Brown v. the Brita Products Company

── Brown v. the Brita Products Company ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT NICHOLAS BROWN, individually No. 24-6678 and on behalf of all others similarly D.C. No. situated, 2:23-cv-07851- DMG-RAO Plaintiff - Appellant, v. OPINION THE BRITA PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 5, 2026 Pasadena, California Filed April 16, 2026 Before: Kim McLane Wardlaw, Ana de Alba, and Eric C. Tung, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Wardlaw 2 BROWN V. THE BRITA PRODUCTS CO. SUMMARY * Products Liability / California Law The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a putative class action brought by Nicholas Brown against The Brita Products Company alleging violations of California law in connection with Brita’s water filter products labeling. Brown alleged that, as a result of misrepresentations and omissions, he purchased a Brita filter, but he would not have purchased or paid as much as he did for the filter had he known that it does not reduce to below lab detectable levels various hazardous contaminants. Omissions may be the basis of claims under California consumer protections laws. An omission is material if a reasonable consumer would attach importance to its existence or nonexistence in determining his choice of action in the transaction at issue. The panel held that no reasonable consumer would expect Brita’s Products to perform as Brown alleged he subjectively expected that they would. A reasonable consumer would not have attached importance to the fact that Brita’s Products do not remove or reduce common contaminants to health to below lab detectable limits. Because the complaint failed to meet the reasonable consumer standard, the district court did not err by holding that Brown’s material omission claim failed as a matter of law. * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.  BROWN V. THE BRITA PRODUCTS CO. 3 The panel held that the district court properly denied Brown leave to amend his complaint because amendment would be futile. COUNSEL Brent A. Robinson (argued), Bahar Sodaify, Katelyn M. Leeviraphan, Ashley M. Boulton, Ryan Clarkson, Glenn A. Danas, and Alan Gudino, Clarkson Law Firm PC, Malibu, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Jonah M. Knobler (argued), Shelli G. Gimelstein, and Steven A. Zalesin, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, New York; Mark A. Neubauer, Carlton Fields LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellee. 4 BROWN V. THE BRITA PRODUCTS CO. OPINION WARDLAW, Circuit Judge: Would a reasonable consumer expect a fifteen-dollar water filter to “remove or reduce to below lab detectable limits common contaminants hazardous to health” in tap water, notwithstanding clear disclosures to the contrary? We conclude that reasonable consumers would not have that expectation. Nicholas Brown brought a putative class action against The Brita Products Company (“Brita”) for: (1) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; (2) violation of the California False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.; (3) violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.; (4) Breach of Warranty; and (5) Unjust Enrichment/Rest