Nestle Purina class action lawsuit claims ‘natural’ pet foods contain synthetic ingredients

Nestle Purina lawsuit overview:

• Who: Plaintiffs Adrienne Pietres and Brenda Natoli filed a class action lawsuit against Nestle Purina Petcare Co.
• Why: Nestle Purina allegedly falsely advertises some of its pet food products as “natural” even though they contain synthetic ingredients.
• Where: The Nestle Purina lawsuit was filed in New York federal court.

Nestle Purina Petcare Co. falsely advertises some of its pet food products as “natural” even though they contain synthetic ingredients, claims a class action lawsuit filed Oct. 12 in New York federal court.

Plaintiffs Adrienne Pietres and Brenda Natoli say they purchased Nestle Purina pet food products because they were labeled as “natural” and they expected the products did not contain any synthetic ingredients or fillers.

However, the Nestle Purina class action alleges the pet food products contain multiple synthetic ingredients such as zinc sulfate, copper sulfate, calcium pantothenate, thiamine mononitrate, pyridoxine hydrochloride and menadione sodium bisulfite complex.

The Nestle Purina class action lawsuit names dozens of allegedly falsely advertised pet food products sold under some popular pet food brand names: Purina Cat Chow, Purina ONE, Beyond and Fancy Feast.

They note that the product labels state that the products are “natural with added vitamins, minerals & nutrients” and include the term “natural” in a large font.

“Defendant’s labeling and advertising puts forth a straightforward, material message: the Products only contain ingredients that are natural,” the class action lawsuit states.

“Reasonable consumers would understand Defendant’s labeling to mean that the Products contain only natural ingredients and not any synthetic substances.”

Class action alleges false ‘natural’ claims intended to capitalize on consumer preferences

Pietres and Natoli allege Nestle Purina makes misleading “natural” claims to capitalize on consumers’ growing preference for natural products and their willingness to pay a premium price for products that are advertised as natural.

They filed the Nestle Purina class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a proposed nationwide class of consumers who purchased the allegedly mislabeled pet food products. They also seek to represent a subclass of consumers who purchased the products in New York.

The class action lawsuit asserts claims for violation of parts of the New York General Business Law, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.

Earlier this year, Nestle Purina expanded its recall of prescription dog food that potentially contained elevated levels of vitamin D.

What do you think about the Nestle Purina lawsuit allegations that the company falsely advertised its pet food products as “natural”? Tell us your thoughts in the comments.

Pietres and Natoli are represented by Joshua D. Arishohn and Julian C. Diamond of Bursor & Fisher PA.

The Nestle Purina lawsuit is Adrienne Pietres, et al. v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co., Case No. 7:23-cv-08959, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Victor dog food recall initiated due to potential salmonella contamination
• Ozona Organics announces recall for liquid probiotic products due to microbial growth
• Nestle Purina expands Pro Plan Veterinary dog food recall
• Omega-3 pet supplement recall announced due to possibly elevated vitamin A levels