# Amicus Curiae Brief — Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. Suzuki Motor Corp.

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386015_2016%3A8

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2003
- **Citation:** 540 U.S. 983

## Text

No. 03-281 SEP ? 3

IN THE

Supreme Court of the Gnited States

CONSUMERS UNION OF UNITED STATES, INC.,
Petitioner,

V.

SUZUKI MOTOR CORP.,
Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

BRIEF FOR THE CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
AMERICA AS AMICUS CURIAE
IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

JOHN TOWNSEND RICH*

ADAM M. CHUD

SHEA & GARDNER

1800 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

(202) 828-2000

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

September 22, 2003 *Counsel of Record

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIEG...........ccssscossscessesssessssssosseresnsesees ll
INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE ..eecccccccscsescssssseseeseseees l
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY .........cccccccesssscsssscesescees 2
IE iieicisiaiebes ssniidbisetiibaniniaiepilianspmictapiditamdeasiannes: 4

I. A Summary Judgment Standard That Permits
District Courts To Dispose of Cases Where a
Jury Verdict in Favor of the Plaintiff Would Not
Survive the Court’s Independent Review of the
Evidence Is Important to Organizations That
Comment on Consumer Products. ........ccceccccssesesececes 4.

II. The Ninth Circuit’s Reliance on Petitioner’s
Financial Situation Is Dangerous to Consumer
Organizations and to the Public Interest in
Candid Product Evaluations. .0.........c.ccccccccccsosesssseseee. 7

III. The Ninth Circuit’s Reliance on the Existence
of an Inconsistent Government Report Is
Dangerous to Consumer Organizations and to
the Public Interest in Candid Product
NN theiasterscnichticice ret catiacse ua 9

SA eisiictia andi anteaters Ns 10

FE icine aasiticeeriiceiinisiuiinsiistacésaitbcrninmiuiuisiieuas la

il

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States,

Frec., SOG UL. SBS CI eaiscrcvestcsencncivcrmunnnnmnnsanncsanine 2-3
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) c.ccecsessesseesee 6
Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton,

Bi UE. CSF (TR ction aenemmenten 8
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254

(TIDE) .n~xsiniscisicinadalapeemtepleauaabheaiaeaidiaaabmiie aaa aT

OTHER AUTHORITIES:

Brobeck, Stephen, Fund-Raising, in Encyclopedia of
the Consumer Movement 283 (Stephen Brobeck

00h, FPF EP iceasnsiestviseniteniceaitisidaiiaeiaetinaditakgidaeaame tinal iiaicek datas 5
Clark, Charles E., & Charles U. Samenow, The
Summary Judgment, 38 Yale L.J. 423 (1929)............ 6-7

Gilles, Susan M., Taking First Amendment
Procedure Seriously: An Analysis of Process, in
Libel Litigation, 58 Ohio St. L.J. 1753 (1997-—

SPEED vccecsuossevesicdiinteheianiasuanianeaiaataniiedncm an dmentaiiiaaia 6—7
Gillmor, Donald M., Power, Publicity, and the
Pilrame OF Lilet Le (IFIED ocesesscscessvasivsrnevcvesasviepravoneences 6

Herrmann, Robert O., & Robert N; Mayer, U.S.
Consumer Movement: History and Dynamics, in
Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement 584

(Stopheems BrobOck C6. TIFT) csisccsescccosssssssnssevsecovnenevsnsese 5
11 Moore, James Wm., et al., Moore’s Federal
PRCT F SOE Ce kvicicinsicntemscocnsianntacntsianenavinenvented 6

Schwarzer, William W., et al., The Analysis and
Decision of Summary Judgment Motions, 139
F REA SG CIS) nxiiviccisconanmmaeasaaannet 6

—————————

ili

Wissler, Roselle L., et al., Resolving Libel Disputes
Out of Court: The Libel Dispute Resolution
Program, in Reforming Libel Law 286 (John
Soloski & Randall P. Bezanson eds., 1992)...........ce 6

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

No. 03-281

CONSUMERS UNION OF UNITED STATES, INC -
Petitioner,

v.

SUZUKI MOTOR CorpP.,
Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

BRIEF FOR THE CONSUMER FEDERATION OF
AMERICA AS AMICUS CURIAE
IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE'

This brief is filed on behalf of the Consumer Federation of
America (“CFA”), a nonprofit umbrella organization of 300
local, state, and national consumer groups from all 50 states
and the District of Columbia. A full list of CFA’s members is
included in the Appendix hereto. CFA’s constituent member
organizations count more than 50 million individuals in their
collective membership.

' No counsel for any party authored this brief either in whole or in part,
and no persons other than the amicus curiae and their counsel made any
monetary contribution to its preparation or submission. The parties’
written consents to the filing of this brief have been filed with the Clerk of
the Court.

On behalf of its members, CFA gathers, analyzes, and
disseminates information about a range of consumer issues to
the public, Congress, and federal agencies. CFA seeks to
provide a voice for the concerns of consumers, particularly
those of limited means. Many of CFA’s members evaluate
consumer products and publish reports detailing the results of
their studies; those reports are often critical of the products
reviewed.

The ability of CFA and its members to provide important
information to the public about products and services in the
marketplace would be jeopardized if they were forced to
absorb the costs of defending at trial against meritless product
disparagement and libel suits. Therefore CFA and its
members have a keen interest in the standard to be applied on
review of motions for summary judgment in such actions.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

This action concerns the proper standard for reviewing an
order of summary judgment in favor of a media defendant in a
product disparagement or libel case. The factual background
and procedural history of this case are set forth in detail in the
Petition and in the decision of the Ninth Circuit, 330 F.3d
1110, 1127 (9th Cir. 2003), Pet. App. la, and amicus
incorporates and adopts those statements by reference.

A summary judgment standard in product disparagement
and libel cases that facilitates the dismissal of meritless
actions before trial is vital to the functioning and survival of
organizations that comment on consumer products. This
Court has not previously had the occasion to clarify this
standard, and it should do so now.

In Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.,
466 U.S. 485 (1984), the Court held that, after the trial in a
defamation action concerning a public figure, courts must
make an “independent review” of the “whole record” to
determine whether “clear and convincing evidence” of “actual

—L es LS”

malice” exists per New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254
(1964). Bose did not address the central question at issue
here: whether courts must conduct such independent review
of the evidence when deciding a media defendant’s motion
for summary judgment.

Independent review of the evidence before trial—which the
Ninth Circuit held is not permitted—is critical to the ability of
organizations that comment on consumer products to perform
their important watchdog function. The Ninth Circuit’s view
that the Bose rule applies only to “the review of a judgment
rendered after trial” (330 F.3d at 1133 n.10, Pet. App. 16a
n.10) condemns consumer organizations to defending all but
the most frivolous product disparagement and libel actions
through trial, rather than obtaining dismissal of unfounded
actions in advance of trial. Forcing consumer organizations
to face a trial before the court may independently review the
entire record (even after a full summary judgment record has
been established) is a pointless and expensive exercise that
will only encourage such litigation against product reviewers.
As Judge Kozinski noted in his dissent from the Ninth
Circuit’s denial of rehearing en banc, “[i]f Suzuki can get to
trial on evidence this flimsy, no consumer group in the
country will be safe from assault by hordes of handsomely
paid lawyers deploying scorched-earth litigation tactics.” 330
F.3d at 1121, Pet. App. 69a.

In Part I we explain the damage that the Ninth Circuit’s
ruling will do to the many organizations that comment on
consumer products. In particular, we explain the importance
of the summary judgment standard to consumer-organization
defendants in product disparagement actions, for which the
expense of even a single trial could mean their demise.

In Parts II and III we discuss several aspects of the Ninth
Circuit’s ruling that are particularly troubiing for consumer
organizations. In Part II we explain that the Ninth Circuit’s
reliance on Petitioner’s financial position as evidence that
Petitioner had a motive to embellish its Suzuki Samurai study

4

sets a dangerous precedent that will permit courts to use a
defendant’s finances, standing alone, as_ possibly
determinative evidence of product disparagement or libel. In
Part III we show that First Amendment principles cannot be
squared with the Ninth Circuit’s view that Petitioner’s failure
to explain to the court’s satisfaction why the results of its
Samurai study differed from the government’s conclusions
constitutes possibly determinative evidence that Petitioner
may have purposefully avoided the truth. Consumer
organizations should not stand trial simply because a court is
not convinced that they have fully explained why the results
of their studies are not in line with the views of the
government.

ARGUMENT |

I. A Summary Judgment Standard That Permits
District Courts To Dispose of Cases Where a Jury
Verdict in Favor of the Plaintiff Would Not Survive
the Court’s Independent Review of the Evidence Is |
Important to Organizations That Comment on
Consumer Products. |

The Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that courts may not
independently review the whole record when considering
motions for summary judgment in product disparagement and |
libel actions would have far-reaching, negative implications
for the many organizations that comment on consumer
products. Such a rule would limit the ability of media
defendants to dispose of such claims at a relatively early stage
of litigation. It would subject those organizations—many of
which are poorly funded and could not survive the expense of
even a single substantial libel trial—to the continued threat of
libel suits, any one of which could effectively drain its entire
budget. And the prospect of expensive libel trials may limit
the vigor with which consumer organizations perform their
valuable roles. For all of these reasons, certiorari is
warranted.

ee ee Te

5

A. There are a large number of organizations that test and
comment on consumer products. These organizations range
from giant media conglomerates to well-known product
reviewers (such as Petitioner), to national organizations that
review a limited range of products and services (such as
AARP), to many local organizations that review particular
types of products (such as many of CFA’s members).

These organizations are often short on funds, and they rely
on year-round fundraising campaigns to ensure their
continued viability. See Stephen Brobeck, Fund-Raising, in
Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement 283, 283-85
(Stephen Brobeck ed., 1997). The prime “commodity”
offered by these consume. organizations is their unbiased
judgment about the value of products, services, or other
government or private initiatives. In contrast, the products
that consumer organizations test and review are typicaily
offered by large, well-funded corporations with significant
litigation budgets. Those product producers have substantial
incentives to bring lawsuits as one method of defending their
products against damaging criticism, whether the product
review at issue was actionable or not. The incentive for a
product manufacturer to defend itself through litigation is
especially great when the target of the action is a small,
poorly funded consumer organization that may not be able to
afford the costs of defencing itself. See Robert O. Herrmann
& Robert N. Mayer, U.S. Consumer Movement: History and
Dynamics, in Encyclopedia of the Consumer Movement 584,
599 (Stephen Brobeck ed., 1997) (“[T]he organizations of the
consumer movement constantly face the problem[] of
financial insecurity * * *. Even those organizations that have
established a relatively firm financial base usually cannot
match resources with business-financed opponents.”).

This incentive for product manufacturers to litigate
negative product reviews is particularly troublesome because
of the great cost of defending such actions. By some
estimates, te’ ng a libel case to trial costs a defendant four

6

times as much as if the matter is resolved on summary
judgment. See Donald M. Gillmor, Power, Publicity, and the
Abuse of Libel Law 130-31 (1992); see also Roselle L.
Wissler et al., Resolving Libel Disputes Out of Court: The
Libel Dispute Resolution Program, in Reforming Libel Law
286, 287 (John Soloski & Randall P. Bezanson eds., 1992)
(“[T]he main economic impact of libel on the media today is
the high cost of defending a seriously litigated suit. To
defend such a suit through trial typically costs the media
$150,000.”) (footnote omitted).

B. The high costs of taking a libel case to trial makes
summary judgment a particularly important procedural device
in such actions. “One of the principal purposes of the
summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually
unsupported claims or defenses * * *.” Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). Summary judgment
““allows courts and litigants to avoid full-blown trials in
unwinnable cases, thus conserving the parties’ time and
money and permitting courts to husband scarce judicial
resources.” 11 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal
Practice § 56.02, at 56-20 (2003) (citation omitted). As
another group of commentators put it: “Growing concern over
cost and delay in civil litigation has focused increased
attention on Rule 56 as a vehicle to implement the objectives
of Fed.R.Civ.P. 1—the just, speedy, and inexpensive
resolution of litigation.” William W. Schwarzer et al., The
Analysis and Decision of Summary Judgment Motions, 139
F.R.D. 441, 445 (1991). Accordingly, “[s}ummary judgment
has become recognized * * * as a procedure for avoiding
unnecessary trials on insufficient claims or defenses * * *.”
Id. at 451.” Indeed, “defendants in libel cases depend on

? As one of the seminal articles on summary judgment stated: “Except
where a trial is necessary to scitle an issue of fact, the whole judicial
process is, by [the summary judgment] procedure, made to function more
quickly and with less complexity than in the ordinary long drawn out

7

summary judgment to quickly and (relatively) cheaply
dispose of most libel cases.” Susan M. Gilles, Taking First
Amendment Procedure Seriously: An Analysis of Process, in
Libel Litigation, 58 Ohio St. L.J. 1753, 1764 (1997-1998).

The Ninth Circuit’s rule, which makes summary judgment
more difficult to obtain in product disparagement and libel
cases, would undermine Sullivan, which provides heightened
protection to speech about public figures. The significant
costs associated with taking libel suits to trial could force
consumer organizations to spend most—or all—of their
limited budgets defending even meritless suits at trial. Libel
insurance provides only limited relief for some consumer
organizations, as it is expensive and not universally available.
And such insurance is often not renewed—or its cost
increases dramatically—once an insurer is forced to incur the
costs of a libel trial. ~

Finally, the risk of facing the costs of a libel trial will
inevitably lead consumer organizations to attempt to limit
their exposure by publishing fewer articles that are
substantially critical of consumer products and services and
by soft-pedaling the legitimate problems and inadequacies
that their research uncovers. This chilling of the valuable
work that consumer organizations perform would create “an
atmosphere in which the First Amendment freedoms cannot
survive.” Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 278.

II. The Ninth Circuit’s Reliance on Petitioner’s
Financial Situation Is Dangerous to Consumer
Organizations and to the Public Interest in Candid
Product Evaluations.

The Ninth Circuit panel majority permitted Suzuki to use
evidence of a particular financial outlay by Petitioner as
possibly determinative evidence in favor of a finding that

suit.” Charles E. Clark & Charles U. Samenow, The Summary Judgment,
38 Yale L.J. 423, 423 (1929).

8

Petitioner had acted with actual malice. 330 F.3d at 1127 n.1
& 1135-36, Pet. App. 3a n.1 & 22a. It concluded that while
“financial motive cannot, by itself, prove actual malice, it
nonetheless is a relevant factor bearing on the actual malice
inquiry.” 330 F.3d at 1136, Pet. App. 22a. The panel added
that “(t]he fact that CU needed to boost its revenues to
complete its capital campaign lends credence to Suzuki's
contention that CU rigged the Samurai testing to produce the
predetermined rollover result.” 330 F.3d at 1136, Pet. App.
22a—23a.

These conclusions are contrary to Harte-Hanks
Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989),
in which this Court held that a media defendant’s “motive in
publishing a story,” including “to increase * * * circulation”
or “to increase its profits” “cannot provide a sufficient basis
for finding actual malice.” /d. at 665, 667. The Ninth Circuit
tried to side-step Harte-Hanks by stating that Petitioner’s
financial motive was simply “a relevant factor” that
“dovetails” with the other evidence. 330 F.3d at 1136. Pet.
App. 22a. But if financial motive is not sufficient by itself to
show actual malice, it certainly cannot be sufficient to tip the
scales in favor of such a finding when combined with other
evidence of alleged actual malice, thus providing a ground for
denying summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

This holding also has important negative consequences for
consumer organizations. It means that the often tenuous
financial position of consumer groups—which they face by
the very nature of the work they perform—will always be
relevant and perhaps outcome-determinative evidence of an
intention to exaggerate results that disparage the products
being reviewed and to disregard evidence that an
organization’s conclusions are false. Consumer organizations
will therefore automatically have one strike against them in
product disparagement and libel actions. And this negative
inference will exist regardless of whether the organization’s
finances have any direct connection to the review of the

——

9

product at issue. It would be extraordinarily damaging to
First Amendment values to force an organization to undergo
an expensive trial simply because there exists some evidence
that the organization has financial difficulties. That result
goes a long way towards making the freedom on speech
protected by the First Amendment a perquisite of the rich
alone. Certiorari is warranted to correct this error by the
Ninth Circuit.

Iti. The Ninth Circuit’s Reliance on the Existence of an
Inconsistent Government Report Is Dangerous to
Consumer Organizations and to the Public Interest
in Candid Product Evaluations.

The Ninth Circuit also concluded that Petitioner failed to
adequately explain why it relied on human drivers to test the
Samurai, when the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (“NHTSA”) had criticized such testing
methods. The court found this discrepancy to be evidence
warranting a trial whether Petitioner “purposely avoided the
truth.” 330 F.3d at 1136, Pet. App. 24a. In particular, the
Ninth Circuit concluded that even though Petitioner
“challenged the NHTSA report head on, stating its
disagreement in detail and supporting its alternative
conclusions with substantive justifications,” it nonetheless did
not “respond to the criticism of its testing procedures as
overly influenced by driver input.” 330 F.3d at 1138, Pet.
App. 28a.

This conclusion simply cannot be consistent with the First
Amendment. Consumer organizations do not exist merely to
replicate the testing procedures the government may prefer.
Similarly, they should not be required to stand tral simply
because their tests do not match those preferred by the
government, or because they do not sufficiently explain why
they used different testing procedures. Here, Petitioner
disclosed fully its testing procedures. Petitioner did not
report testing that had never occurred or falsify the results of
its tests. If a reader was interested in whether Petitioner’s

10

testing protocol differed from that preferred by the
government and whether that protocol made sense, all they
needed to do was review Petitioner’s report. This disclosure
satisfies any legitimate expectation that a product
manufacturer could have concerning the truthfulness of a
product review such as that at issue here. As Judge Kozinski
noted, “[t]he appropriate response to a poorly designed
experiment is to conduct a better one and then convince
people that your method is more accurate—not to sue the
other guy into silence.” 330 F.3d at 1121, Pet. App. 68a.

This issue has significant ramifications for all product
reviewers. After the Ninth Circuit’s decision, reviewers will
risk an expensive trial if they neither replicate the
government’s testing techniques nor satisfy a court that they
were justified in testing a different way. That standard cannot
be squared with the First Amendment’s commitment to robust
debate. For this additional reason, certiorari is warranted to
correct the Ninth Circuit’s unprecedented decision.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth in the Petition and above, this
Court should grant the petition for writ of certiorari.

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN TOWNSEND RICH*

ADAM M. CHUD

SHEA & GARDNER

1800 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 828-2000

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

September 22, 2003 *Counsel of Record

la

APPENDIX
Members of the Consumer Federation of America

lst Advantage Federal Credit Union (VA)
Ist Credit Union (MO)

ist Rochdale Cooperative Group, Ltd. (NY
AARP
Aiken Electric Cooperative (SC)

Alabama Arise :

Alabama Municipal Electric Authority
Alabama Rural Electric Association
Alabama Watch

Alaska Public Interest Research Group
Alliance Credit Union (CA)

Alliance for Retired Americans

American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging
American Council on Consumer Awareness
American Council on Consumer Interests
American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance
American-Public Health Association
American Public Power Association
Arizona Consumers Council

Arizona Credit Union League

Arkansas Credit Union League

Arkansas Federal Credit Union

Arkansas Public Policy Panel

Association. of Louisiana Electric Cooperatives
Basin Electric Power Cooperative (ND)
Bay Ridge Consumer Federation (NY)
Bayer Credit Union (MO)

Bread for the World Institute

Broward County Consumer Affairs Division (FL)
Bucks County Consumer Protection (PA)
California Consumer Affairs Association
California Department of Consumer Affairs
California Labor Federation AFL-CIO
California & Nevada Credit Union Leagues

2a

California Public Interest Research Group
Campaign for Tobacco—Free Kids

Carolina Collegiate Federal Credit Union (SC)
Carolina Foothills Federal Credit Union (SC)
Center for Auto Safety

Center for Community Self—Help

Center for Economic Justice

Center for Economic Progress

Center for Insurance Research

Center for Justice and Democracy

Center for Public Interest Law

Center for Science in-the Public Interest
Center for the Study of Services

Central Electric Cooperative (SD)

Central Power Electric Cooperative (ND)
Champaign County Health Care Consumers (IL)
Chartway Federal Credit Union (VA)

Chicago Consumer Coalition

Citizen Equity First Credit Union (IL)
Citizen’s Utility Board of Oregon

City of Anaheim Public Utilities (CA)

City of Detroit Consumer Affairs Department
City of Mesa, Utilities Department (AZ)

City Utilities of Springfield (MO)

Cleveland Consumer Action

Coalition for Consumer Rights

Coastal Federal Credit Union (NC)

Colorado Credit Union League

Colorado Public Interest Research Group
Colorado Rural Electric Association
Columbia Consumer Education Council (SC)
Community Action Partnership of Mercer County (PA)
Connecticut Public Interest Research Group
Consumer Action

Consumer Assistance Council

Consumer Credit Counseling Service of St. Louis, Inc. (MO)
Consumer Energy Council of America

3a

Consumer Federation of California

Consumer Fraud Watch

Consumer League for Education and Reform
Consumer Protection Association

Consumers Cooperative Society of Santa Monica (CA)
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety Federation
Consumers League of New Jersey

Consumers League of Ohio

Consumers Union

Consumers Union/Southwest Regional Office (TX)
Consumers United Association

Consumers United/Minnesotan’s for Safe Foods
Council of New York Cooperatives & Condominiums
Credit Union Executives Society

CUNA and Affiliates

CUNA Credit Union (WI)

CUNA Mutual Group (WI)

Defense Credit Union Council

Democratic Processes Center

Department of Family & Consumer Studies (UT)
Disability Policy Consortium

District of Columbia Credit Union League

East River Electric Power Cooperative (SD)
Economic Justice Institute

Empire State Consumer Association

ESL Federal Credit Union (NY)

Families Advocating Injury Reduction

Family Trust Federal Credit Union (SC)

First Missouri Credit Union

Florence Educators Federal Credit Union (SC)
Florida Action Coalition Team

Florida Attorney General’s Office

Florida Consumer Action Network

Florida Credit Union League

Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Florida Electric Cooperatives Association

4a

Florida Funeral & Cemetery Consumer Advocacy
Florida Municipal Electric Association

Florida Public Interest Foundation

Florida Public Interest Research Group

Food & Allied Service Trades

Food Research and Action Center

FreedomFirst Credit Union (VA)

Ft. Collins Light & Power Utility (CO)

Fund Democracy, Inc.

Funeral Consumers Alliance

Georgetown Kraft Credit Union (SC)

Georgia Public Interest Research Group

Greater Lawrence Community Action Council, Inc. (MA)
Greenbelt Consumer Cooperative (MD)

Group Health Cooperative (WA)

HALT

Handgun Control

Harbour Credit Counseling Services, Inc. (VA)

Harlem Consumer Education Council

Heartland Community Credit Union (MO)
Hillsborough County Consumer Protection Agency (FL)
Human Solutions

Idaho Consumer Affairs

Illinois Credit Union League

Illinois PIRG Education Fund

Indiana Credit Union League

Indiana Statewide Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives
International Association of Lemon Law Administrators
Iowa Association of Municipal Utilities

Iowa Credit Union League

Iowa Public Interest Research Group

Kalamazoo District Bell Federal Credit Union (MI)
Kansas City Neighborhood Alliance (MO)

Kansas Credit Union Association

Kansas Municipal Utilities

Kids In Danger

Laclede Family Savings Credit Union (MO)

Sa

Lafayette Utilities System (LA)

Legal Services of North Florida

Liberty Federal Credit Union (SC)

Lincoln Electric System (NE)

Lockheed Federal Credit Union (CA)

Lyon-Lincoln Electric Cooperative, Inc. (MN)

Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition

Maryland Public Interest Research Group

Massachusetts Consumers’ Coalition

Massachusetts Credit Union League

Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business
Regulation

Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group

Mazuma Credit Union (MO)

MCAS Beaufort Federal Credit Union (SC)

McCoy Federal Credit Union (FL)

Mecklenburg Electric Cooperative (VA)

Michigan Consumer Federation

Michigan Municipal Electric Association

Michigan State AFL-CIO

Mid—West Electric Consumers Association

Minnesota AFL-CIO

Minnesota Credit Union Network

Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association

Minnesota Public Interest Research Group

Minnesota Valley Cooperative Light and Power Association

Missouri Central Credit Union

Missouri Credit Union Association

Missouri Public Interest Research Group

Missouri River Energy Services (SD)

Missourians for Affordable Reliable Energy Service

Montana Public interest Research Group

Montgomery County Division of Consumer Affairs (MD)

Moorhead Public Service (MN)

Municipal Electric Systems of Oklahoma

National Association of Consumer Advocates

National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators

6a

National Association of Federal Credit Unions

National Association of Housing Cooperatives

National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators
National Center for Appropriate Technology

National Center on Poverty Law

National Citizens Coalition for Nursing Home Reform
National Consumer Law Center

National Consumers League

National Cooperative Bank

National Cooperative Business Association

National Farmers Union

National Low Income Housing Coalition

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative

Navy Federal Credit Union (VA)

New Jersey Public Interest Research Group Citizen Lobby
New Mexico Public Interest Research Group

New York Citizens Utility Board

New York City Board of Education Employees, Local 372
New York City Department of Consumer Affairs

New York City Consumer Assembly

New York Public Interest Research Group

Niagara Frontier Consumer Association (NY)

North Carolina Association of Electric Cooperatives
North Carolina Consumers Council

North Carolina Hunger Network

North Carolina Justice & Community Development Center
North Carolina Public Interest Research Group

North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives
Northeast Public Power Association

Northwestern Rural Electric Cooperative Association (PA)
NRL Federal Credit Union (MD)

Nutritional Resource Center

Ohio Consumers’ Counsel

Ohio Municipal Electric Association

Ohio Public Interest Research Group

Ohio State AFL-CIO

7a

Oklahoma Association of Electric Cooperatives
Orange County Teachers Federal Credit Union (CA)
Oregon Consumers League

Oregon State Public Interest Research Group
ORNL Federal Credit Union (TN)

PACE, International Union

Palmetto Citizens Federal Credit Union (SC)
Pennsylvania Credit Union Association
Pennsylvania Public Interest Research Group
Pentagon Federal Credit Union

Public Interest Research Group in Michigan
Public Utility Law Project of New York

Purina Credit Union (MO)

Quackwatch (PA)

Renville-Sibley Cooperative Power Association (MN)
Rhode Island Public Interest Research Group
Royal Oakland Community Credit Union (MI)
S.T.O.P.-Safe Tables Our Priority

SAC Federal Credit Union (NE)

Salt River Project (AZ)

Service Employees International Union

SHISA (FL) ;

South Carolina Credit Union League

South Dakota Credit Union League

South Dakota Rural Electric Association
Southeastern Electric Cooperative, Inc. (SD)
SRP Federal Credit Union (SC)

St. Louis Community Credit Union (MC)

St. Louis Postal Credit Union (MO)

St. Paul Postal Employees Credit Union (MN)
State Department Federal Credit Union

State of Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection
Sumter Electric Cooperative (FL)
Tallahassee—Leon Federal Credit Union (FL)
Tennessee Valley Public Power Association
Texas Alliance for Human Needs

Texas Citizen Action

NP OR MM a ee ees

8a

Texas Consumer Association

Texas Credit Union League

Texas Legal Services Center

Texas Low Income Housing Information Service
Texas Watch

The Consumer Alliance

The Danny Foundation

The Newspaper Guild of New York, AFL—CIO, Local 3
Tower Federal Credit Union (MD)

Treasury Department Federal Credit Union

U.S. Federal Credit Union

UCAN/Privacy Rights Clearinghouse

Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees
UNITE Southwest Credit Union (MO)

United Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters

United Auto Workers

United Auto Workers, Local 2195

United Auto Workers, Local 599

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union
Vantage Credit Union (MO)

Vermont Public Interest Research Group

Victim’s Committee for Recall of Defective Vehicles
Violence Policy Center

Virginia AFL-CIO

Virginia Citizens Consumer Council

Virginia Credit Union League

W.E. Morris Institute for Justice

Washington Credit Union League

Washington Public Interest Research Group
Washington Public Utility Districts Association
Waverly Light & Power (IA)

Wells Rural Electric Company (NV)

Wescom Credit Union (CA)

West River Electric Association (SD)

West Virginia Credit Union League

Western Fuels Association

Wisconsin Consumers League

9a

Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group

Wisconsin State AFL-CIO

Woodstock Institute

Wright Patman Congressional Federal Credit Union (DC)
Wyoming Credit Union League

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386015_2016%3A8. Public record. Not legal advice.