Brita's clearly qualified filtration claims couldn't mislead reasonable consumers as to lack of qualification

Brown v. Brita Products Company, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 1028347 No. 24-6678 (9^th Cir. Apr. 16, 2026)

Unlike 800-thread count sheets (see previous post), a reasonable consumer would not expect a fifteen-dollar water filter to “remove or reduce to below lab detectable limits common contaminants hazardous to health” in tap water, notwithstanding clear disclosures to the contrary. Brown brought the usual California claims against Brita.

The Standard Filter, Brita’s lowest cost filter, is certified to reduce five contaminants—copper, mercury, cadmium, chlorine, and zinc—to below the levels recommended by the NSF and EPA. [At least, for now; I assume those recommendations will soon be lifted.] The Elite Filter, a more expensive model, reduces more than a dozen other contaminants to less than or equal to NSF/EPA recommended levels.

The package advertises that the filter “reduces” certain harmful contaminants. The Brita Everyday Water Pitcher, which includes the Standard Filter, claims: “Reduces Chlorine (taste & odor), Mercury, Copper and more” and directs consumers to “see back panel for details.” The back label likewise claims to “reduce” “Copper,” “Mercury,” “Cadmium,” “Chlorine (taste and odor),” and “Zinc (metallic taste).” The product labels offer links to additional sources of information known as “Performance Data Sheets,” which provide more information. Performance Data Sheets contain more detailed information on exactly which contaminants are filtered by Brita’s Products, and to what extent. For example, the Standard Filter’s Performance Data Sheet discloses the following information:

Brown bought the Brita Everyday Water Pitcher with the Standard Filter and alleged that he received the misleading message that the product “removes or reduce[s] common contaminants hazardous to health ... to below lab detectable limits.” He pointed to the claims: “BRITA WATER FILTRATION SYSTEM”; “Cleaner, Great-Tasting Water”; “Healthier, Great-Tasting Water”; “The #1 FILTER”; “REDUCES Chlorine (taste and odor) and more!”; “REDUCES Chlorine (taste and odor), Mercury, Copper and more”; and “Reduces 3X Contaminants.” He alleged that the filter didn’t reduce to below lab detectable levels various hazardous contaminants, including arsenic, chromium-6, nitrate and nitrites, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), radium, total trihalomethanes (TTHMs), and uranium.

Material omission claims: Absent a contrary misrepresentation, a duty to disclose arises under California law if either (1) a product contains a defect that poses an unreasonable safety risk; or (2) a product contains a defect that defeats its central function. The omission must also be material. The reasonable consumer standard is not satisfied where plaintiffs allege only “a mere possibility that [the] label might conceivably be misunderstood by some few consumers viewing it in an unreasonable manner.” Even if there was an unreasonable safety hazard or defect in central function, Brita lacked a duty to disclose that its filters didn’t completely remove or reduce to below lab detectable levels all of the alleged contaminants. “Such a disclosure would not be important to a reasonable consumer in light of Brita’s other disclosures on its Products’ packaging and the objective unreasonableness of such an expectation.”

“As a matter of law, no reasonable consumer would expect Brita’s low-cost filters to completely remove or reduce to below lab detectable levels all contaminants present in tap water, particularly in light of Brita’s extensive disclosures to the contrary.” Brita discloses that its filters “reduce” contaminants from tap water, not that they remove contaminants entirely, and specifically discloses the contaminants that are reduced. It also provided “easily accessible information” (the Performance Data Sheets) about the extent of the reductions. Thus, “[b]ecause a reasonable consumer has been made aware of the Products’ limitations, we cannot say that a reasonable consumer would have been misled by Brita’s omission of these limitations on its Products’ packaging.