Xenex Disinfection Services, a maker of machines that use ultraviolet lights to kill germs in healthcare settings, is suing Clorox Co., which sells competing equipment and has taken issue with Xenex's marketing claims.
San Antonio, Texas-based Xenex wants the Bexar County District Court to declare that its claims are truthful and accurate that its machines, which it describes as "germ-zapping robots," contain “no toxic mercury” and work “faster than competing mercury devices." Clorox, which makes the Optimum-UV System, has taken issue with several claims by Xenex regarding the effectiveness of Xenex devices and lower environmental toxicity of their UV bulbs.
A Clorox spokeswoman said the company doesn't comment on pending litigation.
Unlike those used by its competitors, UV bulbs in Xenex's robots contain pulsed xenon, which the company says is an environmentally friendly, non-toxic inert gas. Xenex maintains that mercury bulbs used by its competitors contain toxic material and require special handling and disposal.
Clorox filed a complaint in December with the Better Business Bureau's National Advertising Division challenging several Xenex advertising claims. Xenex has since discontinued the claims at issue but says Clorox later objected to the claims about its competitors' bulbs and that its robots work faster.
Both claims are accurate, Xenex CEO Morris Miller said in an interview. He said his company is going to court to protect its competitive edge.
“We're going to ensure our rights to do business and talk about differentiators,” Miller said.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies elemental mercury as a toxic substance, and competing mercury bulbs contain elemental mercury, Miller said. And Xenex's robots are, in fact, faster than robots with mercury bulbs because they don't require warmup and cool-down periods, he said.
Xenex is in talks with Clorox about resolving the matter outside of court, Morris said.
“Clorox has approached us about resolving this without litigation and we are in discussions with them,” Miller said. “We don't know what the outcome of those discussions will be, but we are prepared to take whatever steps necessary to defend our science and our company.”
Sorting out marketing claims about germ-zapping robots may be complicated by slim evidence on what technology works best. Xenex claims there have been 10 peer-reviewed studies published regarding the efficacy of its robots. Most studies of the technology are funded by its manufacturers.
