Class Action Lawsuit Claims Brita Is Misleading Customers

The lawsuit claims the filters are “not nearly as effective” as they claim.

Jelisa Castrodale has been a staff writer with Food & Wine since 2019.

Getty Images

A California man has filed a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer of a popular water filtration system, alleging that it doesn’t remove potentially hazardous substances from drinking water or reduce the levels of those contaminants as effectively as its packaging claims.

According to the 71-page legal filing obtained by Reuters, Nicholas Brown paid $15 for a Brita Everyday Water Pitcher in early 2022. He claims that he made this purchase because of some of the statements printed on the Brita pitcher’s packaging, including “FRESH FILTER = FRESHER WATER” and “Reduces 30 contaminants including Lead, Benzene, Mercury, Cadmium, Asbestos, and More.”

In the lawsuit, Brown alleges that those claims are “false,” and he states that “the Product does not remove or reduce common contaminants [...] to below lab detectable limits.” He also alleges that the filters do 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 a study published in the August 2023 edition of the journal Environment International, at least one type of PFAS may be present in up to 45% of the drinking water in the United 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,” the lawsuit continues. “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.”

The website TopClassActions reports, although Brown is currently the only plaintiff, he wants the class to include any consumer who has purchased Brita-branded dispensers, filters, and water pitchers within an applicable time period, as well as any California-based consumers who have bought those products within the past four years.

Brown and his attorneys have alleged that Brita has violated California’s False Advertising Law and its Unfair Competition Law, as well as “unjust enrichment and breach of warranty.” He has asked for a jury trial, as well as financial and punitive damages for both himself and any other eligible members of the class.

Representatives for Brita, which is owned by the Clorox Company, say that it “[looks] forward to defending ourselves vigorously” against Brown’s allegations. “Brita takes the transparency of the variety of water filtration options we offer seriously,” the company said in a statement sent to Nextar Media.

“Our products include a standard filtration option that improves taste and odor of tap water and is certified to reduce identified contaminants as communicated. For those consumers looking for water filters certified to reduce PFOS or PFOA, the Brita Elite pour-through and Brita Hub are both certified to reduce PFOS/PFOA, as well as lead and other identified contaminants.”