Ninth Circuit Dismisses Brita Class Action Over Alleged Contaminants, Holding No Reasonable Consumer Would Expect Complete Removal

In Brown v. Brita Prods. Co., No. 24-6678 (9th Cir. Apr. 16, 2026), the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of a putative class action against The Brita Products Company, alleging violations of California’s consumer protection laws and other claims. The plaintiff purchased a Brita Everyday Water Pitcher with the Standard Filter for approximately fifteen dollars. Based on the product’s labels and packaging, he alleged that he understood the filter to remove or reduce common contaminants hazardous to health down to below lab detectable limits. He claimed he would not have purchased the product, or would have paid less, had he known it does not reduce to below lab detectable levels various hazardous contaminants, including arsenic, chromium-6, PFOA, PFOS, and others. The district court dismissed the case, and the plaintiff appealed, arguing that he had stated a claim for a material omission and leave to amend should have been granted.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal and reasoned that under California law, an omission is actionable only if it contradicts a representation actually made by the defendant, or if the defendant was obliged to disclose the omitted fact. The parties agreed that a duty to disclose arises if a product contains a defect that either poses an unreasonable safety risk or defeats its central function, and that even if one of those tests is met, the omission must be material. The Ninth Circuit held that even assuming the plaintiff's allegations met either test, he could not establish that Brita had a duty to disclose that its products do not completely remove all common hazardous contaminants to below lab detectable levels. It reasoned that such a disclosure would not be important to a reasonable consumer given Brita’s existing packaging disclosures, that made specific contaminant data available via QR code on the package and the objective unreasonableness of such an expectation.

This decision is particularly instructive because the court evaluated the product’s packaging disclosures in context, including information accessible via a QR code on the label, and considered the product’s price point in assessing reasonable consumer expectations. Critically, the court declined to infer that language describing a product’s ability to “reduce” contaminants implies their complete elimination.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.