Select Product Category for Support. FAQs, Manuals, Tips, Videos and more If you recently ordered a Shark® product and would like to inquire about the status of your order please submit the information below. Ship to ZIP code Find your model number. Search by Model Number or Keyword: If you have questions, comments or concerns, let us know. Our Shark® experts are here to help.5 YEAR VIP Service Guarantee The 5 Year VIP Limited Warranty applies to eligible purchases* made directly from SharkNinja Operating LLC. Warranty coverage applies to the original owner and to the original product only and is not transferable. SharkNinja Operating LLC warrants that the unit shall be free from defects in material and workmanship from the date of purchase when the appliance system is used for residential consumer purposes and maintained according to the requirements outlined in the Instruction manuals. The original unit and/or non-wearable components deemed defective will be repaired or replaced for up to 5 years from the original purchase date as long as you own

In rare instances, a replacement unit may be issued to honor our warranty conditions. In the event that a replacement unit is issued, the warranty coverage ends two years following shipment of the replacement unit. Additionally, if the unit requires replacement, SharkNinja reserves the right to replace the unit with one of equal or Return Freight and re-shipment costs (Ground freight only) are shipped prepaid by SharkNinja Operating LLC for warranty claims that meet the eligibility requirements. Normal wear and tear of wearable parts such Foam filters, Hepa Filters, Pads etc., which require regular maintenance and/or replacement in order to assure the proper functioning of your unit. Any unit that has been tampered with or used for commercial purposes. Damage caused by misuse, abuse, negligent handling or mishandling in transit.By placing your eligible order direct with Shark, your appliance was automatically registered with us and the warranty activated.

for product care/maintenance self- help. Our customer care and product specialists are also available at 1-800-798-7398 to assist with product support and warrantyPlease note, you must call 1-800-798-7398 (Shark) to initiate a warranty claim. The warranty gives you specific legal rights, and you also may have other rights which vary from state to state.mini vacuum cleaner amazon *Eligible purchases apply to specific limited TV offer and/or online configurations and subsequent order/shipment confirmations whereby the offer explicitly statesvacuum cleaner store st louis the applicability of VIP Service guarantees.vacuum cleaners wet and dry in indiaSearch by Model Number or Keyword:New for 2016, our TigerShark® series of robotic cleaners feature a new and contemporary design.

Equipped with intelligent microprocessor-based technology, the TigerShark family is recognized for its superior performance in reliability and efficiency. TigerShark makes sure virtually every area of your pool gets that much cleaner, and fast! The TigerShark QC automatic robotic cleaner is no exception with a fast 90-minute Quick Clean cycle. All TigerShark models come with a standard 3-hour complete cleaning cycle for full floor, walls, coves and waterline. Patented Quick Clean technology (TigerShark QC model) provides a fast 90 minute cycle. On-board pump for intense vacuum power to suck up dirt and debris. Built with an efficient 24-volt motor designed to use less energy and lower cost. Unique cartridge filter system Makes emptying easy, just open the cleaner, remove the cartridge and rinse with a hose. No extra hoses, hookups or pumps required. Runs separately from the pool’s filtration system reducing the frequency of filter backwash cycles.

NOTE: For 2016, all orders placed for TigerShark, TigerShark QC and TigerShark Plus whole good cleaner models will receive this new cleaner style - functionality remains unchanged. New for 2016, our TigerShark® series of robotic cleaners feature a new and contemporary design. NOTE: For 2016, all orders placed for TigerShark, TigerShark QC and TigerShark Plus whole good cleaner models will receive this new cleaner style - functionality remains unchanged.It is a fact of modern commerce that consumers consider online reviews when deciding how to spend their dollars on everything from music, to local restaurants, to electronics.  But what happens when a business wants to use those reviews to formulate advertising claims? In June, the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus addressed the issue in a decision against Euro-Pro Operating, LLC.   Euro-Pro used online consumer reviews to support its claim that its “Shark” brand vacuum cleaners were “America’s Most Recommended Vacuum Brand.”  

Euro-Pro made this claim in television ads, infomercials, online ads, and on product packaging.  In most placements, the claim was accompanied by a disclosure that the claim was “based on percentage of consumer recommendations for upright vacuums on major national retailer websites through August 2013, U.S. Only.”  According to Euro-Pro’s analysis, consumers recommended their Shark vacuum cleaner 94.2% of the time, besting the rate of the next closest brand, Dyson, which was recommended 89.9% of the time.  Dyson brought a challenge before the NAD, giving the advertising industry self-regulatory body its first opportunity to address advertising claims based on aggregated online product review data.  As the NAD noted, the claim itself was not unique, but Euro-Pro presented “a new and interesting type of data in support of its claim.” Dyson successfully argued that Euro-Pro’s claim communicated that the Shark products are the most recommended vacuum cleaners among all vacuum cleaner owners nationwide, not just those who–bought their vacuums online. 

The NAD found that the online review evidence relied upon by Euro-Pro was not sufficient to support this broad claim. The NAD also found that the disclaimer, which discloses that the claim is based on online reviews, would be interpreted by consumers to be a statement of method, and not a limitation or qualification of the scope of the claim. The NAD ruled against Euro-Pro because of two key concerns about the data used to support the claim.  The first concern was that Euro-Pro had not used a demographically representative sample to make its claim.  The NAD determined that the consumers posting the reviews were not sufficiently representative of upright vacuum cleaner consumers in the United States.  Market data showed that 84% of vacuum cleaners are purchased in brick-and-mortar stores.   The NAD found that those who purchase vacuums online are more likely to submit reviews.  To illustrate this, the NAD pointed to the fact that only 2% of vacuum cleaner sales were made through Amazon, but Amazon reviews accounted for over 40% of the online reviews. 

Online purchasers also preferred high-end expensive models.  The NAD was not persuaded that Euro-Pro’s methodology adequately represented the views of the general American consumer or that there should be a less rigorous review of how statistically representative the sample was because of the volume of reviews considered.  The NAD wrote, “This decision simply restates a fundamental principal of advertising law, that the data set submitted in this proceeding, like any other population sample, must be shown to be representative of the consumers that it purports to represent.” In addition to not being representative enough to support the claim, the NAD further found that the online review data was not reliable enough to support Euro-Pro’s claim.  The NAD reasoned that the fact that individual consumers rely on online reviews did not mean that they could necessarily be used as the basis for a broad advertising claim regarding the opinions of the consumer population as a whole. 

Specifically, the NAD questioned whether a sufficient number of those who submitted reviews were bona fide purchasers of the Shark vacuum.  The NAD also questioned whether there were duplicate reviews or the same individuals making multiple recommendations.  In this discussion, the NAD described the practice of some companies who “syndicate” reviews, meaning that the company itself takes a positive consumer review of its product and posts that review on multiple sites.  There was also variation in the wording of how different sites prompted the consumer for a recommendation or not, and it was also unknown in many cases exactly why the consumer was recommending the Shark. Euro-Pro argued that consumers understand the limitations of online reviews and understand that when an advertising claim is based on those reviews, those limitations should be taken into account. The NAD stated, “However, it is exactly that healthy skepticism and analysis that consumers use when looking at online reviews that demonstrate why they are not reliable when aggregated as substantiation for the type of broad, general ‘most recommended’ claim at issue.

The advertiser’s claim, ‘America’s Most Recommended Vacuum Brand’ conveys the message that consumers do not have to look at online reviews to determine which product is the most highly recommended—because the advertiser has already done it for them.” The NAD capped its decision by declaring and reminding advertisers that, “While NAD is open to advertisers using new technology and information to support their claims, the standards of truthfulness, reliability and representativeness to which advertiser’s substantiation is held to remain the same.”  The NAD made clear that it was leaving the door open to using online reviews as the basis for advertising claims, if the claims were based on more scientifically sound data, stating that,“As more commerce and consumer interactions occur online, more useful data about consumer usage and preferences can be culled from the web” and that its decision “does not foreclose the possibility that ‘found’ or “crowd-sourced’ data could be aggregated in a way that represents a relevant population

and used as advertising claim support.” Euro-Pro stated that it intended to appeal the decision to the National Advertising Review Board and that it would modify its claim in the meantime to read “most recommended vacuum online.” The NAD, the FTC, and state attorneys general have had other cases involving online reviews.  In a case last year, the NAD recommended that an advertiser advise reviewers of their disclosure obligations when it provides incentives for posting online reviews about the advertiser, and that the advertiser disclose any incentives it provides for posts about the advertiser when the advertiser promotes or otherwise redistributes the posts.  The FTC and state attorneys general have focused recently on enforcement actions involving fake, or “astroturfed,” product reviews. As the Euro-Pro case shows, online product reviews used to substantiate advertising claims will be subject to the same analysis as any other form of substantiation.  Thus, not surprisingly, while more data is freely obtainable online and more consumer voices can be heard online, the basic legal principles remain the same.