“The cyberattack pressured Clorox to take techniques offline, pause manufacturing, and depend on handbook order processing for weeks,” it mentioned. The cyberattack prompted Clorox about $380 million in damages, together with over $49 million in remedial prices, and “a whole bunch of thousands and thousands of {dollars} in enterprise interruption losses,” the lawsuit claimed.
Authorized implications for vendor accountability
“This lawsuit might shift breach response from an operational course of to a authorized calculus — remodeling how enterprises negotiate legal responsibility, assign contractual burden, and architect resilience,” Gogia defined.
Clorox’s grievance included 4 causes of motion: breach of contract, breach of excellent religion and honest dealing, gross negligence, and intentional misrepresentation. The gross negligence declare characterizes Cognizant’s conduct as “an excessive departure from the peculiar customary of care.”
