Has anyone sued Dyson for false advertising?

Gather App
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.
 
We all know that you wouldn't need to change a belt on a vacuum that is tossed to the curb as soon as a filter gets clogged or some other part breaks.

I have to laugh at all the infomercials that brag up how great a product is as shown on tv. Most don't live up to that claim. By the time the gullible figure it out. The product manufacture has met his goal. Fleece anyone that will pay good money for such a "wonder" product. Only to find said product on the tables and shelve at every rummage sale and trift store 6 months to a year later.

I want to try it before I buy it. I find some one that all ready has said product or invite the demostrators in to my home. I can still say no for what ever reason to any sales man.

Buyer be ware. If it sounds to good to be true it probably is to good to be true
 
Oh I got hung up on when they were demonstrating the irobot where they had a shop vac there with a blocked hose & I asked them why don't they show how much suction the shop vac has by putting your hand to the nozzle to show us all how much suction it has because you can hear the shop vac whining in the back, they both looked at each other, they hung up on me & said we can't screen what people say on live tv & apologized for that call getting through...
 
Studebaker DID begin life producing horse drawn wagons back in 1852 and the last car rolled off the assembly line in Canada in March, 1966. In fact, for the last two years they were in business Studebakers got Chevrolet engines. Toyota didn't start using the name Land Cruiser until after the company was long out of business.
 
Toyota started producing Land Cruisers in 1951. Studebaker still had 15 more years to go before folding it's tent.
 
Does anyone really believe advertising claims made for any product? Why go through all the cost and effort of suing over exaggerated ad claims? Apply some personal filters and approach all product claims with a degree of doubt. As my parents drilled into my head from as early as I can remember, believe none of what you hear and half of what you see. Never, ever under any circumstance trust a corporation to be honest. Competition punishes honesty. Just assume everyone selling something is lying to you and do your own due dilligence.
 
The claim "no loss of suction" is used by most bagless vacuum manufacturers today. Since there IS a test protocol for such a claim, the manufacturers only have to pass that one test, once.

Even a Shark, with its single cyclone, makes that claim. Yet, the Shark loads its filters with dust after each use.

I sell bagged vacuums every day at the outlet store. I tell people that bagged vacuums won't lose suction for the same reason bagless won't. There's a step the OWNER must do to make the cleaner not lose suction. Clean the filter or change the bag.

I like Dyson vacuums - to a point. I think the quality of the plastic has sharply decreased. I think the quality of the motors has also decreased as they are now so tiny to fit into a ball. I think Dyson, while not a disposable cleaner, is a middle of the road machine. If the object of vacuuming is to get the rug clean, then a vacuum that offers true carpet agitation would trump the Dyson every time. As much as I don't like Kirby vacuums, they do get the rug clean. The fantastic Maytag M1200 has a great demo commercial where they compare carpet cleaning to a brand new Dyson. The Maytag makes the sand just six inches out of the rug and it's inhales into the Maytag. The Dyson just sits there without deep cleaning - sweeping only the rug surface and making it appear clean.
 
Yes there is a test they have to prove No lot of suction but Dyson go beyond the standard. Dyson plastic hasn't decreased actually is got so much better and the plastic hasn't changed it has always been abs plastic and they made it flexible so it won't break as easily as others and again Dyson motors haven't changed in the last 10 years American still use the old Panasonic motor and in England we have just started using it again. If all bagvacuum cleaners had no loss of suction they would say on the machine or on the box on or on advertising. Test you said Maytag against the Dyson well I noticed people won't do with the Dyson DC 65 Is that now has agitation. The videos on YouTube the Dyson against something using dyson models are discontinued or haven't got good agitation is nun it comparing it to the DC 65.
 
dysonman1

I too only like them to a point. Dysons plastic is flexible because they seem to be using less, with what they call is 'doing more with less'. There is a lot of Polypropylene plastics used on Dysons in addition to ABS & Polycarbonate. Despite all the tests Dyson claim, the real test is in the home so let's see how these machines do in 5 years time.

One thing I did observe is that I used to see a lot of DC03's and DC04s in the shops in the 90s - 2000s with broken parts on shop displays. Things like wand caps, bin catches etc broken. Not seen that on these newer models, but saying that, I never saw a broken DC24 in the shop and my DC24 has broken quite a few times over 4 years.

One thing Dyson does very well is provide excellent customer service. Here in the UK they send out parts without any issues. Their 5 year parts & labour warranty is one of the best I've ever come across.
 
Blakaeg, it's interesting what you say about the Dyson aftercare. Many times I have wondered whether it would not just be better and cheaper all round to make the cleaners more durable rather than to keep sending new part out.

The plastic on the DC01 cleaners was a joke. The soleplate stood no chance at all, not with it being as thin and flexible as it was. Even the plates on 04 and 07 style cleaners have proven to be less hard wearing than those on other cleaners, albeit more durable than the 01 range. A lot of the plastic on Dyson cleaners gets very brittle, especially in sunlight. I've never known a brand of vacuum cleaner have such poor build quality as the Dyson. I think Dyson timed it right to market his cleaner in 1993 though; 10 years earlier and people would probably not paid his price for a cleaner of such low quality.
 

Similar threads

A
  • Poll Poll
Who really invented the cyclonic vacuum cleaner?
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
centralsweeper63
centralsweeper63
turbo500
James Dyson: "The EU should spur invention, not mediocrity"
3 4 5
Replies
131
Views
2K
sptyks
sptyks

Latest posts

Back
Top