ASA Adjudication on Dyson Appliances Ltd

Ad

A TV ad, for Dyson vacuum cleaners, featured a voiceover that stated “The filter in most vacuums clogs with dust, so there is a drop in suction, but a Dyson doesn’t rely on a filter so there’s nothing to clog”. On-screen text stated “others clog … ours don’t … dyson No clogging. No loss of suction”.

Issue

Hoover Candy Group and 35 members of the public challenged whether:

1. the claim "a Dyson doesn't rely on a filter so there's nothing to clog" was misleading, because it implied Dyson cleaners did not have filters, yet they understood Dyson cleaners contained filters, which became clogged over time and use and

2. the claim "No clogging. No loss of suction" was misleading, because they understood that Dyson cleaners lost suction as a result of clogging.

BCAP TV Code

Response

Dyson said vacuum cleaners picked up dirt and dust from the household, separated it from the airflow, and retained it inside the machine. They said all three of those tasks required the cleaner to maximise its suction power. They said non-Dyson cleaners clogged and lost efficiency as they performed those tasks.

They said cleaners that used barrier filtration (bags) clogged because, as the dirty air passed through the bag, it deposited that dust and dirt on the bag's interior surface. They said large particles hit the bag sides and fell to the bottom but finer dust settled, penetrated the bag and covered the small holes that allowed air to travel through the bag, causing a reduction in the air flow and suction power.

They said non-Dyson bagless cleaners replaced the bag with a combination of bin and filter. They said, in those cleaners, the larger dirt particles collected at the bottom of the bin and the finer dust particles were carried on to the filter. They said, as with the bag cleaner, the finer particles settled on and penetrated the filter and covered the small holes that allowed air to pass through the filter. They said that type of cleaner also suffered from clogging, because the suction power dropped as more dust was picked up.

Dyson said their cleaners were different, because they used two cyclonic sections to separate dust and dirt from the air. They said the outer cyclone separated out the larger dirt particles and deposited them at the bottom of the clear bin. They said the inner cyclones spun the air around quickly enough for the fine dust particles to be separated from the air and fall to the bottom of the bin. They said there was no loss of suction because there was no clogging.

Dyson said their vacuum cleaners used two filters: one was a pre-motor filter, designed to protect the vacuum motor from fine dust that could find its way into the motor, for example, if the machine was overloaded. The second was a post-motor filter that captured emissions of carbon and other particles from the motor itself, which ensured that the final air emissions were suitable for allergy sufferers. They said the primary function of a vacuum cleaner was to remove dust and dirt from the collected air and neither of the filters in Dyson cleaners performed that function. They said the instructions for the use of the Dyson cleaner stated that the pre-motor filter should be cleaned every six months to avoid clogging and loss of suction.

Dyson said the periodic cleaning of the filter as a preventative measure was part of the instructions for normal use of their cleaners. They explained that, if the instructions were not followed and the filter not cleaned, there could then be some loss of suction performance. They said loss of suction performance as a result of not following the instructions for use was different from loss of suction performance as a result of clogging in non-Dyson cleaners, which contained bags or filters that clogged even if they were cleaned.

Dyson sent evidence which showed that five of their cleaners showed no loss of suction when 500g of dust was added; one of their cleaners showed no loss of suction when 550g of dust was added and another one of their cleaners showed no loss of suction when 600g of dust was added.

Dyson said the ad did not claim that their cleaners did not contain filters but merely stated that, unlike other machines (including other bagless ones), theirs did not rely on a filter to achieve the primary separation from the air of dirt, dust and fibres vacuumed from surfaces; that was achieved by the outer cyclone and inner cyclones. Dyson said the ad, in particular the claim in the voiceover "The filter in most vacuums ... but a Dyson ..." made clear the difference between the way in which filters in Dyson cleaners and filters in other cleaners worked.

They said the fact that the ad stated "a Dyson doesn't rely on a filter", not "... a Dyson does not have a filter...", made clear to viewers that Dyson cleaners had filters but that those filters operated in a different way from those found in other cleaners. They said the complainants all had Dyson cleaners and would therefore know that they had filters; they said their point of sale material made clear that the cleaners contained filters.

The Broadcasting Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) said they sought expert advice from a consultant and discussed the ad in their secretariat meeting before clearing it. They said they agreed with Dyson's argument that, although the ad stated "a Dyson doesn't rely on a filter", it was not misleading, because it did not state that there was no filter at all.

They said their consultant had stated " ... As dust collects in a filter it gradually fills all the spaces and this can be likened to the effect on the letters. The demonstration [of clogging] is therefore a fair representation. Dyson does not "rely" on filters as at least 99% of filtration is undertaken in the cyclones. However they [filters] are fitted to Dyson vacuum cleaners, usually after the cyclones and after the motor (to prevent carbon particles from the motor from entering the atmosphere) ...".

They said they had previously approved the claim "No Dyson cleaners lose suction as a result of clogging" and had been satisfied by Dyson's evidence at that time.

Assessment

The ASA noted the report the BACC had commissioned from their expert stated "... The cyclones do not filter out 100% of the dirt and some of the finest particles will pass completely through. These are trapped in the pre-motor filter, which, on some Dyson cleaners, is meant to be washable to keep it in best condition. There will inevitably be a collection of very fine particles in this filter, however, in normal use and if treated in accordance with Dyson's user instructions will not affect the suction. In addition, any [dust] passing through the pre-motor filter will be trapped in the final motor exhaust filter along with the carbon dust particles previously mentioned. This final filter is not meant to be user serviced and is intended to last the entire life of the vacuum cleaner without attention ...".

1. Upheld

We understood that neither the pre-motor nor the post-motor filters fitted in a Dyson cleaner were used in the primary separation of dust and dirt from the air. We recognised that Dyson had intended the claim to highlight the difference between the filtration system of Dyson cleaners and that of other cleaners that relied on a filter or bag for the primary separation process; the clogging of that filter or bag would result in an eventual loss of suction.

We considered, however, that viewers were likely to understand the claim ... a Dyson doesnt rely on a filter so theres nothing to clog" to imply Dyson cleaners did not have a filter, which meant they could not become clogged, although we appreciated that this was not the message Dyson had intended to convey.

We noted the post-motor filter collected carbon particles and other emissions to prevent their passing into the atmosphere, but also understood that it did not clog and was designed to last the lifetime of the cleaner. We considered that with reference to this filter, therefore, there was no viewer detriment in the ad's suggestion that that filter did not exist and the phrase "a Dyson doesn't rely on a filter", in isolation, in relation to the post-motor filter only, was unlikely to mislead.

We also noted, however, although it was not involved in the primary separation of dust, and this was the difference that Dyson wanted to point out, the maintenance of the pre-motor filter was essential to ensure it did not become clogged. We considered, therefore, to state, without qualification, ... a Dyson doesnt rely on a filter so theres nothing to clog" was likely to mislead.

2. Upheld

In the context of an ad that focused on the role of filters in vacuums, we considered that viewers would understand the claim "No clogging. No loss of suction" to mean that Dyson vacuum cleaners did not have filters, which meant they could not become clogged and lose suction.

We noted the expert commissioned by the BACC had accepted Dyson's evidence that the suction power of certain Dyson cleaners remained constant when the dust collection bin filled up with certain quantities of dust.

We also noted Dyson's operating instructions indicated that the pre-motor filter should be washed periodically to prevent it from becoming clogged and to maintain the suction power of the cleaner. In the context of the ad, we considered that, because Dyson cleaners contained a filter that required periodic cleaning to maintain suction performance, the claim "No clogging. No loss of suction" was misleading.

On points 1 and 2, the ad breached CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence), 5.2.2 (Implications) and 5.2.3 (Qualifications).

Action

The ad should not be broadcast again in its current form.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)