GLAD manufacturer fined $8.25m for misleading green claims

ACCC victorious in its latest greenwashing action.

The Federal Court recently found that Clorox Pty Ltd (Clorox), which manufactures the GLAD range of kitchen and garbage products, made false and misleading environmental claims on the packaging of its GLAD TO BE GREEN product range.  

The case sounds a strong warning to anyone making environmental claims, with the Federal Court ordering Clorox to pay a total penalty of $8.25 million. 

Ocean plastic v ocean bound plastic – is there any discernible difference? 

In April 2024, the ACCC issued proceedings against Clorox alleging it had breached the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) by claiming that its GLAD TO BE GREEN range was made from at least 50% recycled plastic waste collected from the ocean or sea when they were in fact made from approximately 50% non-recycled plastic waste which was collected by communities in Indonesia up to 50km from a shoreline.  

Click here to read our earlier article on the case, which includes valuable background on another case involving claims of “ocean bound” plastic. 

Clorox’s packaging included statements clarifying the recycled plastic’s origin. However, the Court found that because they appeared on the back of the packaging in small font, they were inadequate to dispel the false or misleading representation that the products were made from ‘ocean plastic’. 

Even amending the front of its packaging to read ‘50% Ocean Plastic Recycled Bags’ and ‘Made using 50% Ocean Bound Plastic*’ (emphasis added) was not sufficient to cure the misrepresentation.   

In our earlier article, we speculated whether the Court would distinguish between ‘ocean plastic’ and ‘ocean bound plastic’. The Court’s answer could not be more clear. This sends a strong message to the market as to the ACCC’s view of environmental claims as well as the “support” they can expect to receive from the Court.  

In a media statement, ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said “Claims about environmental benefits matter to many consumers and may impact their purchasing behaviour. When those claims are false or misleading, this is a serious breach of trust, as well as the ACL.”  She further stressed the significance of this matter in stating “Consumers have limited or no ability to independently verify the accuracy of the claims made on packaging and it also disadvantages competitors who are accurately communicating their environmental credentials.” 

In addition to the $8.25 million penalty, Clorox was ordered to develop an ACL compliance program, publish a corrective notice on its website, and partly compensate the ACCC’s legal costs, among other orders. 

Making environmental claims  

If you require assistance in evaluating whether you can make environmental claims in relation to your product packing, please get in touch with our specialist Food & Beverage team at food@khq.com.au. Our team provides expert and commercially astute advice on how to mitigate compliance risks. 

Want Litigation & Dispute Resolution updates delivered straight to your inbox? Click here to subscribe.