The TV spot, created by Vallance Carruthers Coleman Priest, claimed: "The filter in most vacuum cleaners clogs with dust, so there is a drop in suction, but a Dyson doesn't rely on a filter so there's nothing to clog."
Rival Hoover and 35 members of the public challenged this statement. They argued that Dyson cleaners contained filters that could become clogged over time and use. On-screen text stated that: "Others clog, ours don't. Dyson, no clogging. No loss of suction." Complainants said this statement was also misleading, because Dyson cleaners lost suction as a result of clogging.
Dyson explained that the ad did not claim their cleaners did not contain filters but said that, unlike other machines, theirs did not rely on a filter to achieve the primary separation from the air of dirt vacuumed from surfaces. Dyson said the ad explained the difference between the way filters work in Dyson cleaners compared to competitors.
Dyson also responded by highlighting the fact that the ad said "a Dyson doesn't rely on a filter" and did not claim that a Dyson does not have a filter. The company said all complainants had Dyson cleaners and would therefore know they had filters; it said its point of sale material made clear that the cleaners contained filters.
The Broadcasting Advertising Clearance Centre agreed with Dyson that although the ad stated the machine did not rely on a filter, it was not misleading as it did not state there was no filter at all.
The ASA has upheld complaints made by viewers and Hoover Candy as it considered that viewers would understand the claim "No clogging. No loss of suction" to mean that Dyson vacuum cleaners did not have filters, which meant they would not become clogged and lose suction. Subsequently the ASA has ruled that the ad should not be used again in its current form.