Blow for Dyson

British engineering firm loses its fight against German rival and Brussels

THE European Court of Justice has ruled against Dyson in the compa‑ ny’s row over EU vacuum cleaner en‑ ergy‑efficiency labels.

The British engineering group had claimed that its rival Bosch‑siemens had misled shoppers by exaggerating how efficient its vacuums are. It wanted its German rival to state that its tests had been held in laboratory conditions, which do not reflect real‑life use.

Dyson, best known for its bagless vacuum cleaners, had argued that the energy labels were inaccurate because they did not reflect how the pores of a dust bag become clogged with use and so need more power to maintain the same suction.

Dyson appealed to the European Union’s top court after a Belgian court said that EU energy labelling laws do not allow extra information to be printed on the labels, which grade products based on their efficiency.

Yesterday in Luxembourg, judges confirmed the decision and ruled that not including the test information did not constitute “a misleading omission”.

“No information relating to the con‑ ditions under which the energy effi‑ ciency of vacuum cleaners was measured may be added to the energy label,” the court said. Dyson has mounted repeated legal challenges over the EU energy tests.

Last year it won a significant victory when the ECJ reopened a challenge to the testing regime that has been in place since 2014.

Sir James Dyson, the company’s founder, was a prominent Leave cam‑ paigner in the Brexit referendum.

Inaccurate reports that EU energy efficiency rules would mean vacuum cleaners losing suction have been branded a “euromyth” by Brussels, which faced criticism in Britain and Germany for the rules. Dyson was established by Sir James in 1991.

It has consistently argued that con‑ sumers were misled by Bosch because the company did not mention that its energy performance tests were carried out with an empty dust bag, rather than a used one.

The company believed this amounted to an unfair commercial practice within the EU’S unfair com‑ mercial practices directive 2005, a law that sets practices for traders and manufacturers in Europe. BSH has also brought a counterclaim against Dyson in relation to allegedly defama‑ tory advertising.

This is not the first time that Dyson has taken a case to the EU Court of Jus‑ tice. Until 2017, European Union regu‑ lations had required vacuum cleaners be tested when empty, a ruling that greatly favoured bagged vacuum clean‑ ers, which Dyson does not use. So Dyson sued the European Commis‑ sion and won, resulting in a judgment requiring testing be done under nor‑ mal usage conditions.