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.
A class action lawsuit alleges that pet food manufacturers Nestle Purina, Mars Petcare, and Hill’s Pet Nutrition, pet supply chain PetSmart, and veterinary chains Banfield Pet Hospital and BluePearl Vet all conspired with each other to falsely promote “prescription” pet food.
The complaint asserts that there is no reason for each brand of pet food to require a prescription, as they “contain no drug or other ingredient not also common in non-prescription pet food.”
“Retail consumers, including Plaintiffs, have overpaid and made purchases they otherwise would not have made on account of Defendants’ abuse and manipulation of the ‘prescription’ requirement,” according to the complaint.
The prescription pet food antitrust class action lawsuit states that U.S. consumers spend close to $24 billion per year on pet food. The complaint alleges that Mars Petcare US Inc., is the largest supplier of pet food in the world, followed by Nestle Purina Petcare Company in second place and Hill’s Pet Nutrition Inc., in fourth place.
Similarly, PetSmart is the nation’s largest pet goods retailer, Banfield Pet Hospital is the largest veterinary chain in the U.S., and Blue Pearl Vet Hospital is the “largest chain of animal specialty and emergency care clinics.” The class action contends that these companies abuse their dominant market positions by promoting “prescription” pet food.
These prescriptions work like normal drug prescriptions – a veterinary doctor gives a consumer a written order for a certain kind of pet food, and the consumer goes to PetSmart, or other location, to purchase the specialty food. The complaint argues that consumers have a “deep rooted sense” of following medical advice and filling prescriptions.
However, the “prescription” pet food sold by Mars, Purina, and Hill’s are not evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and contain no drugs or other legally controlled substances, the plaintiffs argue. Therefore, according to the class action, selling the expensive pet food as requiring a prescription is unfair and deceptive under California consumer protection laws.
The prescription pet food antitrust class action lawsuit asserts that this false advertising is promoted by all of the companies working together. The veterinary clinics write prescriptions for the food, which is manufactured by the pet food companies and sold through PetSmart.
According to the complaint, Mars owns 79 percent of Banfield Pet Hospital, and PetSmart owns the other 21 percent. Many Banfield clinics are inside PetSmart locations. In addition, Mars owns 100 percent of Blue Pearl Vet Hospital.
The class action is brought by a group of plaintiffs, who all state that they own pets who were prescribed pet food manufactured by one of the defendants. The plaintiffs seek to represent a Class of “all persons in the United States who purchased Prescription Pet Food from PetSmart, Banfield Pet Hospital, Blue Pearl Vet Hospital, or any other Defendant.”
The complaint also asserts subclasses of all consumers who purchased any of defendants’ prescription pet food from any retailer in California. The lawsuit requests restitution, treble damages, and an injunction stopping the defendants from marketing their prescription pet food.
The plaintiffs are represented by Michael A. Kelly, Matthew D. Davis, and Spencer J. Pahlke of Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger, Daniel Shulman and Julia Dayton Klein of Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty, & Bennett PA, Michael L. McGlamry, Wade H. Tomlinson III, and Kimberly J. Johnson of Pope McGlamry PC, and Lynwood P. Evans, Edward J. Coyne III, and Jeremy M. Wilson of Ward and Smith PA.
The PetSmart, Nestle Purina, Mars Prescription Pet Food Class Action Lawsuit is Tamara Moore, et al. v. Mars Petcare US Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-7001, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
UPDATE: On April 3, 2017, PetSmart, Nestle Purina, Mars, and other pet food makers, asked a federal judge to dismiss a class action alleging they worked together to fix the price of prescription pet food.
UPDATE 2: On May 15, 2017, the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit accusing PetSmart Inc. and a group of pet food companies of conspiring to inflate the prices of pet food by marketing it as prescription-only urged a judge not to grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss the litigation.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
108 thoughts onPetSmart, Nestle Purina, Mars Face Prescription Pet Food Class Action
I am so glad to see that these companies may have to face the music. It is bad enough to rob the consumer and charge a premium price. But it is worse when the product is actually BAD for the pet. I have a cat who was hit by a car, in addition to orthopedic surgery he was prescribed Science Diet. He got worse and worse, having to go into the vet almost once a month for a 3-4 day stay with enemas, then IV fluids, which of course, cost a bundle. After reading the dietary statements on the packages I compared them with dietary statements on regular commercial cat food, including ingredients, and bought the one that seemed the most like the “prescription” diet. He has flourished on this “regular” food and my other cat, who was forced to eat the “prescription” food has become like a whole new cat, happy and playful, really enjoying herself. The cat with megacolon is doing just fine now, has become more alert and enjoys life now. I feel so bad that they had to eat that awful food for so long before I started ignoring the vets prescriptions and just fed them regular food. I was at PetSmart comparing labels and kept getting pestered by sales people asking if they could help me. When I explained what I was doing they referred me to their Vet Clinic. Of course, I did not fall for that ploy. I hope these companies go out of business from all this. It devastates me to see all those who have lost their pets due to corporate greed, lying, cheating and literally killing man’s best friend and precious loves. This is not seeking a “payday” it is making crooks pay for their deceptions (which even include deceiving vets). I hope that these crooks will end up having to follow a doctors prescription that makes them sicker, and ends up killing them. Of course then, their families would sue the doctor for malpractice. Animals can’t do that. We have to look out for them and really think about what we are doing.
Susan Dubinsky what is sad is that you are an irresponsible pet owner who let their cat outside to be hit by a car, even if you come back with “he escaped when someone came to the door” you are STILL responsible for protecting and taking the necessary measures to keep your pets safe and INDOORS.
Check your facts. PetSmart hasn’t own any parts of Banfield since the beginning of 2016. Also, why aren’t ANY veterinarians included in this lawsuit seeing how THEY told people which food to get, not the manufacturers?? Somebody just wants a paycheck. If the said food wasn’t working after 6 months, they why not switch? If your child is sick and the medicine you give isn’t working, are you just going to keep giving it?? Sorry but sounds like the owner just wants a payday.
A big thumbs up to you. I was shocked while reading this lawsuit. Veterinarian offices all over sell this food and write prescriptions for it. How can you just sue the biggest suppliers and leave everyone else out like they don’t contribute to the problem. Here’s an idea, don’t require a prescription anymore and let’s all move on in life.
I give my dog for the last 2 month Derm Defense Canine her skin, rash, and hair altogether has improved.
I spent so much money on hills prescription dog food and this makes me mad,that it did nothing for my dog.
I would like to be updated on this. My poodle (now deceased because of cancer) was prescribed the royal and hills brand foods. I found those products costly and often left him low in energy and hungry.
I wish my state was included.We had a cat on diabetic food for over a year that was manufactured by Purina.
I would like to be included in this suit. I have bought these products all the time.
It’s about time — those corn based, overpriced garbage, so-called prescription diets, people being bamboozled into thinking they are something more than what they are not. Shame on Hills et al for deceiving customers, especially when pet owners are at their most vulnerable with sick pets and trusting the advice of their vets.
I would like to be included. My dog has been on “Hills Prescription Diet” for quite some time. First S/D, then C/D and now Dermacare. It never made any sense why you needed a prescription to purchase the food except for the fact that it was
a way they could charge more for the food.
How can I get updates on the progress of this lawsuit? My dog was prescribed the Hills canine weight reduction food a couple of months ago. I think the food is doing her some good, but I’m not sure a prescription is necessary. I just read the ingredients and I don’t see any medications or other controlled substances.