Lawsuit Accuses Brita of Misleading Customers About Ability to Remove ‘Forever Chemicals’

Brita water filters ready for pickup from Flint residents at a Flint fire station in Flint, Michigan, on Jan. 13. Jake May/The Flint Journal-MLive.com via AP

A California resident sued Brita, the water filter maker, which is owned by Clorox, for allegedly misleading consumers about the effectiveness of their products.

The plaintiff, Nicholas Brown, filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Brita on Aug. 16 in a California state court in Los Angeles and accused the firm of violating state consumer protection and unfair competition laws by “misleadingly and deceptively marketing” its filters.

The claimants are seeking monetary compensation, punitive damages, and other relief for allegedly seeking to “take advantage of consumers’ need for safe and clean drinking water.”

The company boasted that its filters could remove dangerous substances, such as cancer-causing PFAS, or “forever chemicals” from the drinking water, despite their inability to do so, according to the filing. (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, PFAS, are chemicals that resist grease, oil, water, and heat.)

“Forever chemicals” are so named because they do not easily break down in the human body and are used in a wide range of products from non-stick cookware to cosmetics and have been linked to cancer and hormonal dysfunction.

Brita Failed to Notify Consumers of Risk

The class-action complaint accused Brita for claiming that the filters had the ability to reduce dozens of contaminants, including mercury, chlorine, lead, benzene, copper, and “more,” for “cleaner, great-tasting water.”

The company did not clarify that some of the “highest risk, notorious, or prevalent contaminants,” such as PFAS, arsenic, nitrate, uranium, and other toxins, could not be removed by the filters.

PFAS have been linked to a number of serious illnesses, including cancer and birth defects, and are estimated to be present in 45 percent of the nation’s tap water, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Other substances mentioned in the class-action can cause numerous health effects, like kidney damage and an increased risk of diabetes due to arsenic exposure.

The plaintiff said the company had a duty to disclose that their filters were unable to remove those toxins and omitted those facts from labels and that consumers may have purchased other, more effective filters.

The proposed lawsuit would cover Californians who have purchased the Brita filters over the past four years.

Water Filter Maker Hit With Second Lawsuit

“Brita takes the transparency of the variety of water filtration options we offer seriously,” a spokesperson for Clorox told The Epoch Times.

“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.”

“We’re currently reviewing the complaint and look forward to defending ourselves vigorously.”

Meanwhile, Clorox and Brita were hit with an antitrust lawsuit, Zero Technologies, LLC v. The Clorox Company et al., on Aug. 17 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court.

The lawsuit, which was brought by Baker & Hostetler, accused the firms of failing to disclose plans to hold a patent that would be “essential” toward meeting standards for selling home water-filtration systems in the United States in order to control the market.

Reuters contributed to this report.