Fresh Step Cat Litter Misleading Ads. The maker of Fresh Step Cat Litter has been accused of running a misleading marketing campaign touting the supposed superiority of the litter. In its advertising, California-based Clorox claimed cats preferred Fresh Step rather than a competing cat litter. In January 2012, Clorox was ordered to stop running […]
Fresh Step Cat Litter Misleading Ads. The maker of Fresh Step Cat Litter has been accused of running a misleading marketing campaign touting the supposed superiority of the litter. In its advertising, California-based Clorox claimed cats preferred Fresh Step rather than a competing cat litter. In January 2012, Clorox was ordered to stop running the Fresh Step ad, after a judge ruled that its claims were false.
The class action lawsuit lawyers at Parker Waichman LLP are investigating the allegations that Clorox made misleading claims about Fresh Step Cat Litter. If you purchased this product, you may be entitled to a refund. We are currently offering free lawsuit evaluations to consumers who purchased Fresh Step Cat Letter. To learn more about joining a Fresh Step Cat Litter class action lawsuit, please contact us today.
In 2010, Clorox, located in Oakland California, began running a commercial for Fresh Step Cat Litter that suggested cats, given a choice, preferred Fresh Step rather than Arm & Hammer Super Scoop litter. However, the company agreed to stop running the Fresh Step commercial after the maker of Arm & Hammer Super Scoop filed suit. Clorox began airing a new commercial in February 2011 that claimed to show that carbon, the main odor-eliminating ingredient in Fresh Step, was more effective than baking soda, the main active ingredient in Super Scoop. Once again, the maker of Super Scoop filed suit, claiming that commercial was misleading.
In January 2012, a New York federal judge ruled that the new Fresh Step commercial was misleading, citing the “unrealistic conditions” of testing Clorox claims to have performed on the litter. The company claimed to have conducted a “jar test,” which it says proved carbon, rather than baking soda, better eliminated cat odor. In his ruling, the judge stated his belief that the plaintiff would prevail in its lawsuit against Clorox, and that the continued airing of the commercials would do the plaintiff “irreparable harm.” An injunction was issued ordering Clorox to temporarily stop showing the ad.
The personal injury attorneys at Parker Waichman LLP offer free, no-obligation case evaluations. For more information, fill out our online contact form or call 1-800-YOURLAWYER (1-800-968-7529).
