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
Some prescription diets are appropriately balanced and safe to feed to pets of all life stages and most health conditions. There are other prescription diets that are nutritionally balanced to meet the needs of animals with specific health conditions, and could be unhealthy if fed to a pet that does not have that health condition. This is the reasoning behind the diets being prescription–to ensure they are fed to animals that actually need and will benefit from them. Unfortunately, that also means they are very expensive, and can be cost prohibitive. It is required by law for a veterinarian to have a Client/Doctor/Patient relationship to prescribe medications, and a veterinarian would need to have this relationship to know whether a patient needs or doesn’t need a prescription diet. This entails at a minimum having an annual exam in most if not all states, sometimes more frequent exams depending on the health condition an animal has been diagnosed with. Veterinarians should not get any “kick backs” for prescribing these diets, and with growing options such as “chewy.com” you do not need to purchase these diets from your veterinarian at all. I have heard rumors that for a diet to be marketed as “prescription” the FDA may soon be requiring that they go through the FDA approval process, which would truly make them prescription products and likely negate the goals of this lawsuit. It is important to note, that many over the counter diets are also exorbitantly priced–some as expensive or more expensive than prescription diets and with no research to back any nutritional claims or health benefits on the over the counter diet packaging. While I understand the reasoning behind some of these diets being “prescription”, I would be very happy if these diets were more affordable for pet owners as some of them can have life saving benefits that cannot be found in over the counter diets. I have personally witnessed many cases where an animal is alive today because their condition could be managed by diet alone.
How can I get in on this as I have been buying prescription id for several years.
The case is still moving through the courts and has not yet reached a settlement. Claim forms are usually not made available to consumers until after a court approved settlement is reached. We recommend you sign up for a free account at TopClassActions.com and follow the case. We will update the article with any major case developments or settlement news! Setting up a free account with Top Class Actions will allow you to receive instant updates on ANY article that you ‘Follow’ on our website. A link to creating an account may be found here: https://topclassactions.com/signup/. You can then ‘Follow’ the article above, and get notified immediately when we post updates!
These foods are excellent foods. The problem stems from clinics that require a prescription to sell the foods. Don’t have a prescription? No problem, our vets can do an exam (and charge you $50+). Then we’ll sell you the foods. That’s the issue here. The foods are great!!!
PS – I’m a DVM
Prescription dog foods are regulated by the FDA, this lawsuit will fall apart quickly.
No, they are not regulated by the FDA.
What wtf and Kristen have written is true. These prescription diets have been designed to nutritionally support certain medical conditions, and typically have clinical studies supporting their claims/designs. Some ingredients or technologies incorporated into the diets are expensive, and the diets are made in smaller batches than mass-produced diets. The diets have a smaller distribution chain. All this adds up to a more costly diet than a typical bag or can of mass-produced food.
Without a veterinarian to prescribe, unfortunately many owners self-diagnose and would be feeding a diet which may not benefit their pet and could possibly harm their pet. Plus, the pets’ conditions need medical monitoring. Some diets are designed for short-term feeding for the medical condition and not for longer-term.
Even a home-cooked or raw diet for a medical condition should be prescribed by your veterinarian or veterinary nutritionist and you need to stick to the recipe. Small changes can impact the overall effect.
Unfortunately, from what I understand, this lawsuit is only for California. Sad really. But, that’s the way it is sometimes.
Too bad.
The RX diets are garbage. They are all predominately corn based and are basically useless nutritionally for our pets, especially cats. This is why I feed raw or grain free. I have an Italian Greyhound (known for dental issues) who is 6 and not only has all of his teeth, he has never needed a dental and they are pearly white.
People do your research before falling into the class lawsuit crap. You need a prescription to buy this food because it is not a nutritionally complete food for all dogs. Meaning if your dog doesn’t need the kidney diet and you were to just walk in and buy it the ingredients that are in it could have a negative effect on your pet. Sure they don’t contain prescription medicine but they do or don’t contain certain ingredients that most healthy pets need for a balanced diet.
No one can force you to feed your pet any specific kind of diet. If your vet suggests a prescription diet it is up to you whether or not to feed it. If you don’t notice a change in your pet after feeding it why do you continue? You all found this article about prescription food, you could just as easily do a google search about dog food and make a more educated decision on what to feed your pet.
THANK YOU! Some of these foods would be harmful if fed to the wrong patient. They are regulated by prescription to ensure that the $50 you’re spending on a bag of food goes toward the right food to help your pet. Yes, they are expensive, but that’s because it takes a lot more time, money, and research to formulate and test these diets.
If everyone would research “DOG FOODS” made by these companies you would learn how bad they all are for our babies. Almost 11 yrs ago my mini schnauzer kept getting uti’s and the that damn China put stuff in dog food so I did alot of research and changed the way I fed her, one benefit… no more uti’s and she is now 12 yrs old
Are you aware the schnauzer’s are prone to uti’s and bladder stones? This is a genetic flaw that is actually in 90% of them. It all has to do with genetics and breeding. I have had a 3 month old schnauzer puppy in recently who was having uti symptoms. We ran a urine sediment and look under the microscope several crystals on the sediment. Took radiographs of her abdomen and inside her bladder was several stones. Prescribed science diet urinary s/o and since the stones has disolved. The owner saw the before and after radiographs and can verify the result she had by switching to that food and only that food. Dogs are expensive. No you don’t have to listen to what the doctors tell you. It is in the best judgement for the patient. No there is no medication in the food. However every prescription food is formulated to help with certaint things in the body to cause benefits not harm. A lot of research and time goes into each formulation and they are constantly trying to improve.
No schnauzers are not prone uti or bladder infections, if yours is getting them frequently you are not feeding them the foods they need. Prescription foods are bandaids not cures, find the cause don’t fix the symptoms.
Anonymous – you need to understand canine genetics and breed-specific genetics to know what you wrote is not true. Schnauzer are genetically more prone to developing uroliths (bladderstones) than other breeds as a whole, particularly struvite-based stones. Some commercial diets and certain home-cooked recipes have been developed specifically to help dissolve/prevent these stones, other diets to dissolve/prevent calcium carbonate-based or mixed struvite/carbonate stones.
Finally, Thank you to those who took the step!