Beginning Next Week: InsideCounsel will become part of Corporate Counsel. Bringing these two industry-leading websites together will now give you comprehensive coverage of the full spectrum of issues affecting today's General Counsel at companies of all sizes. You will continue to receive expert analysis on key issues including corporate litigation, labor developments, tech initiatives and intellectual property, as well as Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) professional development content. Plus we'll be serving all ALM legal publications from one interconnected platform, powered by, giving you easy access to additional relevant content from other InsideCounsel sister publications.

To prevent a disruption in service, you will be automatically redirected to the new site next week. Thank you for being a valued InsideCounsel reader!


Judge dismisses parts of Clorox cat litter suit

The class action suit by customers alleges that the company made false advertising claims

Bad news, cat lovers: Your felines may not be smarter than dogs and, according to some disgruntled consumers, they certainly aren’t smart enough to choose their own cat litter.

Clorox Co. is facing a class action lawsuit from customers who say that the company made false advertising claims for its brand of Fresh Step cat litter. According to the suit, commercials for the product state that cats are “smart enough to choose” Fresh Step and claim that the litter is more effective at eliminating odor, even though scientific studies have allegedly disproved those claims.

Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff ordered Clorox to temporarily stop airing these commercials, following a lawsuit by competitor Church & Dwight. In his January ruling, Rakoff wrote that “Clorox, cloaking itself in the authority of ‘a lab test,’ made literally false claims going to the heart of one of the main reasons for purchasing cat litter.” After the two companies settled, customers took up the complaint.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti ruled dismissed plaintiffs’ complaints that centered on Clorox’s claims that cats “like” or “are smart enough to choose Fresh Step.” But he did allow the lawsuit to continue on the grounds that the company overstated the cat litter’s odor-reducing properties.

Read the full story at Reuters.

For more InsideCounsel coverage of false advertising suits, read:

Charitable donations not allowed in Kellogg false advertising settlement

FDCA precludes Lanham Act claims in POM’s case against Coca-Cola’s juice labeling

Sears sued over wet/dry vac

Hospital harangues Highmark over false ads

Kardashian kerfuffle

Alanna Byrne

Bio and more articles

Join the Conversation

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.