CR's publisher, Consumers Union, put forth an argument that the Japanese automaker had little evidence to back up the libel case, and that it should be thrown out of court. The court, nevertheless, refused to block Suzuki's lawsuit, therefore it continues.
To be fair, Suzuki had a right to be upset at CR's report. The Samurai, which was introduced in 1985, sold well over its first three years to the tune of approximately 150,000 units. In 1987 it reached its peak, selling about 80,000. But after CR's report American Suzuki never completely recovered in North America. Suzuki claims it suffered losses exceeding USD$60 million since the report.
Until a court decision is reached, Suzuki will continue to be seen by many consumers as an automaker that isn't willing to take blame for a problem that CR was merely helping consumers become aware of. Of course the negative press hurt the brand's SUV sales, as does any negative report written by any publication anywhere.
If Suzuki manages to persuade a new judge that its case is in fact relevant, and that it deserves compensation for lost sales, then the process may set a dangerous precedent that could bias consumer goods reporting in the future. What publication would want to risk possible annihilation by a disgruntled manufacturer after one of its products receives a negative review?
This argument was featured in the current (March) issue of CR, in an article that asks its readers to voice their concerns by writing to the president of American Suzuki Corp.
It doesn't look as if any number of concerned consumer opinions will throw American Suzuki off of its determined course however, a path that will no doubt continue to prove extremely costly to both parties, and in the end only tarnish the Japanese brand's image further.