Complaint:
Dyson Ltd objected to a brochure for a range of vacuum cleaners. One cleaner featured in the brochure was the Electrolite Cycloniclite Z7108 produced by Electrolux plc; the brochure claimed that it was a “cyclonic” vacuum cleaner. The complainants, who understood the term “cyclonic” to mean that the cleaner separated dust from the air that it sucked in by centrifugal force, challenged the claim.
Adjudication:
Complaint not upheld The advertisers said the term “cyclonic” was entirely suitable for the Z7108 vacuum cleaner, because its main mode of operation was the separation of solid particles from air by a two-stage process using centrifrugal forces. Firstly, solid particles were separated from the incoming airflow by centrifugal forces in the separation chamber that caused radial movement of the particles; particles were then discharged into the sedimentation chamber by secondary vortices.
They maintained that both stages used centrifugal forces to remove the particles. The advertisers said air then left the separation chamber through a HEPA filter, which separated microscopic particles from the air. The advertisers sent video clips that demonstrated the operation of the Z7108 under normal conditions, both with the secondary filter in place and without it.
The complainants sent video clips of the advertisers” Z7116 The Boss Cycloniclite vacuum cleaner, which they said operated in the same way as the Z7108, that showed it operating with and without its secondary filter. One of the complainants” clips showed the cleaner”s sedimentation chamber with little dust ”captured” in it; they said that showed the cyclonic filtration was ineffective. The complainants claimed that the videos showed that the cleaner could not separate dust and air without a filter.
The advertisers claimed that, by removing the filter, the complainants had destroyed the cyclonic function of the vacuum cleaner, because the filter, which was positioned in the centre of the separation chamber, was required to create the cyclone in the chamber.
The Authority took expert advice. The expert advised that the advertisers” video data clearly showed that a centrifugal airflow spiralled downwards in the separation chamber, demonstrating that the separation of dust was by centrifugal means. He acknowledged that the vacuum cleaner did not use solely cyclonic filtration to separate solids from the air, because it also used secondary ”mechanical” filtration.
The Authority considered that the advertisers had shown that solid separation occurred in the Z7108 by centrifugal forces. It considered that the complainants” evidence was not conclusive, because the removal of the filter disrupted the normal airflow in the advertisers” vacuum cleaner. The Authority considered that “cyclonic” implied the vacuum cleaner separated dust by centifugal force but did not imply centrifugal force was the only method of separation used. It acknowledged that the advertised vacuum cleaner used barrier filtration as a means of separation but, because the advertisers had shown that centrifugal force was also an effective method of separation, it considered that the advertisers had justified the claim “cyclonic”. (ASA)
