“The cyberattack compelled Clorox to take techniques offline, pause manufacturing, and depend on guide order processing for weeks,” it mentioned. The cyberattack brought on Clorox about $380 million in damages, together with over $49 million in remedial prices, and “a whole bunch of hundreds of thousands of {dollars} in enterprise interruption losses,” the lawsuit claimed.
Authorized implications for vendor accountability
“This lawsuit could 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 criticism included 4 causes of motion: breach of contract, breach of fine religion and honest dealing, gross negligence, and intentional misrepresentation. The gross negligence declare characterizes Cognizant’s conduct as “an excessive departure from the extraordinary commonplace of care.”
