USA – Water filtration company, Brita is facing a lawsuit over allegedly misleading messaging on its water filtration packaging.
Nicholas Brown challenged claims that several varieties of Brita filters failed to remove some of the highest-risk contaminants such as arsenic and PFAS, otherwise known as ‘forever chemicals’.
The class action suit argues that the company misled the public with claims splashed on packaging 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.’
The suit says the manufacturer took advantage of people’s fundamental right to and need for clean water and squeezed millions out of them in the process.
Mr. Brown, who purchased a Brita Everyday Water Pitcher with a Standard Filter in 2022 for US$15, also accused the company of putting the health and welfare of millions of customers and their families at risk and is seeking compensation of an undisclosed amount.
The lawsuit was filed earlier last month in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles, where Mr. Brown lives and purchased the filter.
According to the legal complaint the Brita Company which is owned by Clorox, ‘intentionally and deliberately used the Challenged Representation,’ a term that means claims made by the company currently in dispute, to trick consumers into a false sense of confidence.
The complaint says: ‘Defendant [Brita] also fails to state, expressly, clearly, and conspicuously on the Products’ packaging and labels that the Products will not remove or reduce contaminants hazardous to health,’ including arsenic, chromium, uranium, nitrate and nitrites, and synthetic PFAS chemicals.
Clorox and Brita, for their part, said that it has received third-party certification to back up claims that its filters ‘reduce identified contaminants as communicated’, adding that customers have other options if they are looking for one that filters out PFAS and lead.
The statement said: “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.
“This baseless lawsuit is like suing a drug manufacturer for failing to list the conditions that its drugs do 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.”
Clorox, meanwhile, said it looked forward to ‘defending ourselves vigorously.’
Brita filters work like a sieve using carbon to remove chlorine and mercury. They also use an ion exchange resin, a filtration tool that uses electronically charged solids to remove contaminants including zinc, copper, and cadmium.
The proposed class action suit would apply to Californians who have purchased Brita filters over the past four years, customers who, according to the complaint, likely would have opted for a different product had they known that Brita’s were less effective than advertised.
In addition to monetary compensation for the premium that he ‘overpaid,’ Mr. Brown wants the manufacturer to revise its marketing strategies so that claims on the packaging ‘live up’ to their promise.
For all the latest packaging and printing industry news from Africa and the World, subscribe to our NEWSLETTER, follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn, like us on Facebook, and subscribe to our YouTube channel.
