High Court Rules In Favor of Top Gear Over Tesla Remarks

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

High Court Rules In Favor of Top Gear Over Tesla Remarks

Posted by timothy on Thursday October 20, 2011 @10:03AM from the we-all-win-when-top-gear-wins dept.

esocid writes "In 2008, BBC's 'Top Gear' aired an episode featuring the Tesla Roadster. One of the show's car reviewers, Jeremy Clarkson, gave a less-than-flattering analysis of the vehicle, sparking a legal case with the automaker that doesn't seem to be working out in Tesla's favor. Now, it looks as though Tesla is losing this battle after a full-day hearing yesterday at the high court in London. 'In my judgment, the words complained of are wholly incapable of conveying any meaning at all to the effect that the claimant [Tesla] misled anyone,' said [Mr. Justice] Tugendhat. 'This is because there is a contrast between the style of driving and the nature of the track as compared with the conditions on a public road [...] are so great that no reasonable person could understand that the performance on the [Top Gear] track is capable of a direct comparison with a public road.' The hearing now continues on Tesla's claim that 'Top Gear' made five other false accusations about the Roadster. Tugendhat has postponed judgment on Tesla's malicious falsehood claim, and is expected to deliver a verdict in the coming weeks."

48 of 328 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Tesla by 0123456 · 2011-10-20 10:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't seem to realise that Top Gear is a comedy show.
1. Re:Tesla by ackthpt · 2011-10-20 10:10 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Don't seem to realise that Top Gear is a comedy show.
  Top Gear allows us nobody/poor sods the vicarious thrill of watching a sports car race a fighter jet. I for one praise them for it.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
2. Re:Tesla by recrudescence · 2011-10-20 10:12 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Don't seem to realise that Top Gear is a comedy show.
  Yes, but you don't seem to realise that the Brits take their humour *very* seriously.
3. Re:Tesla by Anaerin · 2011-10-20 10:17 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Really? Because they've been nominated for, and won, several BAFTAs in the "Factual" sections.
4. Re:Tesla by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2011-10-20 11:06 · Score: 2
  
  What the hell is wrong with Top Gear USA?
  Top Gear UK sucked until oh, season 4. At Season 2 they're doing much better than TG UK was doing at S4. Plus I really do like Adam and Rutledge. I've warmed up to Tanner, but...
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
5. Re:Tesla by slimjim8094 · 2011-10-20 14:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Top Gear USA can't piss off their (car company) sponsors *too* much. Top Gear UK is funded by the BBC, so they don't give a rat's ass about making fun of or otherwise demeaning the car companies. It's what gives them their power.
  
  --
  I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
6. Re:Tesla by quacking+duck · 2011-10-20 14:40 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Score one for publicly funded broadcasters (also known as "damn left-wing, socialist, state-controlled media" to the Murdoch media empire and those who share their views).
Somebody who is... by theVarangian · 2011-10-20 10:08 · Score: 2

... high up in the food-chain at Telsa Motors should read this wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
1. Re:Somebody who is... by ackthpt · 2011-10-20 10:16 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  ... high up in the food-chain at Telsa Motors should read this wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
  
  Indeed. They are in great danger of making Jeremy an authority on the weaknesses of their product.
  Anyone remember how poorly Chevrolet handled a minor handling problem with the Corvair and virtually made Ralph Nader?
  *knock* *knock* Hi, History here, I'm repeating!! Hello?!? Anyone home?
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
2. Re:Somebody who is... by coolgeek · 2011-10-20 11:12 · Score: 2
  
  Streisand Effect, somewhat. I think this will be called the Tesla Effect, which will be known as a sure fire method to alienate any media outlets that might seek to promote your products.
  
  --
  
  cat /dev/null >sig
Your tax dollars at work by Dunbal · 2011-10-20 10:11 · Score: 2

1. Receive half a billion dollars in federal grant money.
2. Spend it on expensive lawyers to defend your "brand" overseas in the UK despite having sold less than 2000 cars in the whole world since the company started.
3. ???
4. Er, profit? It will take off any minute now. I promise.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
1. Re:Your tax dollars at work by hedwards · 2011-10-20 10:18 · Score: 2
  
  Despite the current stupidity, Tesla has come a long way in making affordable electric cars a reality. The Roadster went for $109k and the Model S is expected to go for only $60k or there abouts. The cost is in my view expensive, but there's a fair number of people out there even now that could afford to spend $60k on a car.
  The more significant thing is that they can charge it in a few hours on household current.
2. Re:Your tax dollars at work by hedwards · 2011-10-20 10:33 · Score: 2
  
  Well for starters there are the folks that would prefer not to be subsidizing terrorism via paying for gas.
3. Re:Your tax dollars at work by Coolhand2120 · 2011-10-20 10:57 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  There is no profit shark at the government, they have no interest in turning a profit, being efficient or saving money, if it's not efficient so what? The government can't go broke they just tax, print, borrow. Look up "base line spending" if you don't agree. The government has trillions of dollars in debt and is taking in less tax revenue but in the last 5 years has increased spending by 33%. If a private business behaves like the government for too long it will cease to exist.
  
  If a private company had a 401K plan like the government has social security, and the CEO borrowed money from the 401Ks like the government constantly borrows from SS, the CEOs would be in federal prison for a very long time. The government has no metric for success, they do stuff just because. It doesn't matter if people actually benefit from what the government does, they get paid anyway. Not the case with private business. It doesn't matter if it's a total abject failure that kills people and brings misery, it's still "a good thing" because the government is doing it, the "war on drugs" is a wonderful example of this. If it took too long for the pizza to get to your house do you get your money back? (yes) If it took too long for the cops to get to your house when you dial 911 do you get your taxes back? (no). If a private person or business wrongs you there is recourse in the courts. If the government wrongs you, you're just fucked (sovereign immunity)
  
  So ya, huge difference.
4. Re:Your tax dollars at work by BasilBrush · 2011-10-20 10:58 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I've worked in many jobs over the years, mostly private sector, some public sector. In my experience the private sector is far less efficient than the public sector. Your misconception is common and comes from confusing efficiency with making a profit.
  The private sector's objective is to make a profit, and they'll tend to limit themselves to those activities that can make a profit. The public sector deals with those things that still need doing regardless of whether there's money to me made.
5. Re:Your tax dollars at work by GrahamCox · 2011-10-20 11:00 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The more significant thing is that they can charge it in a few hours on household current.
  
  The roadster has a 53kWh battery. Thus to charge it in a "few", (say, 3) hours will need ~17kW, which is 70A at 240V, assuming you have 240V, which is not the standard voltage in the US, I know. I don't know many homes that would be capable of handling that amount of current, so the claim looks unreasonable.
  
  More realistically, if you had a 240V/35A supply, you'd be looking at 6-7 hours charging. Not so bad, but that's still a very hefty current you're pulling- it's like having an electric oven on full blast for 7 hours. Your bills are going to go through the roof, though I guess it could still work out cheaper than petrol.
  
  A 240V/13A supply will need 17 hours to recharge. That's a typical "household current" socket in the UK, Europe and Australia, but I don't really call that a "few" hours.
6. Re:Your tax dollars at work by mjwalshe · 2011-10-20 11:15 · Score: 2
  
  and if a lot of houses put there cars on charge over night its going to do terrible things to the national grid.
7. Re:Your tax dollars at work by tompaulco · 2011-10-20 12:24 · Score: 2
  
  I agree. Where I live, the grid is tapped out. The power company is doing free energy checkups and installing insulation, caulking and whatnot on people's homes in order to try to decrease electrical usage. That sounds kind of dumb for them to be trying to decrease their income, right? Well, there is a reason for this. The grid is tapped out. In order to have more capacity, they are going to have to build another plant. Building another plant is EXPENSIVE. Now, I should say that they did TRY to build another plant, but it was politically blocked by the greens, so now the only kind of grid increase we are allowed to do is wind energy and that is hideously expensive. And it won't be long before the greens stop us from putting up wind turbines because of the poor blind and deaf birds which are unable to avoid the blades.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
8. Re:Your tax dollars at work by Forbman · 2011-10-20 12:34 · Score: 2
  
  Hmm... anyone with an electric clothes dryer in the US or Canada probably already has at least one 240V 40 or 50 amp circuit in their house...
9. Re:Your tax dollars at work by kf6auf · 2011-10-20 13:03 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, the original poster isn't quite right, but you are ignoring the fact that EVs are basically designed to be topped off every night instead of only filled when it gets near empty, as is typically done with gas cars. GP should have said that you can charge it from empty overnight on household power (240V/35A). Even most US houses have this anyway because electricity is delivered on +120V and -120V wires, and it's just that most appliances that aren't electric ovens, dryers, and/or air conditioners, run between 120V and neutral while those large power appliances run between +120V/35A and -120V/35A.
  Since most electricity at night costs ~$0.11/kWh and gas costs ~$4.00/gal, going 100 miles costs $3 in a Roadster (27kWh) or $8 in a Prius (2gal). I haven't ever bought electricity in another country, but I know the gas is sure way more expensive in the EU so I expect one would get the same result there.
  So a one-car family probably shouldn't have an EV (until we get 1000 mile batteries), in case they need to take a road trip. But many American middle-class families have 2 (or 3) cars, 1 of which could be an EV.
A bit thin-skinned... by TWX · 2011-10-20 10:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

I don't know if Tesla submitted the vehicle to Top Gear themselves or if Top Gear sought one from an intermediary, but anyone building an automobile must expect that television shows that review automobiles will probably review theirs, in their own way, and will probably state exactly how they feel about it. Top Gear in particular won't hold anything back if they don't like a vehicle, and are known for being biased, usually in a humorous, way, but still biased.
If Tesla wants positive reviews, they need to build a car that gets those reviews from testers. For the most part Top Gear uses the types of tracks that are available to companies that build cars, so if they want to excel at a specific type of track they have the option to engineer with that in mind.
If not, there's always Motor Week...

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
1. Re:A bit thin-skinned... by h4rr4r · 2011-10-20 10:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It was nothing about the track or the cars actual performance. Clarkson hates electric cars and is the sort of dimwit that thinks hydrogen power is going somewhere. He will use any reason real or imaginary to knock any electric car. They should have known that going in.
2. Re:A bit thin-skinned... by h4rr4r · 2011-10-20 10:44 · Score: 2
  
  I agree completely, but Clarkson hates electrics and they should have known that before they sent the car over.
  I do disagree about the term capability though. They have lots of torque and power, range is the issue.
3. Re:A bit thin-skinned... by SenseiLeNoir · 2011-10-20 11:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Wrong, clarkson does not hate electric, he actually likes the idea of them. He has pointed out this in many places, just google it.
  His problem is:
  The batteries are currently bulky yet have poor range.(he has concerns on the safety of Li.ion in huge sizes in a car)
  And...
  It takes too long to charge
  So short range with ages to charge means its not practical for many uses, except in town for short journeys.
  This is also why he likes hydrogen fuel cell, because it's still electric, but the "capacity" is greater, and filling up is quicker, making it more practical.
  
  --
  Have a nice day!
4. Re:A bit thin-skinned... by fiannaFailMan · 2011-10-20 12:25 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I actually disagree with a lot of what Clarkson says, but I still enjoy listening to him, particularly when he's gushing over an Aston Martin or the latest "Jaaaag". My only gripe is that when he's coming up with blatant mistruths or reading from dubious "trains cause more pollution per passenger mile than cars" research, I wish James May would act like his hippie character and call him on it. The banter between the characters is supposed to be a means of conveying technical information in an entertaining manner, I wish they would use it when it comes to the positive side of alternative power sources.
  
  --
  Drill baby drill - on Mars
5. Re:A bit thin-skinned... by subreality · 2011-10-20 12:30 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  There's no problem obtaining and transporting hydrogen. You make it at the fueling station from water and electricity - the exact inverse reaction that occurs in a fuel cell. Of course, that electricity comes from the grid, the same as it would if you were generating the hydrogen at a central station.
  With either batteries or hydrogen, the grid is capable of supporting 90% of our transportation needs, right now, no upgrades required, even in California. The trick is that we have to do the bulk charging / electrolysis off-peak. Why is that a deal-killer?
6. Re:A bit thin-skinned... by evelo · 2011-10-20 13:33 · Score: 2
  
  If Tesla wants positive reviews, they need to build a car that gets those reviews from testers.
  That will never fly here for the same reason that the American Top Gear will never come close to the spirit of the original. This is a BBC thing: sponsors don't pay for the show... people do. Without worry of offending sponsors or friends of sponsors or potential future sponsors, Clarkson can pretty much express any personal opinion he wants. We have a word for that here in TVland: "terrorism".
7. Re:A bit thin-skinned... by heironymous · 2011-10-20 13:49 · Score: 2
  
  There's no problem obtaining and transporting hydrogen. You make it at the fueling station from water and electricity - the exact inverse reaction that occurs in a fuel cell.
  Unfortunately, that's only almost true. Electrolysis is not very efficient, so it's not the exact inverse reaction.
  In any case, a hydrogen economy does not solve our fossil fuel problem; it merely moves where they are burned.
8. Re:A bit thin-skinned... by subreality · 2011-10-20 14:15 · Score: 2
  
  Moving where it's burned is worthwhile as long as we're being efficient, which batteries are, relatively. Power stations are cleaner than cars.
  It DOES solve the problem if we generate electricity from non-carbon sources. Wind and nuclear are good choices, but solar has some problems if we need to charge batteries at night.
9. Re:A bit thin-skinned... by LingNoi · 2011-10-20 16:47 · Score: 2
  
  If you look up solar heating of salt and storage it seems pretty viable for some places. I've only recently been looking at it, they focus light into one spot which will heat anything up over 3600 degrees. They heat some kind of salt up to this temperature and can store it for many hours at this temperature too meaning they can generate electricity throughout the night.
10. Re:A bit thin-skinned... by mrbill1234 · 2011-10-21 02:25 · Score: 2
  
  The majority (99%) of the worlds hydrogen is made from hydrocarbons believe it or not (natural gas). Hardly a solution! Yes you can make it from water - but it is not efficient - and you would be better off using that electricity to charge a battery vehicle.
Re:When Was The Script Written? by hedwards · 2011-10-20 10:14 · Score: 2

No, Tesla is claiming that, but IIRC they had only scripted out parts of the show. But supposedly the only prescripted bits were the ones they knew they needed to get due to limited light. The things that involved actually driving the vehicles hadn't been written ahead.
Or at least that's my understanding of the matter.
Re:Citation by h4rr4r · 2011-10-20 10:18 · Score: 2

The claim is that the car did not actually run out of power, and that Top Gear pretended it did. You would think telsa would have been smart enough to place some sort of monitoring system in said vehicle.
Follow Koenigsegg by eepok · 2011-10-20 10:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

Koenigsegg put a super car on Top Gear. It was not good enough. There was not enough down force in the rear, the car lost control, and it crashed. Top Gear said, "This thing REALLY needs a spoiler."
Koenigsegg sued Top Gear. Just kidding, they put a spoiler on it and sent it back to Top Gear. They took it around the track again and it got an amazing time. No crashes.
No, I'm not saying that Top Gear can instantly diagnose car problems and their words should be heeded at all times. What I'm saying is that Koenigsegg made off with massive good PR by taking criticism from some of the most watched television personalities in the world, improved their car, and, showing no hard feelings, gave the car back to them. They didn't call mommy and daddy claiming their driver crashed their car. They didn't claim slander. They knew that they had the opportunity to show how dedicated they were to making an amazing car and took it.
Tesla, well... We breed them litigious here.
1. Re:Follow Koenigsegg by subreality · 2011-10-20 11:23 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The Koenigsegg had a design flaw, so they fixed it and resubmitted it.
  The Tesla performed without problems, but they made it look like the battery died unexpectedly. What's Tesla supposed to do? Put a bigger battery in and resubmit it so the show can complain that the extra weight makes it harder to push back to the garage?
2. Re:Follow Koenigsegg by jo_ham · 2011-10-20 12:49 · Score: 2
  
  How long does a Veyron last when driven like that on the track? It's not long, I assure you!
  They're claiming a double standard in that case, since a high performance track car is going to guzzle fuel and you can "limp it off the track" on empty and refill it, certainly, just like you can roll the Tesla off the track and plug it into a high-cap charger to fill it up again. Yes, it takes longer to recharge the Tesla than it does to "recharge" a Veyron or an Elise etc, but it's not the 13 hours they like to suggest for the low-power trickle charge - there are fast charge systems available that bring that time right down.
  Do we have a way to go before the convenience of gasoline? Absolutely, but you'd think with the way TG have it in for the electric car you'd think we were in the early days of steam locomotion "Smooth wheels on smooth rails?! How does that work then?! It'll never catch on!".
Re:Citation by hedwards · 2011-10-20 10:35 · Score: 2

The breaks technically didn't fail, the fuse for the breaks failed. But, personally, I wouldn't consider that to be a lie as I wouldn't give a damn why the brakes weren't functioning if they were stuck in one position or the other.
Re:Citation by NeutronCowboy · 2011-10-20 10:44 · Score: 5, Informative

They did. That's why they're claiming outright fraud with respect to the "the car is dead" segment - according to the car's logs, the car never ran out of power.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Lies / Truth by tirefire · 2011-10-20 11:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Top Gear used lies to tell the truth.

Tesla used the truth to tell lies.

This whole thing is ridiculous.
Re:What Tesla doesn't get is Marketing by newcastlejon · 2011-10-20 11:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

It wasn't just what Clarkson said, it's also what was shown: a Tesla being pushed into a garage, ostensibly running out of power mid-test. I was very disappointed with Aunty when I learned this was staged*. Between that, the overly farcical "accidents" and a dearth of tests on normal cars I could ever buy I just stopped watching.
*I'm not a complete idiot; I know batteries run out, but was an accurate portrayal of the car's range really too much to ask?

--
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
Tesla Roadster, car by weasels by O('_')O_Bush · 2011-10-20 11:27 · Score: 2

I'm convinced that Tesla is run by weasels.

They know they produce an inferior car to most well below their price points in terms of performance, but instead of being honest and working hard to improve the car or lowering the price, they sue those that call them out on it.

As far as I have seen, their strongest ad campaign has been through drag races against the Dodge Viper and the Porsche GT and those are very apples-to-oranges races. The Porsche and Viper are 180mph+ cars and are geared to do so; the Roadster is geared to do about 125mph.

Low gearing will allow many weak cars get to 60 quickly, and the motor's weak performance really shows in the quarter mile (12.7s@104mph <Viper is 12.9s@113mph first gen, 10.92@127mph current gen>).

Its no surprise that the rest of the car is lackluster as well, but a lot of their problems could be solved if they lowered their profit margin a bit (or raised the price) and created a product that stood on its own without the smoke and mirrors tactics.

Being thin-skinned is an understatement. In my opinion, they go out of their way to be liars and cheats and it seems they will do anything to hide that behavior.

--
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
1. Re:Tesla Roadster, car by weasels by sjbe · 2011-10-20 13:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They know they produce an inferior car to most well below their price points in terms of performance...
  Any car that costs more than about $50,000 is well into diminishing returns on the price. Nobody buys a $100,000 car because it is a rational economic decision. You are well into conspicuous consumption territory which has nearly nothing to do with any reasonable evaluation of performance per dollar.
  
  As far as I have seen, their strongest ad campaign has been through drag races against the Dodge Viper and the Porsche GT and those are very apples-to-oranges races. The Porsche and Viper are 180mph+ cars and are geared to do so; the Roadster is geared to do about 125mph.
  I have a truck that is geared to do about 125mph but I'm pretty sure it won't beat a Viper in any race. Fact is that electric motors should be very good at drag races and the Tesla bears this out. And frankly who the hell cares if a car can go 180mph? You will never, ever drive it that fast. In fact I'd wager to say that close to no one who reads this has been much over 140mph unless they actually race cars or live in Germany. I guess it makes for good marketing but it's a retarded statistic. Like buying a first generation Hummer when you live in the suburbs - it makes no sense whatsoever.
Re:What Tesla doesn't get is Marketing by jo_ham · 2011-10-20 11:38 · Score: 5, Informative

He also said some downright false things, for example that it had run totally flat and had to be pushed back into the garage by the crew to be recharged before they had finished filming when in reality the car had 20% charge at minimum, as logged by the onboard computer - in other words, they didn't manage to run it flat during the shoot, but the script (which Tesla saw) called for the ending of the piece to show the car "limping" off the track under human propulsion.
I saw the piece when it originally aired (I'm a Top Gear fan), but they really went for the throat at the end. The review was reasonably fair up to that point - they had a lot of positives to say about the car, along with some downsides. There was no need for them to lie at the end.
They did something similar in the latest electric car piece (with the Leaf and some other car [possibly a Peugeot]) where they "comically" ran out of juice in the middle of a town with nowhere to recharge after "setting off for a day's driving" - it was revealed that they set off with low charge in the cars to begin with.
Their position on electric cars seems to be "say some nice things, but then make sure we ram home the point that they have batteries that need to be charged, herp derp!".
Like I say, I'm a fan of the series and have been since before the current Clarkson/May/Hammond setup, but the stuff about anything that runs on alternative fuels is just getting tiresome.
Re:What Tesla doesn't get is Marketing by Lord+Crc · 2011-10-20 12:26 · Score: 2

He also said some downright false things, for example that it had run totally flat and had to be pushed back into the garage by the crew to be recharged [...]
He said no such thing, at least in the episode I watched. What he did say was

This car then really was shaping up to be something wonderful. But then... [cuts to shot of the Tesla losing power followed by the car being pushed into the garage] Although Tesla says it does 200 miles, we worked out that it would run out after just 55 miles.
Emphasis and errors are mine.
So yeah, the images were overly dramatic which makes the whole thing seem bigger than it is, but that's not really that uncommon in the news world now is it.
Reference: http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/electric-shocker
Misleading as it was . . . by Kunedog · 2011-10-20 12:35 · Score: 2

. . . the Tesla review was really nothing compared to the rock-throwing attack they tried to fake in Alabama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdOpKv9D7rA
Re:What Tesla doesn't get is Marketing by jo_ham · 2011-10-20 12:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

I saw the episode when it first aired. He said "[we wanted to do some more shots] but look what happened" in the VO that showed the car being pushed into the garage by hand, strongly implying that the battery was flat when it could easily have driven off the track under its own power, since it had 20% left.
They faked the battery being flat, in other words. They just didn't *say* "the battery went flat", which seems to be have all they needed to do to ensure they were legally "not lying".
Re:What Tesla doesn't get is Marketing by Lord+Crc · 2011-10-20 13:28 · Score: 3, Informative

I saw the episode when it first aired. He said "[we wanted to do some more shots] but look what happened" in the VO that showed the car being pushed into the garage by hand
I saw the episode when it originally aired as well, and I quite distinctly recall mentioning to my buddy that it was silly to estimate the range by the usage on a race track, since nobody would, or should, drive like that on public roads.
I think you're mixing it up with the part that comes a bit later, where he says

And it appears you don't get much in the way of reliability either.
[Shot of Tesla driving slowly along track] Oh I don't believe this, the motor's overheating and I got reduced power.
[Exterior shot] While it cooled down we went to get the silver car out again.
[Shot of silver Tesla in garage with doors open] Only to find that while it was being charged it's breaks had broken. So then, with the lights fading, we had no cars at all.
I haven't followed the case closely, I have no idea how this specific segment holds up.
Re:Negative reviews are not slander. by artor3 · 2011-10-20 13:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Reviews that lie about a product can be slander. Let's say you own a restaurant. I don't like you, so I buy a few cockroaches, smuggle them in, plant them in the meal I order, and then film myself "finding" them in my food, and post the results for millions of people to see.
That's not a negative review anymore. That's slander and fraud, and you have every right to sue me to make up for all the business you lose. You can't "swallow your pride and make improvements" on a problem that doesn't actually exist.
That's what Top Gear did. They faked serious problems to discourage people from buying the car. I like the show, but what they did was inexcusable.