Bose Corporation v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.
(1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In cases governed by the First Amendment, an appellate court must conduct an independent, de novo review of a trial court's finding of "actual malice," rather than applying the deferential "clearly erroneous" standard prescribed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).
Facts:
- Consumers Union of United States, Inc. published a review of the Bose 901 loudspeaker system in its magazine, Consumer Reports.
- The article, based on a listening test supervised by engineer Arnold Seligson, stated that individual instruments heard through the speakers "tended to wander about the room."
- Bose Corporation took exception to the statement, asserting it was false, and requested a retraction from Consumers Union.
- Consumers Union refused to publish a retraction.
- During litigation, Seligson testified that the sound movement he actually perceived during the test was back and forth "along the wall" between the speakers.
- Seligson's initial internal report on the test had used the phrase "wander around the room," which an editor later changed to "about the room" for the published article.
Procedural Posture:
- Bose Corporation sued Consumers Union of the United States, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for product disparagement.
- Following a bench trial, the District Court found that Bose was a public figure and that Consumers Union had published a false, disparaging statement with actual malice.
- The District Court entered judgment in favor of Bose Corporation.
- Consumers Union, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals conducted an independent de novo review of the record and reversed the District Court's judgment, concluding there was insufficient evidence of actual malice.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the appropriate standard of appellate review for a finding of actual malice.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), which mandates a "clearly erroneous" standard for appellate review of a trial court's findings of fact, apply to a district court's determination of "actual malice" in a product disparagement case brought by a public figure?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens
No. The clearly-erroneous standard of Rule 52(a) does not apply to findings of actual malice; instead, appellate courts must exercise independent judgment on this constitutional issue. The First Amendment requires appellate courts to conduct an independent review of the entire record to ensure that the judgment does not unconstitutionally intrude upon the field of free expression. The question of whether the evidence is sufficient to establish actual malice with convincing clarity is a constitutional question of law and fact that cannot be delegated solely to the trier of fact. In this case, the record does not support a finding of actual malice. The author Seligson's use of the phrase 'about the room' instead of 'along the wall' was, at most, an imprecise choice of words or a reflection of a misconception, not clear and convincing proof that he knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth. Such inaccuracies fall within the 'breathing space' necessary for the protection of free expression under the First Amendment.
Dissenting - Justice White
Yes. The Court of Appeals erred by conducting a de novo review of the District Court's factual finding. While the 'reckless disregard' component of the actual malice standard may not be a pure question of historical fact, the 'actual knowledge' component is. The District Court found that the author wrote the statement with actual knowledge of its falsity, and this finding of fact should only be overturned if it is clearly erroneous. The case should be remanded for the Court of Appeals to apply the proper standard of review.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
Yes. A determination of actual malice, which involves an inquiry into an author's state of mind (mens rea), is a pure question of fact that should be reviewed under the clearly-erroneous standard of Rule 52(a). Appellate courts are ill-suited to make de novo credibility determinations from a cold record, a task best left to the trial judge who observed the witnesses. The majority's holding creates an exception to Rule 52(a) that is not justified by the First Amendment, as the high burden of proof for actual malice already provides sufficient protection for speech. This decision will lessen confidence in the judgments of trial courts and lead to more fact-bound appeals.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the principle of independent appellate review for 'constitutional facts,' particularly the finding of 'actual malice' in First Amendment cases. It carves out a significant exception to the general deference appellate courts afford to trial court factual findings under Rule 52(a). The ruling reinforces the role of appellate judges as the ultimate guardians of the line between protected and unprotected speech, ensuring that liability is not imposed for minor inaccuracies that could chill robust public debate. By treating actual malice as a mixed question of law and fact, the Court has made it substantially more difficult for public-figure plaintiffs to succeed in defamation and disparagement actions on appeal.
