On Thursday, 26 October 2017 21:32:10 UTC+1, Steve Walker wrote:
On 26/10/2017 11:24, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 26 October 2017 08:42:22 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 24/10/2017 11:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Never really understood why makers need to lie about light output. Does it
sell more to the gullible? It certainly annoys those who expect such
claims to be true.

It was the only way they could sell CFLs originally - by pretending that
the feeble 40W ghastly greenish equivalent light output of a nominally
60W equivalent CFL was the same as a real 60W incandescent.

For some strange reason trading standards was never interested in it

because the claims made were true. CFL output was not compared with a standard filament lamp in the box claims.

Trading and advertising standards are quite capable on acting on what
the public would expect, not what the small-print actually says. If
they'd wanted to, they could have enforced a comparison that was
actually meaningful to Joe Public.

SteveW

the reality is they never did