A California resident, Nicholas Brown, has filed a class-action lawsuit against Brita, a popular water-filtration company, claiming that the messaging on the packaging of their products is misleading. Brown argues that the filter in the Brita water pitcher does not effectively remove or reduce potentially hazardous substances from drinking water. In his filing, he cites statements on the packaging such as “FRESH FILTER = FRESHER WATER” and “Reduces 30 contaminants including Lead, Benzene, Mercury, Cadmium, Asbestos, and More.” According to the lawsuit, Brown purchased a Brita Everyday Water Pitcher for $15 based on these statements.
The lawsuit, which consists of a 71-page legal filing obtained by Reuters, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles. In the complaint, Brown alleges that Brita “falsely and misleadingly markets, advertises, labels, and packages” their water pitchers by claiming that they can remove common hazardous contaminants below detectable limits in the lab. Brown further claims that the filter does not remove or reduce “highest risk, notorious, or prevalent contaminants” from tap water, including two types of PFAS, also known as forever chemicals.
According to the lawsuit, Brita takes advantage of consumers’ fundamental need for clean and safe drinking water. The lawsuit states, “Unfortunately, the Products are not nearly as effective as Defendant deliberately leads people to believe, causing consumers to overpay millions and forego more effective alternatives.” Brown and his attorneys argue that Brita has violated California’s False Advertising Law and California’s Unfair Competition Law, as well as committed unjust enrichment and breach of warranty.
While Brown is currently the sole plaintiff in the lawsuit, he intends to represent other consumers who have purchased specific Brita brand water pitchers, dispensers, and filters within a specified timeframe, as well as any California-based consumers who have bought these products within the last four years.
Brita has responded to the allegations, describing them as “meritless” and “baseless.” A spokesperson for the Clorox Company, which owns Brita, emphasized the company’s commitment to transparency and stated that their products are certified to reduce identified contaminants. They noted that certain Brita products are certified under NSF ANSI 53 to reduce PFOS, PFOA, lead, and other contaminants.
Brita argues that the certifications they have obtained demonstrate that their products reduce contaminants at or below the maximum allowable levels set by regulatory authorities. They also claim that there is no legal requirement or industry standard for listing every contaminant that their filters do not remove. Brita believes that their current practice of clearly listing which contaminants are reduced by their filters is the most transparent and easy for consumers to understand.
In response to Brita’s statement, Clarkson Law Firm, representing Nicholas Brown, issued a press release asserting that everyone has a fundamental right to clean and safe drinking water. The managing partner of the law firm, Ryan Clarkson, stated that misleading customers about the quality and safety of their water is not only immoral but also illegal. His partner, Katherine A. Bruce, emphasized the health implications of the chemicals in question and accused Brita of withholding important information that could keep consumers and their families safe. The purpose of the lawsuit, according to Clarkson Law Firm, is to hold Brita accountable for their actions.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
