Sir James Dyson has lost a legal battle to secure tens of millions of pounds in damages from an EU court following a row about vacuum cleaner labelling.
In a long-running dispute, the billionaire’s company successfully overturned a Brussels regulation that allowed “old fashioned” vacuums to appear as energy efficient as newer, bagless models.
Dyson argued they had lost out on sales due to this lack of distinction and sought damages of €176m (£150m) from the European Commission.
However, the General Court of the EU has rejected their claim and ordered them to pay the Commission’s legal costs.
“The court concludes that the Commission demonstrated conduct that could be expected from an administrative authority exercising ordinary care and diligence and, consequently, that the Commission did not manifestly and gravely disregard the limits on its discretion,” the court said.
The claim dates back to 2014 and the introduction the following year of EU directives covering labels meant to show the energy efficiency of vacuum cleaners.
Dyson argued that its bagless designs were more efficient than traditional models, which lose suction and become less effective as their bags fill up.
This means they have to use more power to maintain the same levels of suction.
Because they have no bags, Sir James argued his “cyclonic” devices do not suffer from this problem.
He also said the testing regime was a sham that benefitted traditional vacuum makers, because it only sampled vacuums when they were empty and failed to reflect real-life usage.
This meant vacuum cleaners with bags might attain the highest “A” grade when tested by the EU, even though they could fall to a “G” grade when used by consumers at home.
“The label overstated the real-world performance of old-fashioned bagged vacuum cleaners,” Sir James wrote in an article for the Telegraph.
“Only once people got their machines home did they discover the truth. Not only was this misleading to European consumers, but it also put Dyson at an unfair disadvantage.”
