PetSmart Class Action Says Pet Hemp Oil Isn’t FDA Approved

A new class action lawsuit accuses PetSmart of intentionally misleading customers by selling hemp oil that has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Plaintiff Astorria Sassano says she purchased a bottle of Only Natural Pet Hemp Seed Oil with Krill and Cod Liver from a Fort Lauderdale PetSmart on April 19.

Sassano claims the product packaging, as well as PetSmart’s advertising, makes it clear the product is intended to “treat, mitigate, or prevent disease” and to support a pet’s immune system, cardiovascular system and brain development or function.

However, the PetSmart dog treat is not approved by the FDA or indexed, and therefore is considered unsafe under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, according to Sassano’s complaint.

To be legally marketed, a new animal drug must have an approved new or conditionally approved animal drug application or a listing on the Index of Legally Marketed Unapproved New Animal Drugs for Minor Species, the lawsuit states.

Sassano claims that the advertising, marketing and sale of the unapproved and/or misbranded product containing a new drug constitutes false and deceptive conduct.

The PetSmart class action claims the package stated hemp seed oil is “packed with phytonutrients and antioxidants,” and that all the ingredients in the product “work together to support overall health and wellness.”

The company’s website says the PetSmart hemp oil supports “a healthy inflammatory response and immune system,” “cardiovascular health, health brain development & function,” and that the product is intended to support a pet’s immune system, skin and coat.

According to Sassano, that means the product is therefore considered a drug under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and as such, PetSmart misled consumers into believing the company had complied with applicable laws.

The class action lawsuit says Sassano would not have bought the PetSmart hemp oil or paid as much for it if she knew the product wasn’t being sold legally.

The proposed Class includes all people throughout Florida who purchased the product with a credit or debit account within the four years before the complaint was filed.

In the past, the FDA has sent warning letters to companies manufacturing, advertising and marketing products such as the PetSmart hemp oil that are intended to mitigate, treat or prevent disease in animals.

A California federal court recently opted to pause one class action, saying the case should wait until the FDA unveils new regulations on CBD.

A federal judge in Florida made a similar determination in January.

And this is not the first class action lawsuit to be brought against PetSmart.

The company removed a similar proposed class action lawsuit to the Southern District of Florida on May 29. That case was filed by Robyne Newell, who purchased a bottle of PetSmart hemp soft chews for pets. Newell is represented by the same counsel as Sassano.

Sassano originally filed her complaint April 22 in state court. However, the case was moved to federal court May 29.

The case was moved after the Court determined the issues presented in Sassano’s complaint were a question of how federal law regulates and applies to pet products containing hemp ingredients and whether those products violate FDA laws, while the content of the PetSmart dog treat ingredients and advertising are clearly indicated and are not a matter of factual dispute.

The court determined there is a likelihood that the outcome of Sassano’s case would control or influence litigation involving other similar pet products that contain hemp-based ingredients.

Further, a federal law preemption exists in this case: Courts in this District have previously held that product claims under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act can be preempted by FDA law and regulation.

In addition to demanding a jury trial, Sassano’s class action lawsuit asks the Court to urge PetSmart to stop using unfair or deceptive business practices related to the design, testing, manufacturing, assembly, development, marketing, advertising or sale of the PetSmart hemp oil.

The complaint also asks for PetSmart to restore all money acquired as a result of their deceptive practices, for actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial, for attorneys’ fees and costs and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. It also asks for an award of pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded.

Have you purchased PetSmart dog treats or hemp oil? Tell us about your experience in the comments.

Sassano and Newell are represented by Howard W. Rubinstein.

The PetSmart Hemp Oil Class Action Lawsuits are Sassano v. PetSmart Inc., Case No. 0:20-cv-61062, and Newell v. PetSmart Inc., Case No. 0:20-cv-61059, both in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

PetSmart Class Action Says Hamster Homes Are Defective

Seattle Woman Files Uber Sexual Assault Lawsuit

Rachael Ray Pet Food Class Action Alleges Filler Ingredients

Why Is There a Recall on Zantac?