Background

Summary of Council decision:

Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.

The fourth edition of the IEC 60312 Standard was the latest published version to be in use at the time of the ad. The fifth edition had been written but had not yet been published. For the tests we were considering as part of this investigation, there was no material difference between the two editions.

Ad description

An ad seen on www.morphyrichards.co.uk stated "... proven to pick up more dust than other vacuum cleaners in its class*" and "Introducing our new Never Loses Suction** LIFTAWAY Bagless Upright Vacuum Cleaner". Small print at the bottom of the web page included the text "*Models compared based on a single carpet sweep. Morphy Richards 73410, Dyson DC24, Vax Mach Air U91-MA-B & Hoover Turbo Power UTP1605" and "**In accordance with independent laboratory testing to IEC 60312-1 edition 1.1 consolidated with amendment 1 (2011:11)".

Issue

Dyson Ltd challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:

1. "proven to pick up more dust than other vacuum cleaners in its class"; and

2. "Never Loses Suction".

Response

1. Morphy Richards said the claim was qualified, as the footnote explained the basis of the test and the products used as a comparison. They said the qualification clearly stated the nature of the test and the other products were broadly similar in terms of price point, power and method of operation. They said in order to conduct the test, a floor had been prepared according to Section 5.3 of IEC 60312, ‘the Standard’, and the test dust was distributed as uniformly as possible over the test area in line with Section 5.1.4. of the Standard. They said other aspects of the Standard were complied with, for example, use of the vacuum cleaners according to the manufacturers’ instructions and the machines had been kept in standard atmospheric conditions for at least 24 hours prior to testing. They said when the test was carried out, the vacuum cleaners were passed over the test area with one forward and one backward stroke and speed was within the parameters set down by section 5.1.2 of the Standard.

2. Morphy Richards said they had adopted the same wording as a competitor which they believed justified making the claim. They asked us to refer to the terms of IEC 60312, which they said their product complied with and submitted a report which they believed substantiated their claim. The advertiser said the basis of the 'never loses suction' claim was an objective standard, measured during independent testing. They said consumers would not view the claims 'no loss of suction' or 'never loses suction' differently from one another and to make a distinction would prohibit other manufacturers from using either claim. They also said the Standard referenced in the ad should have been the previous Standard rather than the stated updated version. They said future ads would refer to the correct Standard used for the basis of claims.

Assessment

THIS ADJUDICATION REPLACES THAT PUBLISHED ON 3 APRIL 2013. THE WORDING HAS BEEN CHANGED ON POINT 1 BUT THE DECISION TO UPHOLD REMAINS. THE VERDICT ON POINT 2 HAS CHANGED, MAKING THE COMPLAINT ON THIS POINT UPHELD.

1. Upheld

The ASA noted that Morphy Richards had carried our tests to support the comparative performance claim and we took expert advice on those tests.

We were concerned about the overall testing methodology used. We noted that, while Morphy Richards referenced Section 5.3 of the Standard for dust removal from carpets, they had distributed the test dust in accordance with Section 5.1.4 which related to dust removal from hard floors. Furthermore, we considered that to determine the ability of a vacuum cleaner to remove dust that was embedded in a carpet, it was necessary to demonstrate that additional factors had been complied with under the Standard, that is, specifying the carpet, the dust used and the method that embedded the dust into the carpet, after which a specified number of double strokes should have been used to remove the dust from the carpet. No such evidence was provided to support the claim that the product could clean better than the other named vacuum cleaners in accordance with the Standard. We therefore concluded that the claim was misleading.

On this point, the website breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  (Misleading advertising),  3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.  (Substantiation),  3.33 3.33 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an identifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer about either the advertised product or the competing product.  (Comparisons with identifiable competitors),  3.9 3.9 Marketing communications must state significant limitations and qualifications. Qualifications may clarify but must not contradict the claims that they qualify.  (Qualification) and  3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.  (Exaggeration).

2. Upheld

We understood that Morphy Richards had adopted similar advertising claims to their competitors, but we did not consider that was a justifiable basis for the advertised claim. We noted that clause 5.9 in the Standard related to performance loss and that was designed to determine the effect of a single dust load on the air performance of a vacuum cleaner, used as a precursor to other performance tests, and was not intended to determine sustained performance over the lifetime of a product. We considered that the Standard approximated to how a vacuum cleaner would be used in the home, and that it was an appropriate test for the measurement of a vacuum cleaner’s performance as it was loaded with dust, which could support a “no loss of suction” claim.

We noted one test report submitted by Morphy Richards validated a “no loss of suction” claim in accordance with clause 5.9 of the Standard. We acknowledged the advertiser’s assertion that the claim “never loses suction” was similar to a claim of “no loss of suction”, but we did not agree. We considered consumers would understand the claim to refer to the life-time use of the product and that that claim should be supported with suitable testing. We understood that no Standard existed to assess a vacuum cleaners long-term performance.

Because Morphy Richards had made a claim which was not supported with relevant testing, we concluded the claim “never loses suction” had not been substantiated and was misleading.

On this point, the website breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  (Misleading advertising),  3.7 3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.  (Substantiation) and  3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product.  (Exaggeration).

Action

The ad must not appear in its current form. We told Morphy Richards Ltd to ensure they held evidence before making comparative claims and to ensure claims accurately reflected the evidence intended to substantiate them.

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.11     3.33     3.7     3.9    


More on