▁of ▁Cons um ers ▁Union , ▁the ▁publish er ▁of ▁Cons umer ▁Re ports ▁magazine , ▁r uling ▁that ▁proof ▁of ▁" actual ▁mal ice " ▁was ▁necessary ▁in ▁product ▁dispar agement ▁cases ▁raising ▁First ▁Am end ment ▁issues , ▁as ▁set ▁out ▁by ▁the ▁case ▁of ▁New ▁York ▁Times ▁Co . ▁v . ▁S ull ivan ▁( 1 9 6 4 ). ▁The ▁Court ▁ruled ▁that ▁the ▁First ▁Circ uit ▁Court ▁of ▁App e als ▁had ▁correctly ▁concluded ▁that ▁B ose ▁had ▁not ▁presented ▁proof ▁of ▁actual ▁mal ice . ▁ ▁The ▁magazine ▁Cons umer ▁Re ports ▁had ▁published ▁in ▁ 1 9 7 0 ▁a ▁review ▁of ▁an ▁unusual ▁loud spe aker ▁system ▁manufact ured ▁by ▁B ose ▁Corporation , ▁called ▁the ▁B ose ▁ 9 0 1 . ▁The ▁review ▁expressed ▁ske ptic ism ▁of ▁the ▁system ' s ▁quality ▁and ▁recommended ▁that ▁consum ers ▁delay ▁purchase ▁until ▁they ▁had ▁investig ated ▁for ▁themselves ▁whether ▁the ▁loud spe aker ▁system ' s ▁unusual ▁attributes ▁would ▁suit ▁them . ▁B ose ▁object ed ▁to ▁numerous ▁statements ▁in ▁the ▁article , ▁including ▁the ▁sentences , ▁" W or se , ▁individual ▁instruments ▁heard ▁through ▁the ▁B ose ▁system ▁seemed ▁to ▁grow ▁to ▁gig antic ▁proport ions ▁and ▁t ended ▁to ▁w ander ▁about ▁the ▁room . ▁For ▁instance , ▁a ▁viol in ▁appeared ▁to ▁be ▁ ▁wide ▁and ▁a ▁piano ▁stretch ed ▁from ▁wall ▁to ▁wall ." ▁ ▁B ose ▁demanded ▁a ▁retra ction ▁when ▁they ▁learned ▁that ▁Cons umer ▁Re ports