Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—9th Cir.: Brita water filter labeling not deceptive, (Apr 17, 2026)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

A reasonable consumer would not expect Brita’s products to perform according to the expectations of the plaintiff.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of false advertising claims filed against The Brita Products Company by an unhappy purchaser. The purchaser alleged that Brita’s labeling and packaging violated the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). A district court held, and the appellate court agreed, that the purchaser was unable to show that a reasonable consumer would not expect Brita’s standard filters to eliminate all contaminates from tap water, especially given Brita’s express labeling statements to the contrary. Because a reasonable consumer had been made aware of the products’ limitations, the court found that a reasonable consumer would have been misled by Brita’s omission of these limitations on its packaging (Brown v. Brita products co., No. 24-6678 (9th Cir. Apr. 16, 2026)).

Brita manufactures water filters and compatible pitchers and dispensers. The Standard Filter is certified to reduce five contaminants to below the levels recommended by the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Elite Filter reduces more than a dozen other contaminants to less than or equal to NSF/EPA recommended levels. The Brita labeling states that its filters have been “tested and certified” by NSF International against NSF/American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standards for the reduction of the claims specified on the Performance Data Sheet. The Performance Data Sheets contain more detailed information on exactly which contaminants are filtered by Brita’s Products, and to what extent.

A Brita Everyday Water Pitcher with Standard Filter purchaser alleged that Brita failed to state on the packaging and labels that the filter will not remove or reduce contaminants hazardous to health to below lab detection limits. The purchaser alleged that the filters did not reduce arsenic, chromium-6, nitrate and nitrites, perfluorooctanoic acid, perfluorooctane sulfonate, radium, total trihalomethanes, and uranium (Common Hazardous Contaminants) to below lab detection limits.

The federal district court in Los Angeles dismissed the claims, holding that a reasonable consumer would adopt the purchaser’s interpretation of Brita’s products’ capabilities. The district court also concluded that Brita had not failed to disclose any material fact because “no reasonable consumer would behave differently if he knew that the product did not reduce or remove all common contaminants but only those identified.” Finally, the district court concluded that the purchaser lacked standing to bring a claim based on Brita’s admitted failure to register its products because the purchaser did not buy any of the unregistered products, and therefore could not assert the claims on behalf of the class. Brita’s products were in fact certified by NSF and ANSI. The purchaser appealed.

Omissions. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that no reasonable consumer would expect Brita’s products to perform as the purchaser expected they would. A reasonable consumer would not 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. The labeling states that the filters “reduce” contaminants from tap water, not remove entirely. Brita also specifically disclosed the contaminants that are reduced and provide easily accessible information (the Performance Data Sheets) as to the extent to which each specified contaminant is reduced.

A duty to disclose arises under California law if either a product contains a defect that poses an unreasonable safety risk or a defect that defeats its central function. An omission is actionable only if it is material, which means that a reasonable consumer would attach importance to its existence or nonexistence in determining whether to purchase a product. Here, Brita did not have a duty to disclose that its products do not completely remove or reduce to below lab detectable levels all of the Common Hazardous Contaminants. Such a disclosure would not be important to a reasonable consumer in light of Brita’s other disclosures and the objective unreasonableness of such an expectation.

Leave to amend. The consumer argued the court should allow amendment to: (1) “clarif[y] the issue” of materiality; and (2) “clarify exactly how Brita’s position as the manufacturer and marketer of the Products placed it in a position with superior knowledge of the Products’ inability to protect consumers from exposure to Common Hazardous Contaminants,” including through “allegations regarding Brita’s exclusive access to non-public data concerning the efficacy of the Products’ filtration abilities.”

The court held that no amendment could save the complaint. Reasonable consumers would not believe that the Brita products remove or reduce to below lab detection limits common contaminants from their drinking water that are hazardous to health. Even if Brita had access to non-public data which shed further light on its products’ capabilities, that would not change the fact that Brita has never claimed that its products perform as the purchaser expected. Nor would those additional allegations change the conclusion that no reasonable consumer would expect such performance from Brita’s products.

The Case is No. 24-6678.

Judge: Wardlaw, K.

Attorneys: Brent A. Robinson (Clarkson Law Firm, PC) for Nicholas Brown. Shelli Goldie Gimelstein (Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, LLP) for The Brita Products Co.

Companies: The Brita Products Co.

Cases: Advertising AlaskaNews ArizonaNews CaliforniaNews HawaiiNews IdahoNews MontanaNews NevadaNews OregonNews WashingtonNews StateUnfairTradePractices