Clorox said Associated Press allegations of human-rights abuses in palm supply chains were disturbing and contrary to its standards. The company said it was engaging suppliers, described its sourcing and traceability efforts, and set a goal to source certified sustainable palm oil and derivatives through RSPO physical supply chains by 2025.
Since Clorox was founded in 1913, we’ve lived by our values, including “do the right thing.” This commitment guides everything we do, including our efforts to continually improve our sourcing programs, with the goal to source palm oil responsibly. The Associated Press’s recent allegations are very disturbing and certainly against our supply chain standards and expectations. Palm derivatives, ingredients with a more complex supply chain, make up the vast majority of Clorox’s relatively limited palm oil use. For perspective, Clorox’s use of palm oil ingredients represents less than 0.003% of palm oil volume produced globally each year. Given information illuminating how human rights abuses – particularly those against women – are systemic in primarily Indonesian and Malaysian palm supply chains, we are taking this opportunity to further engage our suppliers and partners about how this issue can be addressed as we all work toward more sustainable practices.
In a suit filed in Pennsylvania federal court, lawyers for a smaller rival accused Clorox’s Brita brand of using its influence with standard-setting organizations to secretly plot a “patent ambush” that monopolized home water-filtration systems. The report, dated October 7, 2022, describes allegations, not a court finding.
By Andrew Karpan ( October 7, 2022, 4:37 PM EDT) -- Clorox has been hit with accusations in Pennsylvania federal court that its Brita water-filter brand used its power on standard-setting organizations to secretly plot what lawyers for a smaller rival call "a patent ambush of the industry" that monopolized the market on home water-filtration systems. . . .
The CPSC says Clorox delayed reporting possible bacterial contamination in Pine-Sol scented cleaners, despite internal warnings dating to 2019; the products were recalled in 2022. Clorox agreed to a $14.15 million penalty and compliance measures, but denied the agency’s allegations. The settlement was provisionally accepted, subject to public comment.
In early 2019, Clorox microbiologists issued a written report documenting bacterial contamination in storage tanks and finished product, which they described as “possibly a Pseudomonad.” Subsequently, Clorox received reports of cloudiness in products in certain retail stores, and a report from a distributor regarding cloudy products that had been distributed in multiple locations. While Clorox took steps to mitigate the potential for bacterial contamination, Clorox did not immediately report to the Commission as required.
of the Subject Products on October 25, 2022. Failure To Timely Report 10. Despite having information reasonably supporting the conclusion that the Subject Products contained a defect which could create a substantial product hazard or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, Clorox did not notify the Commission immediately of such defect or risk, as required by sections 15(b)(3) and (4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(3), (4), in violation of section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). 11. Because the information in Clorox's possession about the Subject Products constituted actual and presumed knowledge, Clorox knowingly violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4), as the term ``knowingly'' is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). 12. Pursuant to section 20 of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069, Clorox is subject to civil penalties for its knowing violation of section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4). Response of Firm 13. This Agreement does not constitute an admission by Clorox to the staff's charges as set forth in paragraphs 4 through 12 above, including without limitation that the Subject Products in fact contained a defect that could create a substantial product hazard or created an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death; that Clorox had an obligation to, and failed to, notify the Commission in a timely matter in accordance with section 15(b) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2064(b); and that Clorox knowingly violated section 19(a)(4) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2068(a)(4), as the term ``knowingly'' is defined in section 20(d) of the CPSA, 15 U.S.C. 2069(d). 14. At all relevant times, Clorox had a compliance program and took reasonable steps to monitor, evaluate, and address reports of possible bacteria contained in the Subject Products. 15. Clorox promptly notified the Commission under Section 15(b) of the CPSA after identifying Pseudomonas aeruginosa and conducted a voluntary recall of the Subject Products, which was announced in October 2022. 16. Clorox enters into this Agreement to settle this matter and to avoid the cost, distraction, delay, uncertainty, and inconvenience of protracted litigation or other proceedings. Clorox does not admit that it violated the CPSA or any other law, nor that reportable information or a substantial product hazard existed. Clorox's willingness to enter into this Agreement and Order does not constitute, nor is it evidence of, [[Page 3443]] an admission by Clorox of liability, or violation of any law. Agreement of the Parties 17. Under the CPSA, the Commission has jurisdiction over the
The Clorox Company has agreed to pay a $14.15 million civil penalty after federal regulators said the manufacturer failed to immediately alert authorities to a potential bacterial contamination risk in its Pine‑Sol scented multi‑surface cleaners.
Leslie Santana, a Clorox customer in Puerto Rico, filed a proposed class action after Clorox recalled more than 6 million Mistolin and Lestoil cleaners on Sept. 3 for Pseudomonas aeruginosa contamination. She alleges Clorox knew of the risk and seeks disclosure, testing and monitoring measures, Spanish-language recall notices and damages. Clorox did not comment to the report.
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A customer who purchased a Clorox cleaning product filed a putative class action against the company Tuesday after the product was found to contain a dangerous bacterium.
A customer claims the company knew about a harmful bacterium in its products for months but left it on shelves before a recall.
A 63-year-old former Clorox sales employee alleged he was fired because of his gender; Clorox cited performance concerns and a reorganization. In April 2025, the Ninth Circuit found factual questions about whether Clorox’s women-in-management targets indicated discrimination, reversing summary judgment in part. Law360 reported Clorox settled the case in February 2026, just before trial.
The 9th Circuit reversed only on the basis that the plaintiff had shown that a reasonable jury could conclude that Clorox’s reasons for firing the plaintiff were internally inconsistent and discriminatory on the basis of gender. The court said that a Clorox program to achieve gender “representation targets” was sufficient evidence to defeat the company’s motion for summary judgment.
Clorox has settled a gender discrimination suit from a former employee who claimed he was fired because the company wanted more women managers, right before the case was set to go to trial and just under a year after it was revived by the Ninth Circuit.
Yale’s company-tracking table lists Clorox, a U.S. consumer staples company, as having suspended business activity in Russia. The entry does not specify when the suspension began, its scope beyond business activity, or whether it was temporary or permanent.
<td>Suspend all Russian diamond purchases</td> <td>Consumer Discretionary</td> <td>Switzerland</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Cie Automotives</td> <td>temporarily shut down aluminum plant</td> <td>Consumer Discretionary</td> <td>Spain</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Ciena</td> <td>suspend business operations in Russia</td> <td>Communication Services</td> <td>United States</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Citrix</td> <td>suspend all sales to Russia</td> <td>Information Technology</td> <td>United States</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Cleary Gottlieb</td> <td>suspend Russian operations</td> <td>Industrials</td> <td>United States</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Clorox</td> <td>suspend business activity in Russia</td> <td>Consumer Staples</td> <td>United States</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Cloudflare</td> <td>suspend all business in Russia</td> <td>Information Technology</td> <td>United States</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Clutch</td> <td>suspend all business activity</td> <td>Industrials</td> <td>United States</td> </tr> <tr> <td>CME Group</td> <td>suspend acceptance of certain Russian commodities</td> <td>Financials</td> <td>United States</td> </tr> <tr> <td>CNH Industrial</td> <td>suspend sales to Russia</td> <td>Industrials</td> <td>United Kingdom </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Cogent Communications</td> <td>cut all internet to Russia</td> <td>Communication Services</td> <td>United States</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Columbia Sportswear</td> <td>pause taking any new orders from Russian distributor & remove future sales</td> <td>Consumer Discretionary</td> <td>United States</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Commerzbank</td> <td>suspend operations in Russia</td> <td>Financials</td> <td>Germany</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Conde Nast</td> <td>suspend all publishing operations</td> <td>Communication Services</td> <td>United States</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Conformis</td> <td>suspend distribution operations in Russia</td> <td>Health Care</td> <td>United States</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Costco</td> <td>stopped purchases from Russia</td> <td>Consumer
On April 9, 2007, the EPA said it had filed a complaint seeking $177,300 from Clorox over alleged U.S. distribution of unregistered, export-only disinfectant bleach with inadequate labeling. The agency said its investigation found 38 federal pesticide-law violations; the announcement describes a requested penalty, not a final outcome.
SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently filed a complaint seeking $177,300 against The Clorox Company, an Oakland, Calif.-based manufacturer, for the alleged distribution of unregistered and mislabeled disinfectant bleach intended only for Asian export.
An archived OpenSecrets summary lists Clorox lobbying expenditures of $32,500 in 2024 and $50,000 in 2023. It ranks the company 4,295th among 7,866 organizations for 2024.
The Human Rights Campaign’s corporation listing shows Clorox with a “50/50” score for inclusive benefits. The supplied information does not explain the scoring criteria or provide further details.
The Human Rights Campaign’s corporation listing shows Clorox with a “5/5” score for workforce protections. The supplied information does not explain the scoring criteria or provide further details.
OpenSecrets reported $520,000 in 2026 federal lobbying by Clorox subsidiaries, all attributed to Brita Products; Clorox Co.’s direct spending was listed as zero. The reports covered budget and appropriations and clean air and water issues, and named the EPA, House and Senate. The page’s data was updated July 23, 2026, through June 30.
FEC itemized-contribution data listed a $1,000 contribution from The Clorox Company Employees’ Political Action Committee to the Christopher Cox Congressional Committee on March 10, 2004.
OpenSecrets’ archived Clorox Co. profile reported $31,128 in contributions and spending for the 2024 cycle, with 100% attributed to individuals and $0 to the organization. It listed donations to Democratic candidates and groups, including $7,100 to DNC Services Corp.; the figures include affiliates.
OpenSecrets lists four quarterly lobbying reports by Clorox Co. concerning H.R. 5978, the Cleaning Product Ingredient Communication Act, in the 118th Congress. The listing identifies the bill and report count but does not specify Clorox’s position or the substance of its lobbying.
<table id="DataTables_Table_0"> <thead> <tr><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Bill Number</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Congress</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">Title</th><th rowspan="1" colspan="1">No. of Reports & Specific Issues*</th></tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>H.R.5978 </td> <td>118</td> <td>Cleaning Product Ingredient Communication Act</td> <td>4</td> </tr></tbody> <tfoot> <tr><td rowspan="1" colspan="4">*Each quarterly filing is treated as a separate report.</td></tr> </tfoot> </table>
In October 2020, Clorox and the California Air Resources Board reached a $10,000 settlement. CARB said Clorox sold, supplied, offered for sale or manufactured charcoal lighter material for California with unapproved language and failed to report changes to usage instructions. Clorox reverted to the approved wording.
In October 2020, the California Air Resources Board and The Clorox Company, of Oakland, California, reached a settlement agreement in the amount of $10,000. Clorox sold, supplied, offered for sale and/or manufactured a charcoal lighter material product for use in California that contained language not approved in Executive Order J-17-014, and did not notify CARB of usage instruction modifications as required by California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 94509(h). To come into compliance, Clorox reverted to the approved language in Executive Order J‑17‑014.
An archived OpenSecrets summary displays $31,128 under “Contributions” for Clorox. The supplied record does not identify the period, recipients or type of contributions.
OpenSecrets reported $50,000 in Clorox Co. lobbying for 2023 and said its one lobbyist that year had not previously held a government job. For 2024, it reported $32,500 and said one of two lobbyists had previously held government employment.