Has anyone sued Dyson for false advertising?

VacuumLand – Vintage & Modern Vacuum Enthusiasts

Help Support VacuumLand:

M

man114

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
249
Location
Buffalo NY
I'm curious to this. They claim to "never lose suction" only a filterless Rainbow is likely to achieve this such as a D4, the Dyson filters will clog. Assuming you were to empty both basins when full the Dyson will eventually clog, the Rainbow will still work, probably without cleaning the seperator. Removes more dirt? I'd love to know the test methodology when it can't outclean a Fantom Thunder based on the same cyclone technology. The brush roller is not aggressive enough for certain carpet types.

I've got nothing against Dyson or the technology James Dyson developed (I own 4) but some of their advertisements are simply untrue.
 
About time! Sounds like some good litigation is over due!!!
smiley-smile.gif
 
 
Some could say the same over Miele claim their vacuums will last 20 years. In fact Dyson one a court ruing saying Miele cant keep saying such things as the proof Miele had that their machines would last that long wasn't strong enough to merit that statement. Dyson claim their vacuums are designed to last at least 10 years.

Getting back to point, there are a lot of test codes at the bottom of those adverts, I guess they are something to go buy. Considering to filtration quality of the dyson vacuums with the vertical cone style filters, such as the dc41, I would think that the stamen of they never loose suction is somewhat believable.
 
Dysons with filters DO loose suction. What rubbish people believe about them maintaining 100 % suction. There are filters that need to be washed eventually!!

Perhaps their new Cinetic cyclones don't, but I'd never spend that much to find out.
 
Litigation

James Dyson has spent a lot of time taking other companies to court over their cleaners and how he feels it infringes his own design. He's also made numerous complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority here in England, over claims made by other manufacturers about the efficiency of their cleaners.

I do not know what standards Dyson are setting their own cleaners against and I don't profess to. However, you can bet your life that Dyson would not say a thing which could not be backed up by one recognised industry test or another. Dyson doesn't do "being sued".
 
One thing that is true, Mr. Dyson is 100% wrong in advertising "no filters to replace." After continuous cleaning Dyson filters do wear out and the pores become so clogged that ultimately they have to be replaced. I seem to recall him also saying at one time "no belts to change." If that's true, why do the DC07/14/33 have clutches with belts that stretch and ultimately have to be replaced? How Dyson wins the British Asthma and Allergy Foundation's seal of approval is beyond me when the machine literally spews microscopic dust particles back into the air as you vacuum.
 
"Mr. Dyson is 100% wrong in advertising "no filters to replace." After continuous cleaning Dyson filters do wear out"

Yes, but you said it yourself - the filters 'wear out'. This is very different from filters which have to be replaces at regular intervals as part of the on-going maintenance process. Same with belts - they are designed to last what one might call 'the life' of the cleaner, if that is you don't expect it to last much more than the 5-year guarantee. I'm no fan of Dyson, but that doesn't mean I don't see where the claims are set.
 
personally hate the old ones and specially the dc25 and dc24 cyclone technology is just terrible the filters get dirty so quickly The new ones with the new radial root Cyclone technology is fantastic the filters get barely dirty they're really easy to clean I don't l like the old ones is only recently Dyson's started making Great products and efficient cyclones and great carpet cleaning [this post was last edited: 10/11/2014-09:52]
 
Never loses suction promise

The thing is, so many product reviews I have read of late are by owners who haven't got an idea of what they own if they own Dyson. They moan about their Dyson vacuums "losing suction" when something gets clogged, which we all know is completely different from the filter design/cyclonic design.

BUt then that's from average consumers and most owners who wouldn't know the difference between a hard floor "brush" and a suction only floor "brush" tool. Im not counting collectors here because I would imagine most Dyson collectors know everything from the brush roll and their associated caps to all manner of body printing on the machine where components are concerned and where they can be located.

I was also under the impression that the Fantom Thunder had Dual Cyclone tech - so how can it compete fairly with Dyson's latest or current multi-cyclones that carry the "removes more dirt than any other upright?" advertising claim?[this post was last edited: 10/11/2014-13:35]
 
Dyson doesn't say removes dust than any other vacuum any more and it is now says cleans better than any other vacuum across carpet and hard floors and I asked Dyson what Machines is it tested against and he said they test many manufacturers and many machines what isn't allowed to i'm manufacturers. Dyson can't say any of his claims without proof has to be accepted by Industry standard They are the people that design the tests and approve everything and I do the Dyson DC 65 is tested against 98 different machines. Again Dyson is only recently perfected the Cyclone technology cyclones alone are allowed to filter out 0.3 of dust and allergens.


Dyson proves no loss of suction, best pick up, and 'overall outcleans other vacuums' using results from
IEC 60312 Cl 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, 2.9, ASTM F608 and F558, and DTM 755— an independently conducted Dyson test."

To prove this our engineers test for pick up performance across carpets (ASTM F608), hard floors (ASTM F2607) and hard floors with crevices (IEC 60312-1 5.2). To mimic actual use, they load machines with dust before testing (IEC 60312 – 1 5.9).

Suction tested against upright market to ASTM F558 at the cleaner head, dust- loaded as per IEC 60312-1.

Tested against upright market, dust-loaded, using ASTM F608, ASTM F2607, and IEC 60312-1 5.2, 5.9.

1To prove this Dyson vacuum removes more dust our engineers measure pick up performance using test protocols IEC 60312, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.9. At bin full DC41Mk2 Animal removes more dust in total from hard floors, carpets and crevices.




[this post was last edited: 10/11/2014-14:16]
 
I always love when people start talking lawsuits, that's like when I mentioned to someone that I was looking at a Studebaker Landcruiser and they said "Landcruiser is a trademark of Toyota and they need to sue Studebaker for copyright infringment!"

I'm standing there thinking OMG you're a total idiot, Studebaker Landcruiser was around in the early 1950's while Toyota was just getting past the windup car stage.
 
Eh? Toyota started making cars in 1936.

Besides, the Studebaker Landcruiser may well have been first to carry the name but I seriously doubt Toyota or the Studebaker company would have to sue - the fact that both automobiles are completely different means the name can be applied to almost any kind of product if it is different enough.
 
Having absolutely no proof (but that never stopped me) I believe Studebaker used that name on the horse drawn wagons they built a zillion years ago.
 

Similar threads

turbo500
James Dyson: "The EU should spur invention, not mediocrity"
5 6 7
Replies
131
Views
132
sptyks
sptyks

Latest posts

Back
Top