Class Action Lawsuit Says Banfield Pet Hospital Didn’t Deliver Promise

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

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