Prescription Pet Food Part of Price-Fixing Scheme, Class Action Claims

A Tennessee man is accusing the maker of Iams and Royal Canin prescription pet food of engaging in a price-fixing scheme that violates antitrust law.

Plaintiff Randy Roberts is challenging defendant Mars Petcare US Inc., the owner of several pet food brands and chains of veterinary clinics.

Roberts alleges Mars uses its retail veterinary outlets to maintain a prescription-only requirement for some of its pet food brands, which allows it to charge an inflated price for those brands.

Tennessee-based Mars Petcare now holds 41 different brands of pet food including Pedigree, Iams, Whiskas and Royal Canin. These brands market some of their pet food as being available for purchase only with a prescription from a veterinarian.

The class action alleges this prescription requirement is a phony tactic that serves only to artificially increase the pet food’s price. He says the prescription requirement is imposed solely by the companies that make and market the pet food. There is apparently no legal requirement restricting these pet foods to prescription-only sales.

Roberts contends there is no material difference between Mars prescription pet food and pet food sold without a prescription requirement. The prescription food contains no ingredients that aren’t also present in many other pet foods sold without any prescription requirement, he claims.

Mars allegedly promotes this scheme through chains of veterinary clinics under its control, according to this prescription pet food class action lawsuit.

In addition to its pet food producing subsidiaries, the company holds ownership interests in Blue Pearl Vet Hospital and Banfield Pet Hospital, two chains that employ nearly 4,000 veterinarians at hundreds of locations. Mars owns Blue Pearl outright and shares ownership of Banfield Pet Hospital with PetSmart.

Roberts accuses Mars of conspiring through these veterinary service providers and those at PetSmart on-site veterinary locations to enforce the prescription requirement. Keeping the requirement in place across such a wide swath of the pet food market allows Mars to charge an artificially higher price for pet food, he claims.

Roberts argues this practice constitutes anti-competitive behavior in violation of Tennessee state antitrust law. He believes the alleged conduct violates the Tennessee Trade Practices Act, or TTPA.

The claims in this Mars prescription pet food class action lawsuit closely parallel those in another action filed in a California federal court late last year. Plaintiffs there seek to represent a nationwide Class of persons who purchased Mars prescription pet food from a number of different sources.

Roberts initially filed this Mars class action in Tennessee state court, but the pet food company removed it to federal court on Feb. 9. The plaintiff seeks to represent a Class that would include all persons in Tennessee who purchased Mars prescription pet food.

He is asking the court to award damages, restitution, court costs and attorneys’ fees, all with pre- and post-judgment interest.

The plaintiff is represented by Gordon Ball of Gordon Ball PLLC, Lance K. Baker of The Baker Law Firm, and Charles Barrett of Neal & Harwell PLC.

The Mars Prescription Pet Food Class Action Lawsuit is Randy Roberts v. Mars Petcare US Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00043, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.