Consumer Reports' Reputation Takes Hit

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. -- Consumer Reports once mismeasured the ingredients in dog food. Just last year, it screwed up the depreciation rates of hybrid cars.

But it's rare for the trusted, independent magazine to go as wrong as it did in its report this month on infant car seats. Consumer Reports retracted the report Thursday when it turned out that side-impact crashes in tests of car seats were carried out at speeds near 70 mph, not the 38 mph the magazine claimed.

The magazine told its 6.3 million print and online readers _ and the millions more who had heard about the widely publicized report _ to disregard the startling findings earlier this month that only two of the 12 seats it tested were worth buying. Parents of babies may or may not have been comforted by the magazine's promise to retest the seats and issue a new report.

On Friday, spokesman Ken Weine defended the magazine's overall 70-year record.

"As an organization whose only mission is to serve consumers' interest, we test over 3,100 products a year with our teams of reporters, scientists, engineers and even mystery shoppers who apply the most rigorous standards," he said.

He also noted that Consumer Reports went public with the information as soon as it learned of the bad test at the Calspan lab in Buffalo.

Weine would not say whether Consumer Reports expects lawsuits over its faulty testing. And at least two of the car-seat makers whose products were rated poorly in the faulty test seemed conciliatory.

"The intent of Consumer Reports was probably in the best interests of families and child safety," said Lisa Nussa of Peg Perego. "There are no plans for a lawsuit or anything along those lines." Another car-seat maker, Chicco USA, said it "applauds Consumer Reports for its prompt action."

Sometimes, of course, Consumer Reports does get sued. The best-known example was a strident battle that lasted 16 years.

In 1988, the magazine found that the Suzuki Samurai tipped over too easily on its road tests. It declared the small SUV "not acceptable" and sales plunged. Eight years later _ after the Samurai was no longer being made _ Suzuki sued, claiming the test was designed to make the vehicle tip and Consumer Reports used the results to raise funds.

The Supreme Court refused to derail the lawsuit and in 2004 the magazine asked its readers to write to Suzuki "regarding its punitive lawsuit."

Five months later, the lawsuit was settled, with Suzuki getting no money and the two sides still differing on the validity of the 1988 test. Consumer Reports acknowledged that when it said the Samurai "easily rolls over in turns," it meant the severe turns that were part of its test.