A California man has filed a class-action lawsuit in opposition to well-liked water-filtration firm Brita, alleging that the messaging on the packaging is deceptive.
Los Angeles resident Nicholas Brown asserted that the filter within the Brita doesn’t take away or cut back ranges of probably hazardous substances from ingesting water.
Brown bought a Brita On a regular basis Water Pitcher in early 2022 for $15, claiming he purchased the product due to statements made on the packaging, together with “FRESH FILTER = FRESHER WATER” and “Reduces 30 contaminants together with Lead, Benzene, Mercury, Cadmium, Asbestos, and Extra,” in accordance with a 71-page authorized submitting obtained by Reuters.
The grievance, filed within the Superior Court docket of the State of California County of Los Angeles, states that the corporate “falsely and misleadingly markets, advertises, labels and packages” their water pitchers’ means to take away widespread hazardous contaminants “beneath lab detectable limits.”
Brown additionally alleged that the filter doesn’t take away or cut back “highest danger, infamous, or prevalent contaminants” from faucet water, together with two sorts of PFAS, in any other case often known as without end chemical compounds, and that the corporate takes benefit of shoppers and households’ “fundamental and basic want for clear and protected ingesting water.”
“Sadly, the Merchandise are usually not almost as efficient as Defendant intentionally leads folks to consider, inflicting shoppers to overpay tens of millions and forego more practical alternate options,” the lawsuit reads. “On this means, Defendant has not solely bilked tens of millions of {dollars} from shoppers in ill-gotten beneficial properties, however Defendant has put the well being and welfare of tens of millions of shoppers and their households in danger.”
Brown and his attorneys at Clarkson Legislation Agency claimed that Brita violated California’s False Promoting Legislation and California’s Unfair Competitors Legislation, in addition to “unjust enrichment and breach of guarantee.”
Whereas Brown is at the moment the one plaintiff, he needs to symbolize shoppers who’ve bought sure Brita model water pitchers, dispensers and filters inside an relevant timeframe, in addition to any California-based shoppers who’ve purchased any of these merchandise throughout the final 4 years, in accordance with the web site TopClassActions.
Brita pushed again in opposition to the allegations, saying they’re “meritless” and “baseless.”
In an announcement to TODAY.com, a spokesperson for the Clorox Firm, which owns Brita, stated, “Brita takes the transparency of the water filtration choices we provide critically. Our merchandise embrace a regular filtration possibility that improves style and odor of faucet water and is licensed to scale back recognized contaminants as communicated.”
The corporate famous that the Brita Elite pour-through and Brita Hub merchandise are licensed below NSF ANSI 53 — which establishes minimal necessities for ingesting water therapy techniques — to scale back each PFOS and PFOA chemical compounds, in addition to lead and different contaminants.
Brita additionally asserted that the certifications come from “best-in-class” testing strategies that present the merchandise cut back contaminants at or beneath most allowable ranges set by the EPA or different regulatory authorities.
“The latest lawsuit doesn’t problem the efficacy of Brita’s filters in opposition to these certification requirements. As a substitute, the meritless go well with proposes that Brita checklist each contaminant that its filters don’t take away. In truth, there is no such thing as a such authorized requirement or {industry} normal,” the assertion continued. “This baseless lawsuit is like suing a drug producer for failing to checklist the situations that its medication doesn’t deal with, or a meals producer for failing to checklist the vitamins that its meals doesn’t comprise. It creates a false narrative and confuses shoppers who’re looking for to search out filtering options that meet their wants.
“Brita follows the industry-standard follow of clearly itemizing precisely which contaminants are diminished by its filters, and the strategies that had been used to substantiate these claims. Brita strongly believes that this strategy is probably the most clear and best for shoppers to grasp.”
In response to the assertion, Clarkson Legislation Agency issued a press launch to TODAY.com, which learn that “everybody, regardless of who they’re or the place they stay, has a basic proper to wash and protected ingesting water.”
“Lulling prospects right into a false sense of safety in regards to the high quality and security of their water isn’t solely immoral, it’s unlawful,” managing companion Ryan Clarkson stated.
“These chemical compounds pose an unlimited menace to our well being and our future,” added Clarkson’s companion Katherine A. Bruce. “Brita is aware of the well being implications at stake, however has actively chosen to deprive prospects of the knowledge they should hold themselves and their households protected. With this lawsuit, we need to maintain them accountable.”