Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, joined by Circuit Judges Ana de Alba and Eric C. Tung, affirmed Central District of California Judge Dolly M. Gee's dismissal without leave to amend of claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

"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?" Wardlaw wrote. "We conclude that reasonable consumers would not have that expectation."

Brown purchased a Brita Everyday Water Pitcher with the Standard Filter for approximately fifteen dollars at a Los Angeles store in 2022. He alleged Brita misled consumers by failing to disclose that its filters do not reduce to below lab detectable levels contaminants such as arsenic, chromium-6, PFOA, PFOS, radium and uranium, which the complaint called the "Common Hazardous Contaminants."

The panel found that Brita's packaging discloses the products "reduce" specified contaminants rather than remove them entirely, and directs consumers via QR code to Performance Data Sheets detailing the extent of reduction for each contaminant. The Standard Filter is certified to reduce copper, mercury, cadmium, chlorine, and zinc to below levels recommended by the National Sanitation Foundation and EPA.

"As a matter of law, no reasonable consumer would 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," Wardlaw wrote.

The court rejected Brown's argument that the district court should have analyzed whether Brita had a duty to disclose based on an unreasonable safety hazard or a central function defect. Even assuming either test was met, Wardlaw wrote, "he still cannot establish that Brita had a duty to disclose" because such a disclosure "would not be important to a reasonable consumer."

The panel also affirmed the denial of leave to amend. Brown had sought to add allegations about Brita's "exclusive access to non-public data concerning the efficacy of the Products' filtration abilities." Wardlaw wrote that "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 Brown expected them to."

Brown was represented by Brent A. Robinson, Bahar Sodaify, Katelyn M. Leeviraphan, Ashley M. Boulton, Ryan Clarkson, Glenn A. Danas, and Alan Gudino of Clarkson Law Firm PC. Brita was represented by Jonah M. Knobler, Shelli G. Gimelstein, and Steven A. Zalesin of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, and Mark A. Neubauer of Carlton Fields LLP.

The case is Brown v. The Brita Products Company, No. 24-6678, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.