consumer groups win appeal to reveal company doe - household appliances manufacturer
We will soon know the identity of the manufacturer.
Now I know that "company Doe "-
In product safety cases related to child death. The 4th U. S.
Circuit Court of Appeal in Va Richmond.
On Wednesday, in the fight to expose the identity of the manufacturer, stand on the side of the consumer group.
The court overturned part of the lower court's decision and sent the case back to the Maryland District Court, directing the "veil of the whole case ".
Circuit Judge Henry F. "We believe that the seizure order of the district court violates the public's right to obtain permission under the First Amendment . "Floyd wrote.
On 2011, an unidentified manufacturer filed a lawsuit with a court demanding that the Consumer Product Safety Board stop publishing online complaints about products produced by the company.
This is the first legal challenge raised by the CPSC federal database regarding safety complaints from products such as baby carriages, toys to household appliances.
The manufacturer argues that the complaint about the company is inaccurate and contains confusing statements, so it should not be published in a safety product. gov database.
The company asked the court to seal the proceedings, allowing the manufacturer to use the pseudonym "Doe Company "--
The company said that disclosing the company's name to the public was the same as posting a complaint in the database.
The district court ruled in favor of Doe, stating that the complaint did not describe the injury associated with the use of the manufacturer's products.
Three consumer groups
The public, the American consumer federation and the Consumer Union
Appeal, challenge the seal of the court case.
"Today's decision is a huge win for the public to resort to court proceedings and for consumers who benefit from the operation of the Consumer Product Safety Database," Scott Michel man said ,". Lawyers handling cases for the public.
Little is known to the public about safety complaints against Doe.
This was not submitted by the child or the child's family, but by an unidentified government agency.
Baruch Fellner, a lawyer for Gibson, said that if the company's name is disclosed, "it is easy for the media and the public to understand, these false and misleading reports have damaged a company with a perfect product safety record.
The lawyer is reviewing the decision of the court to take further action, Ferner said.
"The Energy Department may be fourth in the United States. S.
Circuit Court of Appeal or Supreme Court.
Manufacturing complains that missing or inaccurate damage reports published in the CPSC database may cause irreparable harm to the company's reputation.
When a complaint is sent to the CPSC for database, the manufacturer is informed about the complaint and can respond before the report is made public.