Euro-Pro, a Newton-based company that makes vacuum cleaners, is suing Dyson, Inc. over its claims that its vacuums have "twice the suction" of other vacuums.
Euro-Pro says they don't. In a lawsuit filed in US District Court in Boston yesterday, Euro-Pro explains its dust-up with Dyson:
Euro-Pro has commissioned third-party independent laboratory testing, conducted pursuant to the referenced ASTM F558 standard, which proves that the Shark Powered Lift-Away has suction that is greater than or approximately equal to that of the advertised Dyson Animal vacuums, and in all events, well within the margin necessary to render Dyson’s “Twice the Suction” claim literally false.
Euro-Pro says it wants Dyson to clean up its act and pay it triple damages for all the money it claims it's lost to consumers who don't actually test the veracity of the claim, plus lawyers' fees.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Euro-Pro's complaint | 474.49 KB |
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Can't beat their competition
By anon
Tue, 09/30/2014 - 9:30am
Can't beat their competition so they resort to using the courts to bully them out of business.
Why aren't they suing Consumer Reports and the other publications which test and review appliances?
Did consumer reports say that
By anon
Tue, 09/30/2014 - 10:14am
Did consumer reports say that Dyson Animal vacuum has 2x the suction of Shark vacuum? Consumer reports is not a government regulatory agency, so I don't know why you think they should be sued if the company believes it is Dyson that is lying.
Can't beat their competition
By Greene
Tue, 09/30/2014 - 10:19am
Can't beat their competition so they resort to using inflated marketing claims to steal customers and drive out of business.
Why aren't they being honest about the performance of their products relative to their competitors?
That's right, pure sour grapes
By Scratchie
Tue, 09/30/2014 - 10:24am
Nothing to do with following truth-in-advertising laws.
So, get Dyson to follow those laws
By roadman
Tue, 09/30/2014 - 11:28am
But there is NO justification whatsoever for the requested "triple damages" lottery payout.
I'm no lawyer, but...
By Scratchie
Tue, 09/30/2014 - 11:55am
... I think that's for the court to decide, not random dudes on the internet.
Triple damages is to make it
By anon
Tue, 09/30/2014 - 2:23pm
Triple damages is to make it bad business to lie or otherwise break the law. If a criminal robbed a store and all they had to do was return the items if they got caught, there would be little incentive for criminals not to steal: at worst, they have to give what they took back. That is why Dyson, if found guilty, shouldn't just have to pay the business they took from Shark for lying, but also another amount to make it unprofitable to try to do again.
Well, that sucks...
By dd808
Tue, 09/30/2014 - 9:50am
Well, that sucks...
Shark Rules
By TCM
Tue, 09/30/2014 - 10:05am
I love my Shark. Works great, lots of attachments, and about 1/3 the cost of the Dyson.
Maybe their products suck
By penguin_berry
Tue, 09/30/2014 - 11:02am
Maybe their products suck less now (or more?) but when I had a shark, it couldn't pick up anything other than dirt + dust. Shredded bit of paper? Yeah... we'll be staying on the floor.
I always wondered
By whyaduck
Tue, 09/30/2014 - 11:34am
how much suction does one need?
my vacuum cleaner
By coffeeweasel
Tue, 09/30/2014 - 1:57pm
My vacuum cleaner failed to suck, which sucked. So I fixed it, and now it sucks, which fails to suck.
Add comment