On 1/14/00, the NAM filed an amicus brief in this case, urging the Georgia Supreme Court to reverse a lower court ruling that allowed evidence of warranty returns for automobile tires to be used as evidence that the tires were defectively manufactured. Manufacturers allow warranty returns for a variety of procompetitive reasons that have no relation to whether the tires were defectively manufactured, and it is unfair to infer that a product is defectively manufactured simply because companies provide money-back guarantees. Although the Georgia Supreme Court initially denied review on 4/28/00, Cooper Tire, supported by another NAM amicus brief, asked for reconsideration. On 2/16/01, the court reversed the lower court, holding that evidence of consumer claims honored by the manufacturer is inadmissible at trial unless there is proof of a "substantial similarity between the purported tire defect that caused the injuries in this case and the basis for the consumer claims that were honored by the manufacturer . . . ." Thus, a trial court has the discretion to exclude evidence that has no "substantial similarity" to the actual claims in the case. This is an important victory for manufacturers, as it helps to ensure that only relevant evidence is considered when assessing tort liability against a company. 6/16/00