In Brown v. The Brita Products Co., No. 24-6678 (9th Cir. Apr. 16, 2026), the Ninth Circuit further clarified the role of the “reasonable consumer” standard in evaluating material omission theories under California consumer protection statutes. The decision reinforces that the standard is not merely a fact-bound inquiry reserved for later stages, but a substantive constraint that can, and should, be applied at the pleading stage.
Background
Plaintiff purchased a water filter for approximately $15. The product was advertised as reducing specified contaminants in tap water, which it undisputedly did. The packaging also included a QR code linking to Performance Data Sheets detailing the extent of contaminant reduction and the testing methodology used.
