Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: FRIDAY, May 28, 1993                   TAG: 9305280126
SECTION: BUSINESS                    PAGE: A-7   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: MARI YAMAGUCHI ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: TOKYO                                LENGTH: Medium

THEY'RE LONG ON PRODUCT, SHORT ON USER PROTECTION

Shoichi Iwasaki was shocked to see flames, not printed documents, coming from his word processor after returning home from a brief shopping trip.

By the time the fire was out, the flames and smoke from the 8-month-old machine - made by Sharp under the Minolta Camera Co. label - had ruined documents vital to Iwasaki's produce-distributing business. His family had to spend weeks in a hotel waiting for their home to be repaired.

When Minolta gave Iwasaki only $2,678 in compensation and a replacement word processor, he did what any self-respecting Western consumer would do: He sued.

Iwasaki joined the growing number of disgruntled Japanese consumers fighting a legal system and business world strongly biased against the little guy.

Although Japanese companies have built a reputation for quality, catering to customers renowned for their finickiness, consumer protection has only recently become an issue of public debate.

The concept was completely alien to most Japanese before recent reports disclosed that video-game maker Nintendo had neglected to warn Japanese that using its games could cause seizures in children with a particular type of epilepsy.

Nintendo had attached warnings only to products made for export.

Masato Nakamura, a lawyer who advocates stronger consumer protection laws, says the Japanese long have been virtual guinea pigs for big companies that spend almost nothing on compensation for product defects.

"I think Japanese manufacturers have treated us like a group of fools. . . . They should realize they bear social responsibility," said Hidehisa Nishijima, vice secretary-general of the National Liaison Committee of Consumers' Organizations.

Japanese law doesn't specifically address the issue of product liability. Iwasaki, as plaintiff in his $89,000 lawsuit against Minolta, Sharp and Kawasaki Densen, the maker of the word processor's electrical cord, bears all responsibility in court for proving what caused the machine to catch fire.

Iwasaki wants to know why.

"I'm not an electronics specialist," he said. "It's the producer who has the most information. I know I saw the machine burning, and I don't understand why it's me who has to do all the work."

To maintain their reputation for good service, Japanese manufacturers often willingly fix minor defects. But they tend to balk when there are extensive damages, as in Iwasaki's case.

Minolta denies responsibility for the fire and seems unlikely to help Iwasaki prove his case. Japan's legal system has no equivalent of the U.S. "discovery rule," under which crucial documents must be disclosed to both sides in a case.

The lack of disclosure laws, high fees, slow court procedures and a scarcity of lawyers discourage most Japanese from seeking legal recourse for problem products.

Under rules intended to thwart frivolous lawsuits, a plaintiff seeking $89,000 in damages must pay $3,750 just to file suit. In the United States it would cost $100.

Since World War II, there have been about 150 court rulings on product defects in Japan. In most cases, consumers lost, according to the Japan Bar Association.

Although the small number of cases may indicate that Japanese products carry relatively few defects, it also reflects what amounts to a national allergy to legal disputes. Most lemon-stricken consumers just count themselves unlucky or settle out of court.

In fiscal 1992, the Japan Consumer Information Center, a group affiliated with the Economic Planning Agency, received 27 reports of injuries caused by automobile defects - none involving deaths. The vast majority of 1,240 complaints received by the center last year were against beauty-treatment clinics and cosmetics makers.

Nearly 70 percent said they did not complain to manufacturers or the retail stores directly, mainly because they "didn't want to feel awkward" and "assumed complaints wouldn't do any good."

Critics charge that weak consumer protection standards allow Japanese manufacturers to provide fewer safety features and warnings for domestic models than exports, as in the Nintendo case.

Last year, decades after the United States began enacting product liability legislation, the government formed a committee to look into the issue. But the panel has put off proposing legislation because of strong opposition from business.