GM's Email to Comcast Re: Pulling Ad Hoc Safety Ad

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

[mail to:]
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2009 7:04 PM
To: Koles, Kathryn

Kathryn –

I got your voicemail indicating that you had finished your reviewed of the issue ad that we discussed briefly earlier today. As I mentioned earlier, the ad has already run at least one time on MSBC on Friday, June 19 at 11:49am EDT.

GM’s concern with ad that can be found at is that it inaccurately suggests that GM and Chrysler have taken identical positions with regard to product defect and porduct liability issues. Of greatest concern to us is the insinuation that “defects would no longer be reported let alone fixed” by GM. This is certainly not the case for GM, as is noted elsewhere in several other places on the website. A letter from theSenate Commerce Committee to Fritz Henderson that is described on the website can be viewed in the link below — it acknowledges that GM has already agreed to assume those responsibilities in the new company.

We may have further issues to discuss regarding this ad. but I thought it might be useful to get that one if frontof your prior to our further conversation. Thanks again for the opportunity to weigh in.


313.667.6186 (o)
313.378.6535 (c)

Here’s a link to the letter to from the Senate Commerce Committee.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Join the conversation
4 of 5 comments
  • Mikey610 Mikey610 on Jun 26, 2009
    it acknowledges that GM has already agreed to assume those responsibilities in the new company. Where in that letter does it acknowledge that GM has agreed to ANYTHING? The relevant line from the letter: The New GM has a continued responsibility to repair and recall vehicles manufactures by the old GM.
  • SexCpotatoes SexCpotatoes on Jun 26, 2009

    greenb1ood: I wonder if the lawyers are going to demand a legalese block be included in all emails (internal AND external) at GM that the correspondence is only between the two parties and is not to be reproduced without express consent of the legal department. Or do those fancy boilerplates even hold up in a court of law anymore?

  • JeremyR JeremyR on Jun 26, 2009

    I'm always amused by those e-mail signature disclaimers that say something to the effect of, "This e-mail is intended to be confidential between parties xxx and yyy. If you have received it in error, you are required to delete it." I'm no lawyer, but I believe that just because you can demand whatever you want in an e-mail, that doesn't obligate me to comply.

  • Campisi Campisi on Jun 27, 2009

    All this really shows is that GM didn't like the ad in question. I sort of assumed that was obvious.