In the case of Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 1983, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Consumers Union (CU), publisher of Consumer Reports magazine. The dispute began when CU published a review criticizing one of Bose's loudspeakers and Bose sued for product disparagement under Massachusetts state law. The District Court initially found in favor of Bose, ruling that CU had acted with "actual malice" by knowingly publishing false information or showing reckless disregard for the truth. However, on appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held that there was not sufficient evidence to prove actual malice on part of CU as required by New York Times Co v Sullivan standard for public figure defamation cases - which applies also to product disparagement cases involving reviews about products made by public figures like corporations such as Bose Corporation. The court emphasized First Amendment protections and stated that courts must independently examine the whole record to ensure against forbidden intrusions into freedom-of-speech rights even if it involves factual determinations usually reviewed under more deferential standards.

In the dissenting opinion for Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to apply a "clearly erroneous" standard in reviewing findings of actual malice in defamation cases involving public figures or matters of public concern. He argued that this approach was inconsistent with precedent and undermined the role of trial courts as fact-finders. Furthermore, he contended that it would lead to unnecessary retrials and appeals because appellate courts could easily substitute their own judgment for that of lower courts under such a standard. Instead, he advocated for deference to trial court determinations unless they were unsupported by substantial evidence or based on an incorrect legal standard.