# Easy to claim $30. class settlement re: Clorox Automatic Toilet Bowl Cleaner with Ble



## Jennie (Sep 24, 2010)

You are a member of the Class if you purchased, used or suffered any property damage from use of Clorox Automatic Toilet Bowl Cleaner with Bleach (CATBC) from December 13, 2002 to September 15, 2010.

If you did not incur expenses for toilet repairs or replacement, you can file a simple claim for $30. without submitting any proof of purchase of the Clorox product. You can print out the short, simple claim form and send it by mail, or you can *file a simple claim online.* It takes only a couple of minutes to do it. Go to:  https://cert.gardencitygroup.com/clx/fs/home?claimForm=1

If you paid more than $30. for repair or replacement of the toilet, a second longer claim form must be submitted with documentation.

For more detailed info go to: http://catbcsettlement.com/index
However, it is not necessary to read tons of pages of legalese explaining the settlement if you are just filing the claim for $30.


----------



## pjrose (Sep 24, 2010)

Thanks for posting this!


----------



## hvacrsteve (Sep 24, 2010)

Jennie said:


> You are a member of the Class if you purchased, used or suffered any property damage from use of Clorox Automatic Toilet Bowl Cleaner with Bleach (CATBC) from December 13, 2002 to September 15, 2010.
> 
> If you did not incur expenses for toilet repairs or replacement, you can file a simple claim for $30. without submitting any proof of purchase of the Clorox product. You can print out the short, simple claim form and send it by mail, or you can *file a simple claim online.* It takes only a couple of minutes to do it. Go to:  https://cert.gardencitygroup.com/clx/fs/home?claimForm=1
> 
> ...



How much are the lawyers getting?
This is not in my opinion appropriate!


----------



## ondeadlin (Sep 24, 2010)

I've used this product a ton, so thanks for posting this!

No problem with the lawyers getting paid, either. The profit motive for lawyers balances out the power of big business and motivates big business to make products safer.


----------



## PigsDad (Sep 24, 2010)

We, too, have used this product in the past and have really liked it.  So now they are basically admitting that the extra chlorine will cause you to replace your $3 toilet flapper a bit earlier than it's normal lifetime.  (duh!)

This will result in Clorox most likely to quit making this product in the future (or change its formula so it is less effective).  And some lawyers will get a big fat paycheck.  And we (consumers in general) will pay more for Clorox products since their costs just went up.

Tell me again why this is a good thing?  

Kurt


----------



## ondeadlin (Sep 24, 2010)

Everything you write there is true.

But you can't dismiss the value of class action lawyers just because this group of lawyers has chosen to use a class action suit to address a relatively trivial "problem."

It would be like saying cops are bad just because one particular cop chooses to wrack up his speeding ticket quota by pulling over every person he can that goes 1 MPH over the speed limit.

In both cases, the behavior involved is technically allowable, but silly and motivated by personal advancement  - yet that's still not a good reason to overlook the overall value of cops or class action lawyers.


----------



## PigsDad (Sep 24, 2010)

ondeadlin said:


> But you can't dismiss the value of class action lawyers just because this group of lawyers has chosen to use a class action suit to address a relatively trivial "problem."


I wasn't meaning to target the lawyers in my post.  It was more just a reflection on how society tends to shoot itself in the foot sometimes.

In this case, the outcome will be that we will have to clean our toilets more often just because someone complained that a $3 toilet flapper wasn't lasting as long as it used to when they used a product that allowed them to not clean their toilet as often. (Whew!  That was a mouthful!  )

Personally, I'd rather buy a $3 toilet flapper more often than clean a toilet more often.  

Kurt

P.S.  I won't be signing up for the lawsuit, simply out of principle.


----------



## ondeadlin (Sep 24, 2010)

Yeah, I can't disagree with anything you say there.


----------



## ace2000 (Sep 24, 2010)

Are we absolutely positive that this site is legit?  Just want to be sure.


----------



## hvacrsteve (Sep 24, 2010)

ondeadlin said:


> Everything you write there is true.
> 
> But you can't dismiss the value of class action lawyers just because this group of lawyers has chosen to use a class action suit to address a relatively trivial "problem."
> 
> ...



You are dead on with this, in the end it is the consumers paying more and usually getting less in the process.
Go find a swimming pool with a diving board, very difficult.

Many things in life devalue themselves, the two you listed are prime examples, no one really likes either.  My goal is to stay away from both as much as possible.


----------



## Texasbelle (Sep 24, 2010)

Both of our new low water usage toilets warned us not to use any bleach tablets in the tank.  [So I still have a tablet in the cupboard.]


----------



## DaveNV (Sep 24, 2010)

I used it in the downstairs powder room at my brand new home for awhile.  This toilet began leaking from the flapper valve fairly soon after, which I put down to being a bad valve.  The other bathrooms in the house are used more often, and didn't expereince any problem.  I only found out recently about the damage this product does, after I'd fixed the problem by replacing the leaky valve.  So if the site above is legit, I'd like to claim my share of this.  Wonder if they'll reimburse me for the gallons of wasted water I paid for...

Dave


----------



## Jennie (Sep 25, 2010)

ace2000 said:


> Are we absolutely positive that this site is legit?  Just want to be sure.



Oh yes, for sure. The official website is: www.catbcsettlement.com 
The prior link I provided takes you directly to the official section where the claim form can be filed on-line, or printed out and mailed in. I filed on-line and printed out forms to give to senior citizens I know who are not Internet connected.

As in most class action lawsuits, there are hundreds of pages to read through (which I actually did). 

Here's my condensed layperson's version of what the case is about:

In the 1990's, one of the longest droughts in the history of California occurred, and it lasted for seven years. The Metro Water District of Southern California implemented a water conservation program aimed at residential customers. Rebates, vouchers, and other subsidies were offered to encourage people to replace high volume water waste toilets (flush volume of 3.5 to 5.0 gallons and higher) with ultra low flush (1.6 gal.) "ULF" toilets. From 1993 to 1999, 1.5 million toilets were replaced under this program. New construction was required to contain ULF's, and many districts required new ULF's to be installed whenever an existing home was sold. 

It was estimated that the ULF's would last for at least 20 years. Anticipated government savings would result from far less water being needed to supply residential customer needs. 

However, the manufacturers and sellers of the ULF's began receiving numerous  complaints of relatively new toilets (many only a few months old) having problems, particularly involving valve flapper leakage and failure. It was particularly prevalent in toilets that were not flushed at least once a day. Some part-year home owners ("snowbirds") incurred significant damage during their absence. Many customers were demanding new toilets. Some were suing the toilet manufacturers for consequential damage. 

Large scale studies were undertaken to determine the cause of the problem. It was determined that the use of "halogenating" bowl cleaners such as Clorox with bleach were to blame due to the higher concentration of chemicals in the toilets containing the smaller amount of water (1.6 gallons vs. 3.5 to 5.0). Toilet manufacturers began to do research re: developing tougher materials to resist this type of damage. They started to enclose written warning literature with each purchase.       

Meanwhile Clorox and its major competitors launched their own studies, and basically came to the same conclusion. The other companies voluntarily changed their formula while Clorox did not. 

Here's the summary contained in the Federal Court papers:

Overview Of the Proposed Settlement

Hartless v. Clorox Company, Case No. 06-CV-2705 CAB

A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit about Clorox Automatic Toilet Bowl Cleaner with Bleach (CATBC) and Clorox’s claim that CATBC does not harm plumbing. Each package of Clorox Automatic Toilet Bowl Cleaner with Bleach ("CATBC" or "Drop-In Tablets") states that the toilet cleaner "does not harm plumbing." Plaintiff claims that this statement is deceptive. Plaintiff claims that the chemicals in the Drop-In Tablets corrode the toilet tank parts, in particular causing the rubber and plastic parts to deteriorate until the flush mechanism fails or no longer seals properly. Plaintiff also claims that Clorox - based on its own tests - knew or should have known that the Drop-In Tablets would deteriorate the toilet tank parts, and yet sold the product by telling its customers that CATBC would not harm their plumbing. Clorox denies all wrongdoing and contends that CATBC is safe for plumbing when used as directed. The Parties have agreed to settle the lawsuits on the terms explained herein. 

The terms of the settlement and info about filing claims follows at: www.catbcsettlement.com 
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Yes we have seen through the RCI class action lawsuit debacle that the attorneys can "make out like bandits". But the fear of a costly lawsuit does  prevent a lot of companies from engaging in practices that are detrimental to the public. IMHO unless the "victims" (class members) file rightful claims, they are just condoning the bad behavior of the company and enabling it to hold onto more of the ill-gotten gains.


----------



## M. Henley (Sep 25, 2010)

*Sure!!*

What do you get when you cross a lawyer with a demon from hell?

No changes occur.


----------



## Tia (Sep 25, 2010)

Ah so that why my toilets needed new flaps ! Thanks


----------



## JudyH (Sep 25, 2010)

My mostly unused one needed new flap too.  Thanks, Jennie.


----------



## Jennie (Sep 26, 2010)

M. Henley said:


> What do you get when you cross a lawyer with a demon from hell? No changes occur.



Well if the demons were doing their "thing" to rake in tons of money and were then forced to pay most of it back in legal and court fees and in settling claims from their victims, perhaps the demons and their cronies would think twice about going down that path again in the future. 

If no one challenges them, then they would be more likely to continue with impunity.


----------



## Jennie (Sep 26, 2010)

The California government claimed that a huge amount of water was wasted due to the slow leakage from the flaps caused by the chemical erosion. It was subtle at first and remained undetected by most owners until the gradual erosion eventually caused the flap to totally fail. 

Yes, the flap is a relatively cheap part to replace but there are many people who would not feel confident enough to do it themselves and would incur a sizeable expense calling in a plumber. And prior to the failure of the flap, a huge amount of water was wasted, usually without the owner noticing it. This defeated the whole purpose of the water conservation program which was expected to save the government enough money in the long run to justify the cost of the rebates and subsidies used to compensate owners who replaced their older toilets with new ones. 

The drought was also impacting the agricultural industry, was causing severe water use restrictions on home owners and businesses, etc...

The competitors of Clorox voluntarily reformulated their product. Clorox, however, is accused of not doing so and blatantly stating on the label that their product was safe to use. I know I relied upon that claim, and the general reputation of the company, when I chose to buy their product exclusively over the past several years. 

Enough already. I really just wanted to let fellow/sister TUGgers know that they are entitled to file an easy $30. claim form if they have used the product, and even more if they suffered out of pocket expenses in repairs or damage as a result of using it. Peace!


----------



## DaveNV (Sep 26, 2010)

Jennie said:


> Enough already. I really just wanted to let fellow/sister TUGgers know that they are entitled to file an easy $30. claim form if they have used the product, and even more if they suffered out of pocket expenses in repairs or damage as a result of using it. Peace!



Jennie, I appreciate the info, and the eforts you put forth for this group.  I've filed for the $30.  It'd be nice to get something back for this.  I didn't read the fine print, but do you know when they're sending out the money?

Thanks,
Dave


----------



## Wonka (Sep 26, 2010)

*I've replaced toilet innards so often I've lost count*

My wife uses bleach tablets in the toilet tank.  I'm not sure whether she always uses the Clorox product, or not.  But, I've replaced so many flappers and toilet innards I couldn't even tell you how many.  I generally keep three flappers and extra full replacement kits on hand.  I just told my wife again after reading this that it confirms the bleach tablets are the problem.  From her response, I can tell I'll just keep buying and replacing toilet tank parts.


----------



## Goofyhobbie (Sep 26, 2010)

Jennie,

I too want to thank you for reminding me of this Class Action and how really simple it is to file a claim.

Those who choose to ignore the opportunity simply forfeit a mininum of $30.00 which does not cover the complaints from our spouse, "the run around cost, parts cost and our own labor cost involved with flapper replacement; but it does give those of us who have been adversely affected something to go toward our next trip to our favorite neighborhood Bar to compensate.


----------



## Jennie (Sep 26, 2010)

BMWguynw said:


> Jennie, ...do you know when they're sending out the money? Thanks, Dave



According to the information on the official website, 
“Settlement Benefits
Clorox will create a fund of up to $8 million to pay Class Members’ claims and certain administrative costs. You may obtain a cash payment from the fund if you purchased, used or have suffered property damage from the use of CATBC.
On or about November 22, 2010, Class Counsel will submit their Motion for Final Approval and Request for Attorneys’ Fees. The Judge will hold a Final Approval Hearing at 1:30 p.m. on December 29, 2010 at the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, 880 Front Street, San Diego, CA 92101-8900, in Courtroom E. 

At this hearing, the Judge will consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate. If there are objections, the Judge will consider them. The Judge will listen to people who have asked to speak at the hearing. After the hearing, the Judge will decide whether to approve the settlement. We do not know how long this decision will take.”

Further information can be obtained by calling 1-888-262-1556.

P.S. by Jennie. The Plaintiff attorneys (who initiated the lawsuit) are requesting $2,500,000 in fees. 

Usually claim benefits are sent out within a few months after the Final Approval of the settlement.


----------



## DaveNV (Sep 27, 2010)

Jennie said:


> Usually claim benefits are sent out within a few months after the Final Approval of the settlement.



Thanks!

Dave


----------



## Larry (Sep 27, 2010)

Thanks I am now registered for the claim.


----------



## mo1950 (Sep 27, 2010)

Thank you for the post; I used that product in the past, and we did replace several flappers.  I had no idea that was what caused it, so I put in a claim as well.

We stopped using that product when we acquired our little dog.  We never caught him drinking out of the toilet, but we did not want to take the chance, so just started using something else.


----------



## pittle (Dec 13, 2012)

*I got my $30 check today!*

I got my check today - more than 2 years after I signed up for the $30 settlement check!  I actually threw my paper away that I had applied for it not long ago thinking "Gosh - that did not pan out."  It did   Thanks for letting me know about it.


----------



## Jestjoan (Dec 14, 2012)

I applied years ago but have not received mine...........


----------



## DaveNV (Dec 14, 2012)

The website says they distributed checks just two days ago, so I hope to be receivng mine soon.  We'll see!

Dave


----------



## Karen G (Dec 14, 2012)

Got mine today.


----------



## JudyH (Dec 14, 2012)

Got mine, completely forgot about this but somehow figured it was TUG related!  And I have needed new flappers.


----------



## pjrose (Dec 14, 2012)

I was thinking of posting Darn It, I forgot to send it in - but my check arrived today too!  

Thank you, Jennie 

 Go TUG


----------



## easyrider (Dec 14, 2012)

woo hoo .. what to do... with my $30. Showed up today.

Bill


----------



## pedro47 (Dec 14, 2012)

I rec'd my check today.

Thanks to the OP for posting this information.


----------



## DaveNV (Dec 14, 2012)

Got mine today, too.  Nice perk at this time of year. 

Dave


----------



## pagosajim (Dec 16, 2012)

Got mine too!  Forgot all about it.

Thanks to Tuggers for the tip!  BTW, we really DID use the Clorox product and I really DID replace the guts of my commodes a couple of times .


----------



## pittle (Dec 17, 2012)

*Use it for 3 more years of TUG*



easyrider said:


> woo hoo .. what to do... with my $30. Showed up today.
> 
> Bill



I used mine to renew my TUG membership for 3 years!!!!  Since I found out about it on TUG, I thought that was the best place to spend it.


----------



## amycurl (Dec 17, 2012)

This is what I get for finding TUG too late! Boo-hiss!


----------

