the air cleaners, (See Wallace Dep. at 182:6-18), and Sharper Image has submitted no evidence to contradict Consumers Union’s showing.
In sum, Sharper Image has not submitted sufficient evidence to support a finding that Consumers Union’s manual turning on of the air cleaners rendered the results of its tests unreliable, and has offered no evidence to establish that the other “deviations” rendered Consumers Union’s test results unreliable. Under such circumstances, Sharper Image has not shown a reasonable probability of establishing falsity under the theory that Consumers Union, in forming its opinions, relied on the results of a test that deviated from the AC-1 test designed by AHAM to measure CADR.
To determine whether a statement is false, a court must examine the “context in which the statement was made.” See Monterey Plaza Hotel v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees, 69 Cal. App. 4th 1057, 1064 (1999). Specifically, a court must “look at the nature and full context of the communication and to the knowledge and understanding of the audience to whom the publication was directed.” See id. Here, Consumers Union plainly and succinctly disclosed what Consumers Union meant by an “effective” air cleaner. Specifically, Consumers Union explained that, in its view, if an air cleaner slowly removes particles from the air, “then running [it] for 24 hours is not going to make it an effective air cleaner when infiltration of air containing particles into a room continues.” (See Heim Decl., filed January 23, 2004, Ex. B at 27.) In the “bottom line” section of the portion of the article discussing Consumers Union’s long-term testing of air cleaners, Consumers Union, again disclosing its view that air cleaners are not effective if they clean air very slowly, stated that the IBQ was “ineffective” and that “considering how slowly [the IBQ] worked,” advised against its purchase. (See id.) Because Consumers Union disclosed that the IBQ did remove some particles from the air, albeit “slowly,” a reader would not understand Consumers Union to be claiming that the IBQ performed no better than “natural decay,” i.e., where no air cleaner was used.
Accordingly, Sharper Image has not shown a reasonable probability of proving any of the challenged statements are false by reason of the results of Consumers Union’s own testing.
Sharper Image does not contend, and there is no evidence, that any of the studies and reports on which it relies disclose the results of tests conducted under conditions similar to those performed by Consumers Union. Rather, Sharper Image’s evidence supports a finding that there exist divergent views as to what factors or criteria should be considered in determining whether a portable air cleaner is “effective.” As noted, Consumers Union disclosed in its articles the criteria on which it based its opinion as to effectiveness, specifically, how quickly each tested device could remove dust and tobacco smoke from the air. The experts on which Sharper Image relies have chosen to focus on other criteria, such as “odor intensity.” (See Campbell Decl., filed December 15, 2003, 13-15). Further, none of the experts on which Sharper Image relies has, at least in the studies and reports provided by Sharper Image, compared the IBQ to any other portable air cleaner. Thus, the fact that some researchers are of the opinion that the IBQ is “effective” does not create a triable issue of fact as to whether Consumers Union’s statements as to the effectiveness of the IBQ, which were based on the results of Consumers Union’s CADR measurements, are false.
We hired both Prof. Lippmann and S. Katherine Hammond . . . to evaluate the results of several studies that Sharper Image sent us to demonstrate the Ionic Breeze’s effectiveness. According to our two experts, some of those studies were irrelevant to the question of whether the Ionic Breeze was an effective air cleaner.” For example, one Virginia study used the Ionic Breeze only as a particle sampler, not an air cleaner. Other studies used questionable methodology or showed merely that the Sharper Image had little air-cleaning capability.
(See Heim Decl., filed January 23, 2004, Ex. B at 27.) Sharper Image alleges that the statements “some of those studies were irrelevant to the question of whether the Ionic Breeze was an effective air cleaner” and “[o]ther studies used questionable methodology or showed merely that the Sharper Image had little air-cleaning capability” are false. (See AC¶ 54.) Sharper Image fails, however, to offer sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it has a reasonable probability of proving either such statement is false.
Initially, the Court observes, as Consumers Union has pointed out, that neither of the challenged statements is a statement of Consumers Union, but rather, as is disclosed in the article, both are statements of Dr. Hammond and/or Prof. Lippmann. Sharper Image has offered no evidence that these opinions were not actually conveyed to Consumers Union by Dr. Hammond and/or Prof. Lippmann; Sharper Image thus appears to be asserting that the statements of Dr. Hammond and/or Prof. Lippmann are false and that Consumers Union is liable for republishing such allegedly false statements. Accordingly, the Court next turns to the issue of whether Sharper Image has demonstrated a reasonable probability of establishing that the statements of Dr. Hammond and/or Prof. Lippmann are false.
With respect to Consumers Union’s statement that Dr. Hammond and/or Prof. Lippmann concluded that “other” studies provided by Sharper Image “used questionable methodology or showed merely that the Sharper Image had little air-cleaning capability,” Consumers Union has offered evidence explaining the basis on which its experts formed such opinions. Specifically, Dr. Hammond advised Consumers Union that, in her opinion, studies conducted by Performance Analytical had “serious limitations,” including having the “cleaned air [ ] blown at the particle monitors” and having “initial conditions var[ying] greatly from experiment to experiment and between the two chambers [used in the studies].” (See Asher Decl., filed January 23, 2004, Ex. K, third unnumbered page.) Additionally, both Dr. Hammond and Prof. Lippmann have declared that “several” of the studies submitted by Sharper Image to Consumers Union “provide data that are, in fact, consistent with [Consumers Union’s] test results for submicrometer sized particles.” (See Hammond Decl., filed January 23, 2004, 11; Lippmann Decl., filed January 23, 2004, 11.) Sharper Image has offered no evidence that the studies conducted by Performance Analytical did not have the limitations identified by Dr. Hammond or that some of the studies it submitted to Consumers Union provided data consistent with Consumers Union’s results for submicrometer sized particles.
Accordingly, Sharper Image has not shown a reasonable probability of proving any of Consumers Union’s challenged statements are false based on the results of Sharper Image’s testing.
As noted, among the false statements Sharper Image alleges Consumers Union has made are statements that the Friedrich and the IBQ “both use similar technology,” (See AC¶ 51), and that the Friedrich earned “high marks” from Consumers Union, (See AC¶ 53).
With respect to “both use similar technology,” Sharper Image argues the statement is false because the Friedrich, unlike the IBQ, uses a fan. (See Pl.’s Renewed Opp., filed May 21, 2004, at 8:14-15.) The February 2002 Consumer Reports article, in which the challenged statement was made, states that Consumers Union had tested two air cleaners that “use an electronic precipitator,” the Friedrich and the IBQ. (See Heim Decl., filed January 23, 2004, Ex. A at 46.) Moreover, the article disclosed that the Friedrich uses a fan, while the IBQ does not. (See id.) Thus, contrary to Sharper Image’s assertion, the only reasonable understanding of “similar technology,” in context, is as a reference to the fact that both the Friedrich and the IBQ use an electronic precipitator, not that both the Friedrich and the IBQ have, or do not have, a fan. See Monterey Plaza Hotel, 69 Cal. App. 4th at 1064 (holding court, in determining falsity, must consider “full context” of statement).
With respect to the statement that the Friedrich received “high marks” from Consumers Union, Sharper Image has failed to set forth any theory as to how it can establish the statement is false; consequently, for this reason alone, Sharper Image is not entitled to proceed on claims based on such statement. See Metabolife Int’l, 264 F. 3d at 840 (holding plaintiff has burden to demonstrate its claims are “supported by a prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited”). In any event, both of the subject Consumer Reports articles disclose the results of the testing conducted by Consumers Union, which results demonstrate the Friedrich’s ability to quickly remove particles from the air. As noted, Sharper Image has not shown that the test protocol used by Consumers Union was scientifically, or otherwise, invalid, nor does Sharper Image suggest Consumers Union did not actually obtain the results it reported as to the Friedrich.
Because Sharper Image has not demonstrated a reasonable probability that any of the challenged statements were false, the Court does not reach the issue of whether Sharper Image can establish that any false statement was made with actual malice.
For the reasons expressed above, Consumers Union’s motion to strike Sharper Image’s Amended Complaint is hereby GRANTED.
This order closes Docket Nos. 54, 83, and 208.
^ Sharper Image argues that the instant motion is, as a matter of procedure, “inappropriate and unfair” because Consumers Union’s special motion to strike the initial compliant is “still pending.” (See Pl.s’ Response to Def.’s Special Motion to Strike Amended Complaint, filed February 6, 2004, at 1:6-10.) As Consumers Union points out, however, the instant motion is directed at “the only version of the complaint that is at issue,” the Amended Complaint. (See Def.’s Reply, filed February 17, 2004.) Under the circumstances, the Court finds no procedural impropriety in the filing of the instant motion.
^ The Court’s jurisdiction over the instant action is based on diversity.
^ Section 425.15 is an “anti-SLAPP” statute. See Metabolife, 264 F. 3d at 837. “Anti-SLAPP” is an acronym for “Anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” See id. at 837 n. 7. “The purpose of the statute is to protect individuals from meritless, harassing lawsuits whose purpose is to chill protected expression.” Id.
^ The Consumer Reports articles that are the subject of the instant action contain many statements. Sharper Image has identified in its AC and/or in its papers submitted in opposition to Consumers Union’s motion certain of those statements as being the allegedly false statements at issue, which statements the Court has set forth, infra. Accordingly, the Court has considered whether Sharper Image has made, with respect to the identified statements, “a prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited,” See Metabolife, 264 F. 3d at 840, and has not attempted to determine whether there may exist in the articles any other statements that could be considered false.
^ The article also includes ratings for 18 models of whole-house air cleaners; (See id.); that portion of the article is not implicated by the instant action.
^ This statement is not mentioned in the AC. In its opposition, Sharper Image identifies the statement as one of the statements at issue in the instant action. (See Pl.’s Response to Def.’s Special Motion to Strike, filed February 6, 2004, at 13:24-25.) Consumers Union has not challenged Sharper Image’s inclusion of the statement as within the scope of the instant action.
^ Sharper Image does offer evidence that AHAM has not “certified” the IBQ, (See Parker Decl., filed December 15, 2003, Ex. A), a fact Consumers Union disclosed in the February 2002 article, (See Heim Decl., filed January 23, 2004, Ex. A at 47). AHAM, however, only “certifies,” i.e., measures CADR for a particular air cleaner, when the manufacturer agrees to “voluntarily participate in the AHAM certification program.” (See Parker Decl., filed December 15, 2003, Ex. A, third unnumbered page.) Thus, the fact that AHAM has not “certified” the IBQ does not support an inference that the CADR measurement is inapplicable to the IBQ, only that Sharper Image has not agreed to have the CADR of the IBQ measured and/or reported by AHAM.
^ According to the website article, the “important considerations that should be factored” are: (1) “Initial performance ratings”; (2) “Extended performance ratings”; (3) “Maintenance and upkeep requirements”; (4) “Noise level ratings”; (5) Potential for secondary emissions of contaminants”; (6) “Rating information that would be simple for consumers to understand”; (7) “Size of room for which an 80% reduction of contaminant is feasible”; and (8) “A proposed effectiveness factor accounting for competing processes afforded by ventilation and deposition. The magnitude of reduction in contaminant (provided by an air cleaner) depends on the air cleaner’s removal rate compared to removal by all other processes.” (See id. Ex. 27, third unnumbered page.) The author(s) of the article in the newsletter mention only the first six of the above-noted considerations. (See id. Ex. 28 at 5.) Neither article indicates which of the above considerations are included in the AHAM standard and which are not.
^ The only exception is McDonald, whose article does not refer to CADR, and does not discuss measuring the performance of portable air cleaners.
^ Excerpts from the Wallace deposition are attached as Exhibit 10 to the Declaration of Thomas J. Welling, filed May 21, 2004. The entirety of the deposition testimony is attached as Exhibit T to the Declaration of Steven N. Williams, filed June 4, 2004.
^ Excerpts from the Nanni deposition are attached as Exhibit 7 to the Declaration of Thomas J. Welling, filed May 21, 2004. The entirety of the deposition testimony is attached as Exhibit R to the Declaration of Steven N. Williams, filed June 4, 2004.
^ Additionally, Sharper Image argues Consumers Union “deviated” from the AC-1 test protocol with respect to the temperature of the test chamber and the requirement that the air pressure in the test chamber be constant. Sharper Image, however, has not supported these assertions with evidence.
The AC-1 test protocol states that the test chamber temperature should remain at “(70 ± 5)°F.” (See Parker Decl., filed December 15, 2003, Ex. B at 4.) Although Sharper Image argues that the temperature in Consumers Union’s chamber was not constant, the testimony on which Sharper Image relies does not refer to the temperature in Consumers Union’s test chamber falling below 65°F or above 75°F. (See Wallace Dep. at 178-79).
With respect to air pressure, Sharper Image fails to cite to any provision in the AC-1 test protocol requiring “constant” air pressure or to evidence that supports a finding Consumers Union’s test chamber did not have “constant” air pressure.
^ As to the other asserted “deviations,” Sharper Image has not pointed to any evidence that any of such circumstances, either separately or in combination, could have caused the results of Consumers Union’s tests to be unreliable. Consequently, the Court will not address them further.
^ Excerpts from the Hammond deposition are attached as Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Thomas J. Welling, filed May 21, 2004. The entirety of the deposition testimony is attached as Exhibit N to the Declaration of Steven N. Williams, filed June 4, 2004.
^ Although Sharper Image argues that Consumers Union’s testing demonstrates the IBQ performed “significantly better” than natural decay, (See Pl.’s Renewed Opp., filed May 21, 2004, at 11:3-5), Sharper Image has offered no expert opinion to that effect.
^ Excerpts from the Heim deposition are attached as Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Thomas J. Welling, filed May 21, 2004. The entirety of the deposition testimony is attached as Exhibit O to the Declaration of Steven N. Williams, filed June 4, 2004.
^ Consumers Union objects to, and has moved to exclude, certain of the studies Sharper Image has offered, as well as certain statements describing the studies, on the ground they are inadmissible under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In light of the Court’s ruling that such evidence is insufficient to support a finding that Consumers Union’s statements were false, the Court has not ruled on Consumers Union’s objections.

References: § 425
 § 17200
 § 425
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.