Advertising Standards Bureau Review of Operations 2014 | Page 62

Rheem Australia Pty Ltd v Rinnai
Australia Pty Ltd

Dyson Appliances (Aust) Pty Limited v Samsung Electronics Australia Pty Ltd
The complaint related to a series of
advertisements, including television, online, point
of sale material and a swing-tag attached to the
product, forming part of a campaign for the
Samsung Motion Sync Vacuum Cleaner.
The advertiser argued the ‘swing tag’ should not be
considered on the basis it was a product label and
therefore “Excluded Marketing or Advertising”
under the Code. However, the Board disagreed,
noting the swing tag was intended to promote
the product and to be removed from the product
prior to use.
The complainant alleged the advertisements
breached Sections 1.1 and 1.2 of the Code on the
basis that they were misleading and deceptive.
Two claims were disputed relating to the product’s
suction and dust sensor function. The advertiser
informed the Board that the original claim
relating to the dust sensor function had been
revised, and as a result both the original claim and
revised claim were considered by the Board.
Issue raised by Complainant - The statement,
“powerful suction that lasts”, which is used in each
of the advertising materials, was not substantiated
and is therefore misleading because the suction
power of the Product “declines both immediately
and significantly during use”.
Claims Board determination - Dismissed - it
is unlikely that an ordinary consumer would
consider the claim to mean that the product will
stay at peak suction power at all times during
usage until the point of bin full. Rather, it may
be reasonable to expect that the suction power
would decrease, to some extent, as the product
approaches bin full. The Board agreed with the
advertiser’s submissions that the 13% drop in
suction power measured by the complainant
does not mean that the product does not remain
relatively powerful.

60

Issue raised by Complainant - Claims made
about the Dust Sensor feature of the product that
“As soon as the area is completely cleaned the
light changes to green” were misleading as the user
manual states that it functions only as a rough
indicator of dust removal.
Claims Board determination - No
determination –the Board considered this
claim was most likely misleading or deceptive.
However, as the Advertiser advised that this
wording had been amended, it decided that a final
determination was not required.
Issue raised by Complainant - The advertiser’s
revised claim relating to the Dust Sensor function
of the product states “The light changes to green
when a large amount of dust has been picked up”.
The complainant submitted that the revised claim
was also misleading because it was inconsistent
with the stated function of the Dust Sensor in the
product’s user manual.
Claims Board determination - Dismissed - the
revised wording more correctly reflected the Dust
Sensor’s functionality. The level of generality in
the representation of the revised claim meant that
it was likely a reasonable consumer would expect
the product’s Dust Sensor to only be roughly
accurate in its measurement of what constitutes
a “large” amount of dust. The Board considered
the revised claim was not false, misleading
or deceptive.
Finding no breaches of section 1.1 or 1.2 of the
Code, the Board dis