Skip to content

Nationwide Promoting Division Finds Sure HEPA Claims for Shark Air Purifiers Supported; SharkNinja Appeals Suggestion to Modify or Discontinue Others

In a problem introduced by Dyson, Inc., the Nationwide Promoting Division (NAD) of BBB Nationwide Applications decided that SharkNinja Working LLC offered an affordable foundation for claims that its Shark Air Air purifier 4 meets and even exceeds HEPA requirements however advisable that Shark discontinue these similar claims for its Air Air purifier 6.

The challenged claims embody:

  • “Seize 99.97% of mud, dander, odors, and extra.”
  • “Seize 99.98% of huge, small, & micro-size particles.”

NAD additionally advisable that Shark:

  • Discontinue claims that its air purifiers are higher than different HEPA-labeled air purifiers as a result of these purifiers depart behind pollution.
  • Discontinue its COVID-19 claims.
  • Modify the “Clear Air 100%” declare by including a transparent and conspicuous disclosure explaining the idea of the declare.

Every of those filters is marketed as being a HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) filter. HEPA filters are a kind of pleated mechanical air filter that may take away a minimum of 99.97% of mud, pollen, mildew, micro organism, and any airborne particles with a dimension of 0.3 microns. HEPA filters can enhance the air high quality in a room over time and are sometimes seen because the gold normal in consumer-facing filtration merchandise, akin to air purifiers and vacuum cleaners.

HEPA Requirements Claims

In help of Shark’s claims that its air purifiers meet and even exceed HEPA requirements, the advertiser relied on testing carried out on the primary batch of air filters from its manufacturing line (First Run Filters).

NAD thought-about whether or not the merchandise being examined are consultant of what customers should buy available on the market and concluded that Shark’s testing of the First Run Filters was related for the Air Air purifier 4. Moreover, NAD decided that the advertiser’s QC testing was dependable and was enough to offer an affordable foundation that its air filters, a minimum of as of the time they left the manufacturing line abroad, met HEPA requirements.

Nonetheless, NAD concluded that, primarily based on the challenger’s rebuttal testing of off-the-shelf filters for the Air Air purifier 6, Shark’s manufacturing line testing was inadequate to help its HEPA claims for such filters.

Comparative HEPA Declare

NAD assessed the messages fairly conveyed by Shark’s declare that its filters are “True HEPA” whereas different “HEPA-labeled air purifiers can emit as much as 10x extra particles again into the air” and “can depart behind smoke, carbon mud, virus carriers, and mildew.” These claims are made alongside photographs of Shark’s air air purifier and what seems to be an unbranded air air purifier. A small disclosure under the unbranded air purifier states “Primarily based on IEST-RP-CC007.3. 01-02 microns vs. a number one HEPA labeled air air purifier.”

NAD decided that Shark’s comparability of its “True” HEPA purifiers to different purifiers, with out figuring out a particular air purifier, straight pits Shark’s product in opposition to all “HEPA-Labeled Air Purifiers.” Though the disclosure does state that the “10X extra particles” declare was primarily based on a check in opposition to “a number one” air purifier, the disclosure is tied solely to the quantified 10X claims. NAD discovered that a minimum of one message fairly conveyed by the promoting is that Shark’s air purifier is a “True HEPA” filter and different HEPA-labeled filters could also be inferior.

As a result of Shark didn’t present any help for the message that its purifiers are superior to 85% of the market or that 85% of rivals out there, together with Dyson, emit dangerous particulates however their HEPA-labeling, NAD advisable that the declare be discontinued .

NAD famous that nothing in its determination prevents Shark from educating customers that some HEPA-labeled air purifiers could fall wanting HEPA requirements in a non-comparative context.

COVID-19 Declare

NAD decided that Shark’s declare “CAPTURES airborne droplets that may carry micro organism & viruses, akin to CORONAVIRUS” fairly communicates a number of messages, together with that Shark’s air air purifier:

  • Captures (however doesn’t kill) the coronavirus;
  • Will stop customers from getting sick from the virus, both partially or utterly; and
  • Offers enough safety from turning into contaminated with COVID-19 that different protections usually are not vital.

NAD famous that CDC steerage makes clear that options like HEPA air filters or cleaners are solely a part of a multi-layered method to mitigate and scale back the danger of publicity to COVID-19 and is meant to be used with quite a few different precautionary practices. As a result of none of that context is current in Shark’s promoting, NAD advisable that Shark discontinue its COVID-19 claims.

NAD famous that nothing in its determination prevents Shark from claiming that air filters can be utilized as a part of a number of mitigation methods to cut back the unfold of COVID-19 and decrease the danger of publicity.

Clear Air 100% Declare

Shark advertises that its air purifiers provide “Clear Air 100%” by prominently displaying photographs of its air purifier, which has a show referred to as Clear Sense IQ, with the numbers “100%” beneath the phrases “CLEAN AIR.”

NAD famous that none of Shark’s ads that comprise the “Clear Air 100%” declare present any clarification of what’s meant by 100%.

A declare of 100% cleanliness is a robust declare, and within the absence of context that clearly conveys the idea of the declare, NAD discovered that customers could fairly take away a literal message—that the air surrounding the air purifier is 100% clear of any pollution. Subsequently, NAD advisable that Shark modify the declare by including a transparent and conspicuous disclosure explaining the idea of the 100% declare.

Lastly, throughout the continuing Shark voluntarily agreed to completely discontinue the declare that its filters “seize[] 99.97% of . . . odors.” Subsequently, NAD didn’t evaluation this declare on the deserves.

In its advertiser assertion, Shark acknowledged that it “will enchantment NAD’s determination.” The advertiser acknowledged that whereas “it’s happy that NAD decided that Shark’s proof . . .demonstrated that its filters meet the HEPA normal after they left the manufacturing line” and that “Shark offered an affordable foundation for its HEPA claims for the Shark Air Air purifier 4,” it “disagrees with NAD’s different findings and suggestions.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *