Simply Nourish Class Action Says Pet Food Isn’t Natural

UPDATE: On Jan. 27, 2021, several claims were dismissed in the false advertising class action lawsuit against Simply Nourish Pet Food Company LLC.

A New York judge tossed claims of unjust enrichment, breach of warranty, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act from the lawsuit. However, allegations of deceptive and misleading marketing and business practices will stand. 

The judge ruled that a reasonable consumer would believe that the natural label on the pet food applied to the product’s entirety. Even though some products did include a disclaimer about the added vitamins and minerals, the judge ruled that a consumer could still be misled.

Top Class Actions will continue to update this news article as the lawsuit develops. Click on the “Follow Article” button at the top of this page to get the latest updates on the Simply Nourish class action lawsuit by using your free Top Class Actions account.

A class action lawsuit challenges Simply Nourish Pet Food Company LLC’s advertisement of their pet food as being “natural.”

The lawsuit also challenges PetSmart’s marketing and sale of the products with the “natural” labeling.

The Simply Nourish class action lawsuit was filed by Alexa Grossman who says she purchased Simply Nourish large breed dog foods and dog treats from a PetSmart in Long Island.

Grossman states that she bought the dog food partly because she believed it to be natural, based on the advertisements, but later discovered it contained artificial ingredients.

The plaintiff claims that she, like many other consumers, believe that products labeled “natural” do not contain synthetic ingredients.

The Simply Nourish class action alleges that many consumers understand synthetic ingredients to be one formulated or manufactured by a chemical process or a “processes that chemically changes a substance extracted from naturally occurring plant, animal, or mineral sources.”

The Simply Nourish dog foods contain a range of fake ingredients, based on commonly understood definitions, says Grossman. Allegedly, these synthetic ingredients in the pet foods include preservatives, pesticides, byproducts from chemical processes, thickening agents, stabilizing agents, and flavorings.

To support her argument, Grossman points to all of the reported synthetic ingredients in a selection of Simply Nourish products, noting that many of the artificial ingredients are used in multiple products. Some of the synthetic ingredients include: mixed tocopherols, potassium chloride, manganese sulfate, niacin, riboflavin, thiamine mononitrate, folic acid and citric acid.

The pet food false ad class action lawsuit alleges that Simply Nourish and PetSmart intentionally falsely advertised the products as natural to entice customers into purchasing them.

The Simply Nourish class action lawsuit argues that the defendants know that customers have a preference for natural over synthetic products because the natural products are seen as higher quality, better for the environment and for animal health.

This preference for natural products has extended into customers’ purchasing preferences for their pets, says Grossman, as consumers are often willing to pay a premium to get the best products for their pets.

Simply Nourish and PetSmart took advantage of this customer preference to unjustly gain profits from the sale of the pet products, says the class action lawsuit. According to Grossman, Simply Nourish and PetSmart’s false advertising was knowing and intentional, and was done at the expense of consumers.

Allegedly, this practice financially injured consumers across the country.

The plaintiff says like many other customers, had she known that the dog food contained synthetic ingredients, she would not have purchased it or would not have paid as much as she did.

Grossman claims that she was financially injured because the products she received were worth less than what she paid for.

She seeks damages both for past financial injury, as well as injunctive relief for future injury.

The plaintiff states that if she could be assured that the pet food either contained no synthetic ingredients in the future, or were correctly labeled to indicate that they did contain synthetic ingredients, she would purchase the pet food again.

The pet food false ad class action lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of a Class of all consumers who purchased the dog foods in the U.S., and a subclass of all of those consumers who purchased the products in the state of New York.

Grossman argues that a class action lawsuit is the best way to pursue her Simply Nourish pet food claims, because the damage done to each individual affected is too small to warrant an individual lawsuit, but together, the damage done is significant.

Allegedly, a false ad class action lawsuit is the best way to challenge this unlawful practice that garners significant profits for two companies at the expense of many consumers.

Additionally, Grossman notes that all consumers who purchased the products suffered the same injury because they all viewed the same advertisements that presented the foods as natural.

The Simply Nourish class action lawsuit says that Simply Nourish and PetSmart breached express warranty, violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, New York General Business Law, in addition to receiving unjust enrichment from the sale of the pet foods.

Do you prefer natural products over synthetic ones? If so, why? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Grossman is represented by Jason P. Sultzer of The Sultzer Law Group PC; and by Melissa S. Weiner and Joseph C. Bourne of Pearson Simon & Warshaw LLP.

The Simply Nourish Natural Pet Food Class Action Lawsuit is Alexa Grossman v. Simply Nourish Pet Food Company LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01603, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

French Restaurants Want Insurance To Cover Coronavirus Shutdown Losses

Flintstones Vitamins Class Action Seeks Certification

Ethicon Stapler Lawsuit Filed After ‘Failed’ Surgery

Hospital OxyCide Cleaner Side Effects Lawsuit Investigation