Remarkably not one Australian journalist was issued with a copy of a press release or verbally briefed on the Court case. In fact, LG Australia tried to hide the fact that the action was being taken against the British Company by not issuing a statement.
Remember we are talking about a public record case with information openly available to people who search Federal Court records.
When LG and Samsung went head to head in the Federal Court two years ago over who had the better TV display technology both sides had both PR and legal representatives in Court. Now LG is claiming "We cannot comment about an ongoing case".
It took ChannelNews and SmartHouse to break the story in Australia.
What LG is claiming is that their CordZero series of premium cordless vacuum cleaners are better than the Dyson V6.
LG claim that Dyson who are known for their superior marketing and instore displays have mislead consumers by claiming that their product is superior to other manufactures vacuum cleaners including those made by LG.
But the big question is why has it taken so long for LG to take action against Dyson.
The LG vacuum cleaner which is the key witness for LG in the Federal Court case only went on sale at Australian retailers this month, 14 months after it was released at the IFA trade show in Berlin.
The Dyson V6 went on sale in March 2015, while the LG CordZero product has been on sale in Korean and Europe up against the Dyson V6.
So why has LG chosen Australia to take LG action against Dyson when they could have taken action in several other Countries. LG launched the CordZero product in the UK in January 2015.
Philip Anderson LG Australia's PR Manager is ducking for cover refusing to return calls.
His PR Company said they were aware of the Court action but had chosen not to issue a release which I suspect was on the direct orders of Anderson.
This is a Company who has seen both their Sales and Marketing Directors walk this year.
This is also the same Company that has a questionable track record when it comes to product claims and cases before the Federal Court.
In 2006 LG Australia also agreed to make $3.1 million available in rebates for eligible consumers who bought five LG Electronics Australia Pty Ltd air conditioner models that did not comply with the energy efficiency values claimed on rating labels.
"LG sold more than 15,000 mislabelled air conditioners", Australian Competition and Consumer Commission Chairman, Mr Graeme Samuel, said today.
At the time LG said "LG will implement new testing procedures to ensure that the energy efficiency of its air conditioners matches the performance indicated by their stated energy efficiency star rating and, where applicable meet, 'minimum energy performance standards'".
Four years later they were back in Court for similar offences this time with dodgy refrigerators.
Actions Similar to Volkswagen
In 2010 four years after the air conditioning debacle, LG Australia was forced to provide the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission with a court enforceable undertaking after concerns that LG may have breached the Trade Practices by misrepresenting the Comparative Energy Consumption (CEC) of various refrigerator models.
Over the course of 2007 and 2009, LG applied for energy label registrations for three refrigerator models, all of which included an energy saving feature which switches the refrigerator to a more energy efficient mode of operation, storage mode, when it is left for a sustained period without opening the refrigerator door.
LG did not remove or disable the storage mode during testing prior to applying for the energy label registrations.
Back in 2005 The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission also instituted proceedings in the Federal Court, against LG Australia for alleged false and misleading warranty statements in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
The ACCC alleged that LG made false representations and/or engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in relation to statements made in online LG mobile phone user manuals concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of consumer statutory warranties, conditions, rights or remedies.