Santana v. Clorox Company
United States District Court Northern District of California
Case 3:26-cv-10012
This case is about a household cleaner that was contaminated with a dangerous bacterium, and a company that had every reason to know it.
In September 2026, Clorox recalled approximately 6.3 million bottles of scented Mistolin and Lestoil multi-purpose cleaners (“Products”) because they may contain bacteria, including Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which can cause serious infections through inhalation, contact with the eyes, or contact with broken skin. The Products were sold to consumers throughout Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands at various retailers.
Pseudomonas aeruginosa is the same bacterium that forced Clorox to recall approximately 37 million bottles of its scented Pine-Sol cleaners in October 2022. In January 2026, Clorox agreed to pay a $14.15 million civil penalty to resolve U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) charges that it knowingly failed to immediately report the Pine-Sol contamination to the government, despite its own microbiologists having documented “possibly a Pseudomonad” in its storage tanks and finished product as early as 2019.
This penalty payment occurred while the Products at issue in this case were being manufactured.
As part of that settlement, Clorox agreed to maintain an enhanced compliance program and to file annual compliance reports with the CPSC.
Clorox thus knew that its scented multi-surface cleaners were vulnerable to Pseudomonas aeruginosa contamination. It knew the mechanism by which that contamination arises in fragranced formulations. It knew what testing was required to detect it, and it had promised the federal government that it would do better. Yet for 15 months Clorox manufactured, branded, marketed, and sold the Products to Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands consumers without any warning the Products could contain a pathogen, and then allowed the Products to remain on store shelves for months after it had stopped producing them.
As a result, consumers paid for cleaning products that were worthless, or worth materially less than they paid, because a household cleaner contaminated with an infectious bacterium is unfit for its only purpose.
Clorox’s recall program does not cure the harm: it refunds only consumers who still have the bottle and can photograph its UPC code, pays an amount Clorox alone determines, and offers nothing for the cost of disinfecting a home that has been cleaned with a contaminated product.
Plaintiff brings this action to recover the money she and the Class lost, to obtain injunctive relief requiring Clorox to fix the quality-control failures that produced this recall, and to hold Clorox accountable under California and Puerto Rico law.
Bryson attorneys: Trenton Kashima and Luis Cardona