A little while back, an SDMB thread was devoted to questioning the efficacy of air purifiers, and many Dopers wrote that Sharper Image’s Ionic Breeze was a piece of crap.
So did Consumer Reports. In their analysis (if I remember correctly), they said the device would be effective in a room with an area of two square feet, or something wildly funny like that. (CR didn’t provide the height for such a room, perhaps out of kindness to SI.)
Anyway, at least one Doper excoriated those of us who agreed with Consumer Report’s put down, saying something to the effect that one shouldn’t knock it til one has tried it.
Sharper Image was even more furious. They sued CR, and lost. Last May, Sharper Image had to pay CR’s legal bill of $525,000.
This month, Consumer Report came out with another bad review of the product:
Excerpt (my bolding):
Air cleaners: Some do little cleaning
Man installing 3M filter.
DUST BUSTER This $15 3M filter installs easily, but you needn’t pay for clean air.
Even the best air cleaners could be a frivolous investment, according to medical experts. Our tests also show that a few produce significant levels of ozone, an irritant that can worsen asthma and decrease lung function.
Market leader Sharper Image’s Professional Series Ionic Breeze Quadra SI737 is among the ionizing room models that did a poor job of cleaning dust and smoke from the air in our May 2005 report on ionizing air cleaners. All ionizing models produce some ozone, but those poor performers emitted enough of it to fail the industry-standard Underwriters Laboratories test that we replicated. **
This time, Sharper Image isn’t suing. Instead they’re resorting to a letter to journalists, critiquing the magazine’s critique.
The article I read is in today’s NY Times: This Time, Retaliation by the Sharper Image Is a Bit Less Litigious