Class Action Lawsuit Says Banfield Pet Hospital Didn’t Deliver Promise
By Dominic Rivera
A class action lawsuit filed by lead plaintiff Gregory Pero against Banfield Pet Hospital alleges it does not deliver the promised discounts and savings under its “Optimum Wellness Plan,” which covers more than 1 million pets nationwide.
“Banfield aggressively markets, advertises and sells the plans that purport to offer deep savings and discounts for preventative pet care services and related pet care products,” class action the lawsuit states. Pero alleges that Banfield did not provide the promised savings and discounts, instead upselling unnecessary pet care to its clients.
Banfield’s Optimum Wellness Plan charges a one-time membership fee of $49.95. There is a monthly payment, which according to Banfield could come to about $32 for an adult dog under the cheapest plan. There are reports that pet owners are paying even more and racking up bills when they take their pets to Banfield, according to the class action lawsuit.
Pero’s adult dog is under the mid-level plan costing him $479.40 per year. He says Banfield promised a “minimum annual savings” of $1,008.61. He said that he would have never signed up for the Wellness Plan of he had known about its true costs. He also allege that Banfield “routinely inflates medication costs and tacks fees onto lab tests, further overstating the plans’ benefits.”
“In truth, many plan clients save nothing and others save far less than promised. The savings depend on Banfield providing bundled pet care products and services over the course of an entire plan year. However, Banfield does not actually provide all of the bundled products and services to plan clients and/or the clients do not need all the products and services, and as a result the purported savings evaporate,” the Banfield Pet Hospital lawsuit states.
“Importantly, if the client cancels during the plan year any savings may be wiped out, leaving the client with little more than a history of overpayments. The advertised minimum annual savings also ignore the costs of unnecessary pet care products and services upsold to clients, as well as bogus ‘hospitalization’ and ‘professional service’ fees that Banfield assesses on top of other charges for services supposedly rendered.”
Banfield outlets are located in PetSmart stores but is not named in the lawsuit. Mars, the maker of M&Ms, Twix and Skittles, as well as Pedigree and Whiskas pet food brands, owns the majority stake in the company.
In his class action lawsuit, Pero alleges that for the past four years, “Banfield has misrepresented — and continues to misrepresent — the nature and amount of savings and discounts to be realized through the purchase and use of the wellness plan.”
Aside from asking that the lawsuit be certified as a class action, Pero is seeking damages for unfair business practices, consumer law violations, fraud and intentional misrepresentation.
All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions
552 thoughts onClass Action Lawsuit Says Banfield Pet Hospital Didn’t Deliver Promise
Last year we brought my son’s dog in for routine shots and a check up. Our son had just deployed with the Navy for what we thought was going to be about 8 months. We decided to get the advanced health plan which included spay service. My son wanted to wait until she was 2 to get her fixed and that would have been right about when he would return to make the final decision if he was going to spay her or breed her. The advanced plan would also cover anything the dog would need while he was out on deployment. Our son ended up a year out on deployment with almost no contact due to the nature of his service. He finally returned to his regular duty station overseas and we again had contact with him. He told us that he was going into off-base housing and wants to ship his dog to him and to go ahead and spay her to prepare her for the trip and military requirements. We called Banfield THE SAME DAY we heard from our son. Exactly a year after the beginning of the Advanced care plan. They told us it was too late to get her spayed (due to scheduling) under the plan we had paid for and that they had rolled it over to a lesser plan the day before (without our consent). They gave us a number to call about the situation. We called the number and they said the hospital has to handle it. We called the hospital back again, and they gave us another number to call. We called that number and they set up a three way call back with the Murrieta Banfield. It was confirmed that the hospital there in Murrieta could honor the service, but the Murrieta office told us it would cost us about $1000.00 to add it back onto the plan. We asked how much it would be just for the spay out of pocket and they said it would be the same, almost $1000. (Under this plan we got and paid for a year, we are already out over $1200 and ALL previous services had already been covered) The main hospital on the third line said that the additional cost did not sound right. The main hospital asked to speak to the manager, who happened to be out of the office for next hour. I was assured I would get a call back from the manager that day. I did not get a call. I called once a day every day asking for the manager, and every day they tell me she is out today and will be back the next day. Today is seven days since I was assured I would get a call back from the manager whom the main office said had the discretion to honor the plan. They simply collected $1200 and provided no service – they have already collected on the lesser plan which they rolled over without our consent – and still they will not honor the service that was covered.