Not really. CR published an article with an opinion about the Bose speaker. Bose didn't like it, which is fine. There was nothing to sue over, however, which is why they lost the case.
No, the story is more complex. Why would it go to the Supreme Court?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/1983/82-1246_11-08-1983.pdf
“After careful consideration of Seligson's testimony and of his demeanor at trial, the Court finds that Seligson's testimony on this point is not credible.”
The problem was that Mr. Seligson, the reviewer for Consumer Reports, was also trying to commercialize his own speaker at the time with its own patent so there was conflict of interest. Back then, press did not have disclosures like that. In the modern internet era, the public would have figured this out.
The other problem, which Bose said was reflective of the bias of Seligson was that in the panel listening, the listeners were asked if the Bose 901 sounded close to their reference direct radiating speaker as opposed to asking which speaker they preferred.
Bose was asking Consumer Reports to clarify/retract Selinger’s statements that were objectively false and to disclose the conflict of interest. The magazine didn’t and they went to court.
Read Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 508 F. Supp. 1249, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com
“A portion of the evidence produced at trial concerned the disconnection of one of the drivers in one of CU's Bose 901 loudspeakers. The plaintiff argues that the defendant tampered with the loudspeaker in order to alter subsequent test results. The Court shares the plaintiff's concern that the evidence in this case may have been tampered with at some time. Nevertheless, the Court is satisfied that CU's Bose 901 loudspeakers were in proper working condition at the critical time — when they were tested in 1969 and 1970. The impedance measurements taken in 1969 confirm that all the drivers were functioning at that time. If someone did tamper with the loudspeaker at a subsequent time it would, of course, be reprehensible, but it would not affect the Court's analysis of the evidence.”
Even Selinger when testifying would admit that it didn’t really move around, but in the end, being wrong or mistaken does not necessarily entail actual
malice and it was important to protect First Amendment rights.
The problem was that Consumer Reports review said that when playing music, instruments would “move around”. Bose argued that it wouldn’t move around. It would be diffuse and stable, and you would get stable stereo imaging. Again, Seligson admitted in court that he wrote that the sound moved around, but it didn’t actually move around and tried to argue that instruments moving around was subject to interpretation. The court’s didn’t agree.
This was not actually a unanimous Supreme Court decision. Dissenting were those who thought the facts did suggest malice. Sandra Day O’Connor, William Rehnquist, and Byron White.
If this had happened today, you probably would have Bose posting something on their website to counter the claims made in Consumer Reports, Internet sleuths would have discovered that the author at Consumer Reports was also trying to commercialize his own speaker. Back then, we didn’t have this kind of discussion forum or avenues for direct to consumer communication.
So, Bose was fully correct that the Consumer Reports publication was flawed. The courts agreed. However, being dumb and wrong isn’t the same as malice. When Paul McGowan talks about Audioquest power cables making a difference over generic ones, a manufacturer of generic cables cannot sue Paul for malice. He is just wrong. But today, we know he is wrong thanks to the power of the internet. Imagine now, Paul McGowan writing a review about some Revel or Genelec speakers and talking about boring, sterile sound without actually disclosing that he also makes speakers himself? (to be fair, Paul is often very supportive/enthusiastic about competitor products in his videos.)
The Supreme Court had to either protect First Amendment rights or risk unintended future lawsuits for the benefit of a home speaker. By enforcing the malice requirement, it made things a lot more clear.
But in the context beyond “they didn’t like the review” to the point that Bose wanted Consumer Reports to publicly acknowledge that their reviewer had such an obvious conflict of interest was reasonable. Consumer Reports refused to publish that detail, so Bose took them to court, where that information ended up becoming public.
The interweb of today assumes that Bose v. consumer reports like the Tekton or DCS issues, but you have to remember that when Amar Bose released the original 901, Boston Public School systems were still debating if desegregation was appropriate or not.
Think about how many Ivy League presidents had to resign in the last few years?
Can you imagine MIT of 2024 wanting to remain as the majority shareholder of Bose if they felt that Bose was engaging in unethical behavior?