951 F. Supp. 2d 1009
N.D. Ill.2013Background
- Dyson, as plaintiff, sues Bissell over advertising claims that OS vacuum cleaners allegedly match Dyson’s air filtration performance; Dyson tests claim OS models do not meet HEPA or 99.9% allergen capture standards.
- Central issue involves multiple models designated as open-system OS Vacuum Cleaners and the Healthy Home closed-system model.
- Dyson asserts 2010 Statements claimed HEPA-level filtration and 99.9% allergen capture; later 2011 and 2012 Statements alter or disclaim components.
- Dyson also asserts AAFA certification gap and that testing commissioned by Dyson shows OS models underperform relative to claims.
- Bissell moves for summary judgment on various defenses and seeks to exclude Kivetz’s expert report and disqualify Goldsmith; Dyson moves for partial summary judgment on 2010 Statements.
- Court grants Dyson’s partial summary judgment on 2010 Statements and denies Bissell’s motions; other issues proceed to trial or are denied as indicated in analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Kivetz survey evidence | Dyson; survey reliable and probative for consumer perception | Bissell; survey flawed (questions, coding, methodology) | Denied; survey admitted as relevant and reliable |
| Disqualification of Goldsmith as Dyson’s expert | Goldsmith’s independence and Retainer Agreement permit testimony | Conflict of interest and confidentiality risk | Denied; equities weigh against disqualification |
| Falsity and materiality of 2010 Statements under Lanham Act/Illinois Acts | 2010 Statements were false/misleading about OS vacuums’ HEPA performance | Statements were not false or misrepresented; acceptable marketing | Granted for Dyson on falsity/materiality/injury along 2010 Statements |
| Post-2010 Statements (2011/2012) lashed to allegations | Continued misrepresentations sustain claims | Could be true/ambiguous; need trial evaluation | Denial of summary judgment; issues to be determined at trial |
| Affirmative defenses (release, acquiescence, estoppel, laches, statute of limitations, failure to state a claim) | Defenses bar Dyson’s claims | Defenses may apply; dispute scope and timing | Granted for Dyson on release, acquiescence, estoppel, laches, statute of limitations, and failure to state a claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Evory v. RJM Acquisitions Funding LLC, 505 F.3d 769 (7th Cir. 2007) (consumer surveys must comply with professional survey standards)
- Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard; genuine issue of material fact)
- BASF Corp. v. Old World Trading Co., Inc., 41 F.3d 1081 (7th Cir. 1994) (false advertising context; literal falsehood or misleading in context)
- Muha v. Encore Receivable Management, Inc., 558 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2009) (consumer survey admissibility considerations; bias and sampling issues)