A California court is currently processing a lawsuit filed by a resident of Los Angeles against Brita, the well-known water filter manufacturer. The suit alleges that Brita engaged in false advertising by making misleading claims about their filters’ ability to remove toxic chemicals. Nicholas Brown, the plaintiff, argues that certain Brita filters failed to eliminate highly dangerous contaminants such as arsenic and PFAS, also known as ‘forever chemicals.’
The class action suit highlights claims made on Brita’s packaging, including statements such as ‘Better water for you. Better water for the planet,’ ‘FRESH FILTER = FRESHER WATER,’ and ‘Reduces 30 contaminants including Lead, Benzene, Mercury, Cadmium, Asbestos, & more.’ According to the lawsuit, these claims deceived the public and caused them to spend millions of dollars on the filters, taking advantage of their basic right to clean water.
Mr. Brown, who purchased a Brita Everyday Water Pitcher with a Standard Filter for $15 in 2022, accuses Brita of endangering the health and well-being of millions of customers and their families. He is seeking undisclosed compensation for damages. Specific filter models, such as the long-lasting Brite Elite filter, were singled out in the lawsuit for misleading customers through their outer packaging.
The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles, accuses Brita, owned by Clorox, of intentionally and deliberately using disputed claims to deceive consumers. The complaint asserts that Brita failed to clearly state on its packaging and labels that the filters do not remove or reduce hazardous contaminants such as arsenic, chromium, uranium, nitrate and nitrites, and synthetic PFAS chemicals.
In response to the lawsuit, Clorox and Brita emphasized that their filters have received third-party certification to support their claims of reducing contaminants. They also mentioned that customers have alternative options if they specifically want filters that remove PFAS and lead. Clorox defended the lawsuit as baseless, arguing that Brita is not legally required to list every contaminant that their filters do not remove.
Brita filters utilize carbon and ion exchange processes to eliminate heavy metals like zinc and copper. However, the proposed class action suit alleges that Californians who purchased Brita filters in the past four years would have chosen a different product had they known that Brita filters were not as effective as advertised. Mr. Brown seeks monetary compensation for the premium he paid as well as a revision of Brita’s marketing strategies to accurately reflect the filter’s capabilities.
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.
