Background

Summary of Council decision:

Two issues were investigated, of which one was Upheld and one was Not 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

a. An ad for the Vax Air Max U88-AMM-B vacuum cleaner on www.vax.co.uk stated "Multi-cyclonic technology - Constant, powerful suction - Multiple cyclones separate dirt from the air, so the suction is always as powerful as the first time you used it" and "Powerful performance - 320 air watts - All the cleaning power of a conventional upright, so there's no compromise in performance".

b. An ad for the Vax Air U88-AM-B vacuum cleaner on the same website stated "Powerful performance - 225 air watts - All the cleaning power of a conventional upright, so there's no compromise in performance".

Issue

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

1. "Constant, powerful suction - Multiple cyclones separate dirt from the air, so the suction is always as powerful as the first time you used it" in ad (a); and

2. "320 air watts" in ad (a) and "225 air watts" in ad (b).

Response

1. & 2. Vax supplied reports of testing which had been carried out on the Air Max U88-AMM-B and U88-AM-B vacuum cleaners by a third-party testing house to IEC and BS EN standards. They said that, under part 2.9.2 of what they considered to be the relevant standard, BS EN60312, a specially developed test dust was used in the testing, for which a "full" bin was represented by 50 g of test dust per litre of bin capacity, which replicated a bin full of typical household dirt. They said the standards were designed to ensure independence and accuracy of testing and believed the test results supported the claims.

Assessment

THIS ADJUDICATION REPLACES THAT PUBLISHED ON 26 JUNE 2013. THE WORDING OF THE ASSESSMENT HAS CHANGED BUT THE DECISION TO UPHOLD POINT 1 AND NOT UPHOLD POINT 2 REMAINS.

1. Upheld

The ASA took expert advice. Both the advertiser and the complainant had supplied differing test results which they believed proved or disproved the claim respectively. Both had been conducted against the Standard EN 60312, fourth edition, which was the latest published version at the time. We considered that the Standard approximated to how a vacuum cleaner would be used in the home and 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. Vax's testing had been conducted on three models; had been carried out by an independent testing house; and had shown consistent results from the three models. Dyson's testing showed a significantly different result, but had been conducted in-house and had assessed one model only. We considered that, from a statistical point of view, Vax's results were more compelling and would support a "no loss of suction" claim.

However, we considered the wording "... so the suction is always as powerful as the first time you used it" would be understood by consumers as a claim about life-time use of the product, which would need to be supported by adequate evidence. We understood from the expert that the Standard related to performance loss and was designed to determine the effect of a single dust load on the air performance of a vacuum cleaner. It was used as a precursor to other performance tests, but was not intended to determine sustained performance over the life-time of a product. However, it was the results of testing against the Standard that had been put forward to support the claim. Because Vax had made a claim which was not supported with relevant testing, we concluded that the claim had not been substantiated and was misleading.

On this point ad (a) breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and  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).

2. Not upheld

Vax had based their claim on the results of third-party testing conducted under IEC 60312-1 (2011), a later version of the Standard, whereas Dyson's testing on this point had been conducted against EN 60312, fourth edition, which was the latest published version at the time. We considered that testing needed to have been conducted against the latest published version of the Standard at the time but understood that, while the later version of the Standard provided additional clarification for the setup of the testing, the procedures for the purposes of measuring air data were essentially the same between the two versions of the Standard. As in point 1 above, we noted that Vax's testing had been conducted on three models; that it had been carried out by an independent testing house; and had shown consistent results from the three models. Dyson's tests had been conducted in-house and had assessed one model only. We understood from the expert that he had been able to make manual calculations from Vax's test results to reproduce the figures but had been unable to do so from Dyson's counter-evidence. We considered that, from a statistical point of view, Vax's results were more compelling. Because of that, and notwithstanding the concerns we express in point 1 above, we concluded that Vax had substantiated the air watts claims and that they were not misleading.

On this point we investigated ads (a) and (b) under CAP Code (Edition 12) rules  3.1 3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.  and 3.3 (Misleading advertising) and  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), but did not find them in breach.

Action

Ad (a) must not appear again in its current form. We told Vax Ltd to ensure claims accurately reflected the evidence intended to substantiate them. No further action is necessary in respect of ad (b).

CAP Code (Edition 12)

3.1     3.7    


More on