Brita water filters sued over claims they are ‘not nearly as effective’ as they say at removing toxic chemicals

  • A Los Angeles resident has filed suit in a California court for false advertising
  • Brita is accused of misleading people into saying that filters remove common toxins
  • READ MORE: A water filter can actually do more harm than good

A Los Angeles man has launched a legal battle against the makers of Brita water filters, claiming the company lied about their ability to remove toxic chemicals.

Nicholas Brown disputed the claim that various types of Brita filters failed to remove some of the most high-risk contaminants, such as arsenic and PFAS, otherwise known as “forever chemicals.”

The class action lawsuit alleges that the company misled the public with packaging claims such as “Better water for you.” Better water for the planet,” “FRESH FILTER = SEA WATER,” and “Reduces 30 pollutants, including lead, benzene, mercury, cadmium, asbestos, and more.”

According to the lawsuit, the manufacturer abused people’s fundamental right and need for clean water, forcing millions of people out in the process.

Mr Brown, who bought a Brita Everyday Water Pitcher with a standard filter for $15 in 2022, also accused the company of endangering the health and well-being of millions of customers and their families and is seeking compensation for an undisclosed sum.

Several specific types of filters were included, such as the durable Brite Elite filter, which was listed on the outer packaging for misleading customers

The filters rely on carbon and a process called ion exchange to remove heavy metals, including zinc and copper

The filters rely on carbon and a process called ion exchange to remove heavy metals, including zinc and copper

The lawsuit was filed earlier this month in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles County, where Mr. Brown lives and purchased the filter.

According to the legal complaint Clorox-owned Brita Company “deliberately and deliberately used the Challenged Representation,” a term meaning claims made by the company currently in litigation, to give consumers a false sense of confidence.

The complaint states: ‘Defendant (Brita) also fails to expressly, clearly and conspicuously state on the packaging and labels of the products that the products will not remove or reduce contaminants hazardous to health’, including arsenic , chromium, uranium, nitrate and nitrites and synthetic PFAS chemicals.

For their part, Clorox and Brita told Today it has received third-party certification in support of claims that its filters “reduce identified contaminants as communicated,” adding that customers have other options if they’re looking for one that contains PFAS. filters and pipe.

The explanation said: ‘The recent lawsuit does not challenge the effectiveness of Brita’s filters in light of these certification standards. Instead, the meritless lawsuit proposes that Brita list every contaminant that her filters fail to remove. In fact, no such legal requirement or industry standard exists.

“This baseless lawsuit is like suing a drug manufacturer for failing to list the conditions its drugs fail to treat, or a food manufacturer for failing to list the nutrients its food does not contain. It creates a false narrative and confuses consumers looking for filter solutions that meet their needs.”

Clorox, meanwhile, said it looked set to “vigorously defend ourselves.”

Brita filters work like a sieve, using carbon to remove chlorine and mercury. They also use an ion exchange resin, a filtering tool that uses electronically charged solids to remove contaminants such as zinc, copper and cadmium.

The proposed class action lawsuit would apply to Californians who have purchased Brita filters in the past four years, customers who, according to the complaint, likely would have chosen a different product had they known that Brita’s were less effective than advertised.

In addition to monetary compensation for the premium he “overpaid,” Mr. Brown wants the manufacturer to review its marketing strategies so that the claims on the packaging “true” so that they “live up to” their promise.