The Advertising Standards Authority has dealt with a complaint lodged by Dyson about Electrolux advertising their ‘Filter Cleaning’ vacuum cleaner.

The advert:
a. A press ad was headlined “Forget about the bag. Forget about cleaning filters” and featured a picture of the Electrolux Twin Clean vacuum cleaner. Text stated “Introducing the new cyclonic Twin Clean – the world’s first vacuum cleaner to actually clean its own filters. From Electrolux – the global cyclonic innovator.”

b. A magazine ad was headlined “The Electrolux Twin Clean vacuum cleaner” and featured pictures of the vacuum cleaner and the dust container being emptied. Text stated “A genuine innovation in vacuum cleaner technology: the first and only bagless cyclonic cleaner with a filter which cleans itself! … the first and only bagless vacuum cleaner to clean its own filter! This clever patented innovation means you won’t have to wash or brush the filter. The cleaner will do this for you, allowing you to carry on cleaning without any hassle at all! … all the dust is sucked out of the filter straight into the dust container within seconds. That’s it! Now you can carry on vacuuming with the newly cleaned filter.”

c. A TV ad showed a man slotting the filter back into the Twin Clean vacuum cleaner whilst a voiceover stated “Wouldn’t it be nice if your things cleaned themselves? I do. I’m the cyclonic Twin Clean from Electrolux, the only vacuum cleaner to clean its own filters.”

Issue

Dyson Ltd complained that the ads misleadingly implied:

1. the Twin Clean cleaned its own filters, because they believed it did not clean the filters effectively;

2. the Twin Clean cleaned its own filters without the intervention of the user and

3. the Twin Clean featured new technology, because existing vacuum cleaners included similar technology.

Response

Electrolux said they did not accept Dyson’s concerns about the Twin Clean’s ability to clean its own filters.

The Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) sent an assurance from Electrolux stating that their Twin Clean vacuum cleaner was unique because it was the only vacuum cleaner currently available that featured pre-motor filters which, when clogged with dust, could be vacuumed clean on-board the cleaner by the product itself. The assurance also stated that the demonstration in the TV ad was genuine. The BACC sent a list of Electrolux’s competitors’ products, detailing the processes involved in cleaning the filters; the list suggested that intervention was needed in each case to clean the filters. The BACC also submitted diagrams illustrating how the filters cleaned themselves.

1. Electrolux said the Twin Clean featured two filters with only one in use at any time. They said the active filter sat in an “active” chamber into which fine dust not separated from the airflow in the cyclonic chamber was collected while the inactive filter sat in another “cleaning” chamber. They said that during the operation of the Twin Clean, air from the cyclonic chamber entered the active chamber, passed through the active filter and deposited microscopic particles on to the exterior surface of the filter. They said the user was notified when the active filter required cleaning by a light on the Twin Clean; the user was then required to switch the filters between the active and cleaning chambers by lifting them out of the Twin Clean, rotating them 180 degrees and replacing them. They said the user could then start the process of cleaning the active filter, which would be in the cleaning chamber, by turning it 360 degrees; that action caused the airflow in the cleaning chamber to operate in reverse motion. They said air entered the inactive filter from the area of the cable recess and was expelled through the inactive filter; they said that action removed dust particles from the filter membrane. They said the air would then be expelled into the cyclonic chamber, into the newly active filter, the motor and then through the exhaust filter. They said upon completion of that process, the filter was clean and ready for further use. They sent a video clip that demonstrated the process.

Electrolux said they had undertaken standard tests on the Twin Clean to demonstrate the airflow level and level of dust pick-up. They provided additional data which, they believed, demonstrated the link between the increase in airflow level and the ability of the vacuum cleaner to pick up dust. They said, when the filters were new, the air flow was 100%; the airflow reduced to 93% after the initial cleaning cycle and was never lower than 85% after continued filter cleaning cycles. They said during the cleaning process a minute amount of dust removed from the filter in the cleaning chamber was deposited on the active filter as the air was expelled to the exhaust filter but because it was only a minute proportion of the total dust removed, it was of little consequence. They said no vacuum cleaner, bagless or cyclonic, would retain 100% airflow after initial use or cleaning and did not consider a minimum of 85% of initial airflow after cleaning represented a less than effective performance of the filter. They said when the filter was new the product picked up 75% of dust (80% with the Power Brush accessory); when the filter was ready to be cleaned the product picked up 72% (75%). They said that demonstrated the cleaning process of the filter had little detrimental effect on the dust pick-up level of the product.

Electrolux acknowledged that the degree to which airflow increased appeared relatively small. They believed that the main consideration, however, was that users would not experience any significant loss in performance.

The BACC endorsed Electrolux’s response on this point.

2. Electrolux believed the term “intervention of the user” implied the user was required to participate actively in the cleaning of the filter. They said the user was not required to touch the filter or to take any action in order to remove the dust collected. They believed consumers would not imply the claim “cleans its own filters” meant anything other than the removal of dirt and dust from the filter. They also believed the action of switching the filters and turning the inactive filter 360 degrees would not be construed by consumers as being involved in cleaning the filter. They said all the advertising for the Twin Clean clearly demonstrated the methods required to clean the filter. They said all bagless vacuum cleaners had filters that required washing and only the frequency of that action altered depending on the product. They said during the operation of the product, microscopic particles were deposited on the exterior of the filter. They said the build-up did not have any effect on the performance of the product but would reduce the length of time between the need to clean the filter; they said washing or rinsing the filter would restore the normal cleaning cycle. They believed a period of from 12 to 15 months between washings was not an unreasonable length of time for that operation.

Electrolux acknowledged that the claim “patented innovation means you won’t have to wash or brush the filter” in ad (b) might be seen as contradicting the recommendation that the user washed or rinsed the filter every 12 to 15 months. They proposed to remove that claim from future ads.

The BACC endorsed Electrolux’s response on this point.

3. Electrolux said they stood by their claim that the product was unique because it was the only bagless vacuum cleaner on the market to feature pre-motor filters that were vacuumed clean, when clogged with dust, by the product itself. They said the innovation was the subject of an outstanding patent application filed by the Electrolux Group. They said they were aware of other products that used different methods in an attempt to clean the filters; they said, however, none of those products used the same technology nor cleaned the filter to the same level as the Twin Clean’s process.

The BACC endorsed Electrolux’s response on this point.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA took expert advice. We understood that, although Electrolux had used a test dust that was in development and had not yet been incorporated into EN60312, the industry standard, Dyson had used the same dust in making their complaint. We therefore considered its use and the resulting comparisons were fair in this case. We understood that both Electrolux and Dyson had used the same agreed, standardised test method for airflow and suction power. Electrolux had also used a separate test to measure dust pick-up ability from carpets, which they argued was a method of “measuring airpower”.

We acknowledged that the information supplied by Electrolux and Dyson demonstrated that there was an element of cleaning of the filter that took place within the cleaner and that, afterwards, airflow and suction power were seen to increase. However, the degree to which airflow and suction power were shown to increase was negligible and users were unlikely to notice a discernible difference in cleaning ability after the filter was cleaned. While it was likely that an increase in airflow/suction power would result in greater dust-removal ability, neither the original nor the additional data supplied by Electrolux showed that dust removal increased after the filter was cleaned.

We considered the message of the claims in all three ads was that the Twin Clean cleaned its filters to such a degree that they would not need further manual cleaning by the user. We noted the method by which the Twin Clean cleaned its filters and that the data Electrolux had supplied showed airflow and suction power increased after the self-cleaning process. We also noted, however, that that increase was unlikely to be apparent to users and that Electrolux’s data failed to show an increase in dust removal. We therefore concluded there was insufficient evidence to back up the claims that the Twin Clean cleaned its own filters, and that the claims in all three ads were misleading.

On this point, the TV 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).

On this point also, the press and magazine ads breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 6.1 (Honesty) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

2. Upheld

We welcomed Electrolux’s proposal to remove the claim “This clever patented innovation means you won’t have to wash or brush the filter” in ad (b) from future ads.

We took expert advice. We understood that when the user was required to switch the filters and to turn the filter being cleaned through 360 degrees, it was the reverse airflow that effected the cleaning at that stage.

We noted the user had to lift up and switch the filters then turn one 360 degrees to “clean” the filters when it was time to clean the active filter. We also noted, despite the claim in ad (a) to “Forget about cleaning filters,” the claim in ad (b) that “This clever patented innovation means you won’t have to wash or brush the filter” and the claim in ad (c) “Wouldn’t it be nice if your things cleaned themselves? ? the only vacuum cleaner to clean its own filters”, the instructions for the Twin Clean stated that the filters needed to be washed “About once each year”. We considered that while consumers would not consider that lifting and turning the filters constituted cleaning, they would consider washing the filters did. We therefore considered all three ads were misleading for implying that no intervention other than lifting and turning the filters was required in the cleaning process.

We told Electrolux not to repeat the claim “Forget about cleaning filters” in ad (a) and “the ? cleaner ? with a filter that cleans itself ? This clever innovation means you won’t have to wash or brush the filter. The cleaner will do this for you, allowing you to carry on cleaning without any hassle at all! ? all the dust is sucked out of the filter straight into the dust container within seconds. That’s it! Now you can carry on vacuuming with the newly created filter” claim in ad (b) unless they had sufficient evidence to back them up.

On this point the TV 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).

On this point also, the press and magazine ads breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 6.1 (Honesty) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

3. Not Upheld

The ASA took expert advice. We understood that the majority of self-cleaning filter systems relied on some form of vibration and tended to be only moderately effective. We understood that only one other system, which was in use in the USA, used reverse airflow to clean the filter, but that that system also used mechanical action to enhance the operation. Our expert said he was not aware of other cleaners that used the twin filter concept in the way used by the Twin Clean.

We noted Electrolux had an outstanding patent application filed for the Twin Clean. We considered that, while other vacuum cleaners incorporated various methods which attempted to clean the filter, none of them featured the same technology as the Twin Clean. We did not object.

On this point, we investigated the TV ad under CAP (Broadcast) TV Advertising Standards Code Rules 5.1 (Misleading advertising), 5.2.1 (Evidence), 5.2.2 (Implications), 5.2.3 (Qualifications), 5.4.3 (Denigration) and 5.4.6 (Comparative advertising) but did not find it in breach.

On this point also, we investigated the press and magazine ads under CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 6.1 (Honesty), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons) but did not find them in breach.

Action

The TV ad must not be shown again in its current form.

We welcomed Electroluxs proposal to remove the claim “This clever patented innovation means you wont have to wash or brush the filter” in ad (b) from future ads.

We told Electrolux not to repeat the claim “Forget about cleaning filters” in ad (a) and “the … cleaner … with a filter that cleans itself … This clever innovation means you wont have to wash or brush the filter. The cleaner will do this for you, allowing you to carry on cleaning without any hassle at all ! … all the dust is sucked out of the filter straight into the dust container within seconds. Thats it ! Now you can carry on vacuuming with the newly created filter” claim in ad (b) unless they had sufficient evidence to back them up.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Broadcast)