The Ionic Breeze is given a "poor" rating by Consumer Reports, who claims that the Ionic Breeze removed very few particles from the air in their tests. The Sharper Image complained about the testing method used by Consumer Reports, so the organization tested the Ionic Breeze a second time, after the testing method was reviewed and validated by an independent expert, and got the same result. The magazine also had two other independent experts examine the research studies provided by Sharper Image "proving" the Ionic Breeze was effective, and those experts found those documents to be unimpressive, with flawed methodology or simply irrelevant as to whether the Ionic Breeze was an effective air cleaner. A third round of testing by Consumer Reports, as reported in their May 2005 update on ionizing air cleaners, again showed the same results.
In a well-publicized lawsuit filed in September 2003 in California, the Sharper Image asserted that Consumer Reports' findings were false and malicious. Consumers Union, the magazine's parent organization, made a motion in October 2003 to throw the case out of court, maintaining that Consumer Reports' tests are valid. That lawsuit was thrown out of court on November 9, 2004, with the court upholding Consumer Reports' First Amendment right to free speech in its assessment and review of the Ionic Breeze Quadra.
