A California man has filed a class-action lawsuit against popular water-filtration company Brita, alleging that the messaging on the packaging is misleading.
Los Angeles resident Nicholas Brown asserted that the filter within the Brita doesn’t remove or reduce levels of doubtless hazardous substances from drinking water.
Brown purchased a Brita On a regular basis Water Pitcher in early 2022 for $15, claiming he bought the product due to statements made on the packaging, including “FRESH FILTER = FRESHER WATER” and “Reduces 30 contaminants including Lead, Benzene, Mercury, Cadmium, Asbestos, and More,” in line with a 71-page legal filing obtained by Reuters.
The grievance, filed within the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles, states that the corporate “falsely and misleadingly markets, advertises, labels and packages” their water pitchers’ ability to remove common hazardous contaminants “below lab detectable limits.”
Brown also alleged that the filter doesn’t remove or reduce “highest risk, notorious, or prevalent contaminants” from tap water, including two sorts of PFAS, otherwise often called ceaselessly chemicals, and that the corporate takes advantage of consumers and families’ “basic and fundamental need for clean and protected drinking water.”
Los Angeles resident Nicholas Brown asserted that the filter within the Brita doesn’t remove or reduce levels of doubtless hazardous substances from drinking water.Getty Images/iStockphoto
“Unfortunately, the Products usually are not nearly as effective as Defendant deliberately leads people to imagine, causing consumers to overpay hundreds of thousands and forego simpler alternatives,” the lawsuit reads. “In this manner, Defendant has not only bilked hundreds of thousands of dollars from consumers in ill-gotten gains, but Defendant has put the health and welfare of hundreds of thousands of consumers and their families in danger.”
Brown and his attorneys at Clarkson Law Firm claimed that Brita violated California’s False Promoting Law and California’s Unfair Competition Law, in addition to “unjust enrichment and breach of warranty.”
While Brown is currently the one plaintiff, he desires to represent consumers who’ve purchased certain Brita brand water pitchers, dispensers and filters inside an applicable timeframe, in addition to any California-based consumers who’ve bought any of those products inside the last 4 years, in line with the web site TopClassActions.
The grievance states that the corporate “falsely and misleadingly markets, advertises, labels and packages” their water pitchers’ ability to remove common hazardous contaminants “below lab detectable limits.”ColleenMichaels – stock.adobe.com
Brita pushed back against the allegations, saying they’re “meritless” and “baseless.”
In an announcement to TODAY.com, a spokesperson for the Clorox Company, which owns Brita, said, “Brita takes the transparency of the water filtration options we provide seriously. Our products include a normal filtration option that improves taste and odor of tap water and is certified to cut back identified contaminants as communicated.”
The corporate noted that the Brita Elite pour-through and Brita Hub products are certified under NSF ANSI 53 — which establishes minimum requirements for drinking water treatment systems — to cut back each PFOS and PFOA chemicals, in addition to lead and other contaminants.
Brita pushed back against the allegations, saying they’re “meritless” and “baseless.”DANIEL ROLAND/AFP via Getty Images
Brita also asserted that the certifications come from “best-in-class” testing methods that show the products reduce contaminants at or below maximum allowable levels set by the EPA or other regulatory authorities.
“The recent lawsuit doesn’t challenge the efficacy of Brita’s filters against these certification standards. As an alternative, the meritless suit proposes that Brita list every contaminant that its filters don’t remove. In truth, there isn’t a such legal requirement or industry standard,” the statement continued. “This baseless lawsuit is like suing a drug manufacturer for failing to list the conditions that its drugs doesn’t treat, or a food manufacturer for failing to list the nutrients that its food doesn’t contain. It creates a false narrative and confuses consumers who’re searching for to seek out filtering solutions that meet their needs.
“Brita follows the industry-standard practice of clearly listing exactly which contaminants are reduced by its filters, and the methods that were used to substantiate these claims. Brita strongly believes that this approach is essentially the most transparent and easiest for consumers to know.”
In response to the statement, Clarkson Law Firm issued a press release to TODAY.com, which read that “everyone, irrespective of who they’re or where they live, has a fundamental right to scrub and protected drinking water.”
“Lulling customers right into a false sense of security in regards to the quality and safety of their water shouldn’t be only immoral, it’s illegal,” managing partner Ryan Clarkson said.
“These chemicals pose an infinite threat to our health and our future,” added Clarkson’s partner Katherine A. Bruce. “Brita knows the health implications at stake, but has actively chosen to deprive customers of the knowledge they should keep themselves and their families protected. With this lawsuit, we wish to carry them accountable.”
