## Facts

- Consumers Union published a *Consumer Reports* review of Bose’s 901 loudspeaker system.
- The review stated that individual instruments “tended to wander about the room,” giving examples such as a violin seeming “10 feet wide” and a piano stretching “from wall to wall.”
- Bose sued for product disparagement, alleging the review contained false statements of fact and that Consumers Union refused to retract them.
- At trial, evidence showed the test engineer experienced sound moving “along the wall,” and wrote “around the room”; editors changed the phrase to “about the room.”
- The district court treated Bose as a public figure and required proof of “actual malice” by clear and convincing evidence.
- The district court found the “about the room” description false, discredited the engineer’s explanation, inferred actual malice, and awarded Bose damages.
- The court of appeals reversed, conducting an independent review and concluding Bose failed to prove actual malice with convincing clarity.

## Issues

1. Whether appellate review of a trial court’s “actual malice” finding is limited by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)’s “clearly erroneous” standard or requires independent review to protect First Amendment interests.
2. Whether the record established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Consumers Union published the challenged statements with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Consumers Union.
- Rule 52(a) does not control review of the constitutional determination of “actual malice”; appellate courts must independently examine the whole record to decide whether actual malice is shown with convincing clarity.
- Applying independent review, the Court held Bose did not prove actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.
- The “about the room” wording was, at most, an inaccurate characterization rather than a statement published with subjective awareness of falsity or serious doubt as to its truth.

## Legal Principles

- In First Amendment defamation and related actions requiring proof of actual malice, appellate courts must independently review the record to ensure the constitutional standard is correctly applied.
- Rule 52(a) deference remains relevant for ordinary factual findings and trial-court credibility observations, but does not displace independent review of whether the constitutional “actual malice” threshold is met.
- “Actual malice” requires proof that the publisher knew a statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for truth; negligence, misunderstanding, or mistaken characterization is insufficient.
- Liability for critical evaluative commentary about products requires clear and convincing evidence of the publisher’s subjective fault meeting the actual-malice standard.

## Conclusion

The Court required independent appellate scrutiny of actual-malice determinations in First Amendment disparagement cases and concluded that the disputed description in the product review, though inaccurate, was not shown by clear and convincing evidence to have been published with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of truth.


Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (1984)