Background
Summary of Council decision:
Three issues were investigated, all were Upheld.
This case was published on 12 September 2012 but has been backdated to appear amongst the adjudications dated on 7 December 2011 when it was originally meant to appear, but was omitted from publication at that time, due to an administrative error. We apologise for any inconvenience caused and have taken steps to ensure this problem does not occur again.
Ad description
Claims on a website for a vacuum cleaner, in June 2011, stated "LiFE unplugged Multipack B90-LF-B. A revolution in home cleaning, LiFE unplugged is the UK's most advanced cordless cleaning system. Offering all the performance of a full size vacuum cleaner on both hard floors and carpets, the cordless upright has Wind Tunnel technology to lift and trap dirt so that it stays in your vacuum cleaner and not on your floor ... Both LiFE vacuum cleaners are powered by an advanced Lithium ion battery that maintains consistent strong power until it is completely drained. That means there's none of the "slow-fade" of power and suction that you expect from conventional cordless cleaning products".
Underneath the product description was a box containing the features and benefits of the product. Bullet-pointed text stated "Lithium ion battery - fade free power; Full size cleaning performance - ideal for carpets and hard floors; Wind Tunnel technology - outstanding dust pick up".
Issue
Dyson Ltd challenged whether the following claims were misleading and could be substantiated:
1. "maintains consistent strong power until it is completely drained. That means there's none of the 'slow fade' of power and suction that you expect from conventional cordless cleaning products";
2. "lithium ion battery - fade free power"; and
3. "Full size cleaning performance - ideal for carpets and hard floors" and "Outstanding dust pick-up".
Response
1. & 2. Vax Ltd (Vax) said the Vax LiFE used a lithium ion battery and provided documentation relating to the power and battery life of the product, which they said showed that the lithium ion battery maintained consistent and strong power right up until it was drained. They also provided comparative data relating to the battery life of the Vax battery and a battery from another competitor's cordless product.
3. Vax provided test reports relating to the cleaning ability of the Vax LiFE on both carpet and hard floors in support of the claim. They explained that the Vax LiFE was tested against three full-sized competitor products for cleaning ability, and scored the same as the most technically advanced of those other products. They also provided test data relating to dust pick-up for the Vax LiFE and another full-size Vax product. Vax explained that all tests had been carried out in accordance with the relevant American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards, which they said were rigorous and recognised and respected the world over by experts in the vacuum cleaner industry.
Assessment
1. & 2. Upheld
The ASA considered that the claims "maintains consistent strong power until it is completely drained. That means there's none of the 'slow fade' of power and suction that you expect from conventional cordless cleaning products" and "lithium ion battery - fade free power" were absolute claims, and would be understood by consumers to mean that the Vax LiFE's battery power would not weaken over time but would always operate at the same full power until the battery was depleted. We also considered that consumers would therefore expect that there would be no noticeable impact on the performance of the product as it was used. We noted, however, that the documentation provided by Vax showed that there was a continual decline in the power of the lithium ion battery during use We also noted that we had not seen evidence that demonstrated that that loss of power would not be experienced by consumers as a noticeable loss of performance of the product. Furthermore, we noted that the comparative battery test data related to one other cordless product only, and also that we had not seen evidence that that product's battery performance was representative of all other cordless cleaning products on the UK market. We noted from the comparative data that the competitor product's battery experienced a similar loss of power as the Vax lithium ion battery for most of the time period of the test, before declining more rapidly towards the end. We therefore considered that the test data was not sufficient to substantiate the power claims relating to the Vax LiFE's lithium ion battery or the comparative battery power claim, and concluded that the claims were misleading.
On points 1 and 2, the ad 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), 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration) and 3.38 3.38 Marketing communications that include a comparison with an unidentifiable competitor must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, the consumer. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the marketer an unrepresentative advantage. (Other comparisons).
3. Upheld
We understood that when assessing the cleaning performance of a vacuum cleaner on carpets or hard floors, the measure of airflow at the nozzle and the effectiveness of the brush roll or agitator were the most relevant tests. We understood that was because it was the rotating element of the brush roll or agitator that loosened the dirt and brushed it into the nozzle, and that it was then airflow that transported the dirt into the receptacle. We noted from the hard-floor cleaning data provided that in one test the Vax LiFE had not been tested at the nozzle and that in all tests for the Vax LiFE and competitor products the effectiveness of the agitator or brush roll were not measured. We also noted that we had not seen the methodology for the litter removal from carpet tests, but noted that the tests on the Vax and competitor products did not measure airflow at the nozzle or the efficacy of the brush roll or agitator. In addition, we noted that we had not seen evidence that the competitor products used in the hard-floor and carpet tests were representative of the most comparable and up to date full-size cleaners on the UK market. We therefore considered that the claim "Full size cleaning performance - ideal for carpets and hard floors" had not been substantiated. For those reasons also, and because we noted that it was not clear what test litter or dust had been used in the carpet assessments, we considered that the documentation provided was not adequate to support the "Outstanding dust pick up" claim. We therefore concluded that the claims were misleading.
On this point, the ad 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), 3.11 3.11 Marketing communications must not mislead consumers by exaggerating the capability or performance of a product. (Exaggeration).
Action
The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told Vax not to claim that the Vax LiFE battery had fade-free power and maintained consistent strong power, or that the product offered full size cleaning performance and outstanding dust pick up, without robust evidence to support the claims. We also told Vax not to make comparative claims unless they held robust evidence and could demonstrate that the competitor products tested were representative of the most comparable and up to date products on the UK market.
