Brown v. Brita Products Company, (9th Cir., April 16, 2026, No. 24-6678) 2026 WL 1028347
A federal district court dismissed a putative class action against a water filter manufacturer alleging, among other claims: (1) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; (2) violation of the California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.; and (3) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.. Plaintiff alleged that he would not have purchased defendant’s water filters, or paid the same price for them, if defendant had disclosed that its products do not reduce certain contaminants to below lab detectable levels. Plaintiff appealed.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court applied a “reasonable consumer standard” whereby “ ‘a misrepresentation or omission is material if “a reasonable person would find [the misrepresented or omitted fact] important when determining whether to purchase a product.’ ” The court concluded that under this standard, no reasonable consumer would have expected defendant’s water filters to reduce certain contaminants to below lab detectable levels. As a result, defendant’s failure to disclose this limitation was not “material” and, plaintiff’s statutory claims failed as a matter of law.
