Brita the water filtration Company is facing a class action following claims that their filters don’t in fact remove or reduce levels of potentially hazardous substances from drinking water.
The action taken in the USA by a California man was lodged after he purchased a Brita filter whose products are widely sold at Big W, Bunnings and via Amazon in Australia.
He claims that he purchased the Brita product because of claims made on the packaging that included ‘Fresh Filter Fresher Water’ and claims that it reduces 30 contaminants including Lead, Benzene, Mercury, Cadmium, Asbestos, and More,” according to a 71-page legal filing obtained by Reuters.
The complaint, claims in his filing that Brita “falsely and misleadingly markets, advertises, labels and packages” their water pitchers’ ability to remove common hazardous contaminants “below lab detectable limits.”
He also claims that the Brita filter does not remove or reduce “highest risk, notorious, or prevalent contaminants” from tap water, including two types of PFAS, otherwise known as forever chemicals, and that the company takes advantage of consumers and families’ “basic and fundamental need for clean and safe drinking water.”
His lawyers claim this is “unjust enrichment and breach of warranty.”
He is now looking for other complainants from around the world who have purchased Brita filters and are not happy with the result.
Shortly after the claim was lodged the owners of the Brita brand issued a statement claiming “Brita takes the transparency of the water filtration options we offer seriously. Our products include a standard filtration option that improves taste and odor of tap water and is certified to reduce identified contaminants as communicated.”
Brita also claims that that their certifications come from “best-in-class” testing methods that show the products reduce contaminants at or below maximum allowable levels set by various regulatory authorities.
“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,” the statement continued. “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.
“Brita follows the industry-standard practice of clearly listing exactly which contaminants are reduced by its filters, and the methods that were used to substantiate these claims. Brita strongly believes that this approach is the most transparent and easiest for consumers to understand.”
