Law Street Media

Lawsuit Alleges Clorox’s 99.9% Claims Are Misleading

A stylized image on coronavirus.

Coronavirus virus outbreak and coronaviruses influenza background as dangerous flu strain cases as a pandemic medical health risk concept with disease cells as a 3D render

On Wednesday, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Clorox in the Central District of Illinois. The lawsuit alleges that Clorox’s laundry sanitizer is falsely advertised.

The product packaging, the complaint says, claims that the sanitizer kills 99.9% of bacteria on laundry. According to the complaint, the defendant charges a premium on this product based on this claim. The plaintiff believes that this is an instance of misleading advertising because their claim of near complete elimination of bacteria is not unique to just their product.

The plaintiff claims that the defendant violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, and claims that their actions are fraudulent and have resulted in unjust enrichment. The plaintiff requests that their class be certified, that injunctive relief be provided, that monetary damages be awarded, and that all fees incurred by the plaintiff be covered.

The lawsuit cites studies from the Centers for Disease Control, which conclude that “Although textiles and fabrics can be a source of substantial numbers of pathogenic microorganisms… diseases and infections linked to contaminated fabrics are so few that any risk of transmission as a result of the laundering process likely is negligible.” The plaintiff believes that since this is true for virtually all laundry sanitizers, the defendants use of these statistics on their bottle and their premium pricing of the product is fraudulent.

The plaintiff goes on to assert that all members of the proposed class “sought  to  purchase a product that would provide a meaningful benefit beyond the standard laundering process in terms of sanitizing laundry and reducing bacteria” and “would not have purchased the Product or paid as much if the true facts had been known, suffering damages.”

The plaintiff is represented by Sheehan & Associates.

Exit mobile version