The survey question itself that was presented to the respondents was different from the one presented to them by the prosecution expert, and it was formulated by the defense expert as follows:
"To the best of your understanding , is the service center shown in this picture an authorized garage on behalf of the official importer of Toyota or an authorized garage on behalf of the parallel importer of Toyota? (to ask in rotation)" (p. 14 of Katz's opinion).
The possible answers to this question that were presented to the survey respondents were as follows:
"1. Licensed by the official importer of Toyota.
- Licensed by Toyota's parallel importer.
- I don't know."
According to the findings of this survey, 18% of the respondents (which is 25% of the opinion holders) believed that the defendant is indeed a licensed garage on behalf of the plaintiff's official importer, 62% (which is 75% of the opinion holders) answered that the defendant is licensed by the corresponding importer, and 20% of the respondents answered that they do not know how to answer the question.
Prof. Katz's opinion also included criticism against the validity of the findings of the prosecution expert, Ms. Anavi-Goldberg, and determined that it did not define what the "consumer public" of the service centers was, and that there was a possibility that the respondents did not own vehicles at all (paragraph 1 of Katz's opinion). In his opinion, Katz even criticized the survey itself conducted by Ms. Goldberg Anavi, claiming that it lacked representation of the Arab population in Israel and that the ultra-Orthodox community also suffers from under-representation in the survey. He also argued that there is underrepresentation in this survey for the population aged 65 and over, that there is an overrepresentation in the survey for residents of the south and Tel Aviv, as opposed to underrepresentation for residents of the central region, and that residents of Judea and Samaria are not represented in this survey at all (p. 10, paragraph 2 of the opinion).