Named plaintiff Alicia M. Bryant is a Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, mother of three children with respiratory problems. She sued the San Francisco-based retailer of high-tech items for home and office, alleging that the Ionic Breeze air purifier she bought earlier this year does not perform up to the company's claims and does not conform to federal regulations on ozone emissions. The Ionic Breeze air purifier is a machine that uses electrostatic plate technology to purportedly clean the air of airborne irritants, allergens and pollutants, to eliminate odors and to freshen the air. The company's Web site says its line of air purifiers is among its best-selling items.

When Consumer Reports magazine rated two of the Ionic Breeze models "poor" in its October 2003 article "Air Cleaners: Behind the Hype," in which it compared them to other room air cleaners, The Sharper Image sued Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, in federal court in San Francisco. The suit, which claimed the magazine's findings were "false and misleading," was quickly countered by Consumers Union in October with a motion to strike The Sharper Image's suit under the Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation statute, a 1992 California law that protects against lawsuits designed to chill constitutional rights, particularly the right to free speech.

The action alleges that Sharper Image does not disclose the maximum acceptable concentration of ozone that may be generated by the air purifier, and doesn’t indicate the smallest area in which the device should be used so as not to produce an ozone accumulation in excess of the maximum acceptable level. Because it allegedly does not effectively clean and deodorize the air, it does not eliminate viruses, bacteria and mold spores as labeled and sold -- a violation of Federal Trade Commission rules against "unfair or deceptive acts or practices."