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 in the Brita doesn’t remove or reduce levels of potentially hazardous substances from drinking water.
Brown purchased a Brita Everyday Water Pitcher in early 2022 for $15, claiming he bought the product because of statements made on the packaging, including “FRESH FILTER = FRESHER WATER” and “Reduces 30 contaminants including Lead, Benzene, Mercury, Cadmium, Asbestos, and More,” according to a 71-page legal filing obtained by Reuters.
The complaint, filed in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles, states that the company “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 does not remove or reduce “highest risk, notorious, or prevalent contaminants” from tap water, including two types of PFAS, otherwise known as forever chemicals, and that the company takes advantage of consumers and families’ “basic and fundamental need for clean and safe drinking water.”
Los Angeles resident Nicholas Brown asserted that the filter in the Brita doesn’t remove or reduce levels of potentially hazardous substances from drinking water.Getty Images/iStockphoto
“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,” the lawsuit reads. “In this way, Defendant has not only bilked millions of dollars from consumers in ill-gotten gains, but Defendant has put the health and welfare of millions of consumers and their families at risk.”
Brown and his attorneys at Clarkson Law Firm claimed that Brita violated California’s False Advertising Law and California’s Unfair Competition Law, as well as “unjust enrichment and breach of warranty.”
While Brown is currently the only plaintiff, he wants to represent consumers who have purchased certain Brita brand water pitchers, dispensers and filters within an applicable timeframe, as well as any California-based consumers who have bought any of those products within the last four years, according to the website TopClassActions.
The complaint states that the company “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 are “meritless” and “baseless.”
In a statement to TODAY.com, a spokesperson for the Clorox Company, which owns Brita, said, “Brita takes the transparency of the water filtration options we offer seriously. Our products include a standard filtration option that improves taste and odor of tap water and is certified to reduce identified contaminants as communicated.”
The company 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 reduce both PFOS and PFOA chemicals, as well as lead and other contaminants.
Brita pushed back against the allegations, saying they are “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 does not challenge the efficacy of Brita’s filters against these certification standards. Instead, the meritless suit proposes that Brita list every contaminant that its filters do not remove. In fact, there is no 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 does not treat, or a food manufacturer for failing to list the nutrients that its food does not contain. It creates a false narrative and confuses consumers who are seeking to find 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 the most transparent and easiest for consumers to understand.”
In response to the statement, Clarkson Law Firm issued a press release to TODAY.com, which read that “everyone, no matter who they are or where they live, has a fundamental right to clean and safe drinking water.”
“Lulling customers into a false sense of security about the quality and safety of their water is not only immoral, it’s illegal,” managing partner Ryan Clarkson said.
“These chemicals pose an enormous 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 information they need to keep themselves and their families safe. With this lawsuit, we want to hold them accountable.”
Source link: https://nypost.com/2023/09/01/brita-filter-packaging-misleads-consumers-class-action-lawsuit-claims/