Advertising Standards Bureau Review of Operations 2014 | Page 64

Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd v Dyson Appliances (Aust) Pty Limited
The complaint related to a series of advertisements,
including television, online, print materials and
product packaging, forming part of a campaign
for the Dyson Cinetic DC54 range of vacuum
cleaners. The complainant alleged that the
advertisements breached Sections 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3
of the code on the basis that they were misleading
and deceptive and contained misrepresentations
likely to cause damage to competitors. The
complaint alleged breaches on the basis of
numerous performance and comparative claims in
the advertising.
Issue raised by complainant - The advertisements
conveyed messages that the product eliminates any
need to maintain or clean any filter, but that the
product contains a steel mesh device (the shroud)
which performs all the functions of an ordinary
pre-motor filter, requiring users to undertake
constant maintenance by scraping the steel mesh
(or filter) in order to achieve acceptable levels
of suction.
Claims Board determination - Upheld - The
ordinary consumer is likely to understand that
the shroud is, and/or performs the function of, a
filter. The shroud clearly needs to be maintained
as admitted by the advertiser. The Claims Board
unanimously agreed that the representation was
misleading and deceptive or likely to mislead and
deceive and constituted a false representation as
to performance characteristics and benefits of
the product in breach of clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of
the Code.
Issue raised by complainant - The advertiser’s
claims regarding no loss of suction were
misleading as the vacuum experiences significant
loss of suction where maintenance is not
undertaken on the unit or when the bin canister is
filled with dust.

62

Claims Board determination - Dismissed The ordinary consumer is likely to interpret the
representations in the context of the product
being used in accordance with the manufacturer’s
instructions. The Claims Board was of the view
that the complainant had not substantiated its
claims and so had not established breaches of
sections 1.1, 1.2 or 1.3 of the Code in relation to
this representation.

Issue raised by complainant - The representation
that the vacuum offers a large bin capacity was
false and misleading.
Claims Board determination - Dismissed - The
Board was not satisfied that the complainant had
demonstrated with sufficient evidence that the bin
capacity was not large.
Issue raised by complainant - The statement
‘the only vacuum with no maintenance of
filters, no bags to buy and no loss of suction’ was
misleading as other products offer one or more of
these elements.
Claims Board determination - Upheld in part
- The representation was likely to be construed
conjunctively by ordinary consumers. However,
for the same reasons as above, the Claims Board
found the claim of no filter maintenance to be
misleading and deceptive and constituted false
representations in breach of clauses 1.1 and 1.2 of
the Code.
The Claims Board found that the complainant
failed to provide evidence that any of the claims
were likely to cause damage to the business or
goodwill of a competitor and was unable to
determine any breach to clause 1.3 of the Code.
The advertiser confirmed it had modified its
promotional material in accordance with the
Claims Board determination.

Advertising Standards Bureau