Class action alleges Purina’s Beneful harmful, deadly to dogs

A California man has filed a class action lawsuit against Nestle Purina Petcare Co., alleging unsafe petfood manufacturing and distribution. The suit was filed February 4, 2015.

The plaintiff, Frank Lucido claims that Purina’s Beneful dog food injured his three dogs. He claims Purina added propylene glycol, an automotive antifreeze component, to Beneful. Lucido says two of his dogs suffered and one of his dogs died after ingesting Beneful beginning January 15, 2015.
The class action claims that the defendants have received more than 3,000 online complaints about their food making dogs sick throughout the past four years. In some cases, the dogs reportedly suffered internal bleeding, weight loss, dehydration and other symptoms. The suit alleges negligence, misrepresentation, product liability and unfair business practices. The plaintiff is seeking more than $5 million in damages, plus costs and fees.

Review board recommends Blue Buffalo modify advertising

A panel of the National Advertising Review Board (NARB) has recommended that Blue Buffalo Company Ltd. modify its advertisements to avoid any express or implied messages that competing petfood companies are “fooling” or otherwise misleading consumers and modify its online “True BLUE Test” comparison chart. NARB is the appellate unit of the advertising industry’s system of self-regulation.

test
Advertising claims made by Blue Buffalo for its BLUE brand petfood products were initially challenged by Hill’s Pet Nutrition Inc., a competing manufacturer of petfood products, before the National Advertising Division (NAD), an investigative unit of the advertising industry’s system of self-regulation. The challenged claims included a “True BLUE Test” chart that compared petfood brands and gave or withheld checkmarks.
NAD determined that the challenged advertisements reasonably conveyed the unsupported message that major petfood companies, including Hill’s, were misleading their customers by actively concealing the truth about the ingredients in their products and representing their products as being of high quality when they are not because they include lesser quality ingredients such as chicken by-product meals and corn gluten. The NAD recommended that Blue Buffalo modify the challenged advertisements to avoid any express or implied references to competing manufacturers misleading consumers because their products include chicken/meat by-product meal or other ingredients represented by Blue Buffalo to be less nutritious. Blue Buffalo appealed this recommendation.
NAD also found that the “True BLUE Test” comparison chart reasonably conveyed the inaccurate message that the absence of checkmarks for a manufacturer meant that all of that manufacturer’s petfood products had specified “undesirable” ingredients and none of that manufacturer’s petfood products had specified “desirable” ingredients. The NAD recommended that Blue Buffalo modify the “True BLUE Test” comparison chart by:

• specifying the number of products which include or do not include certain ingredients
• regularly monitoring product offerings of competing brands to ensure accuracy
• modifying the format of its online disclosures
• modifying its mobile disclosures
• ensuring that checkmarks appear in a uniform manner
Blue Buffalo agreed to regularly monitor product offerings of competing brands, modify its mobile disclosures and ensure that checkmarks on its “True BLUE Test” chart appear more uniform; it appealed the remainder of the NAD’s recommendations.
 Following its review of the evidence, the NARB panel determined that the challenged advertisements reasonably conveyed the unsupported message that all or most major petfood companies, including Hill’s, were misleading their customers by concealing the truth about ingredients in their products, and representing their products are high quality when they are not because they include lesser quality ingredients such as chicken by-product meal and corn gluten. The panel recommended that Blue Buffalo modify the challenged advertising to eliminate this message. The panel noted that the challenged advertisements encouraged pet owners to visit the Blue Buffalo website to take the “True BLUE Test” comparing Blue Buffalo products to other petfood brands. The “True BLUE Test” had either checkmarks or blank spaces for the Blue Buffalo brand and competing brands in several categories. The record showed numerous examples where a competing petfood company did not receive a check even though a significant majority of its products met the specified criteria.
The panel recommended that Blue Buffalo modify its “True BLUE Test” comparison chart to clearly communicate the total number of each brand’s products and the number of those products that include or do not include specified ingredients, clearly communicate the percentage of each brand’s products which include or do not include specified ingredients, or use other methods that clearly communicate the degree to which each brand’s products include or do not include specified ingredients. In addition, the panel recommended that any advertising referring consumers to the “True BLUE Test” be modified to make it clear that the “True BLUE Test” compares brands and avoid stating or implying that the “True BLUE Test” will enable consumers to compare specific petfood products.
Blue Buffalo, in its advertiser’s statement, said that “with all due respect to the NARB and the efforts and time of the NARB panel devoted to this matter, Blue Buffalo disagrees with the conclusions of the NARB.” The company said that while it is not “in complete agreement with this decision, we recognize that we voluntarily committed to participate in the self-regulatory process of the NAD and the NARB. Out of respect for that process, in our future advertisements we will strive to abide by this NARB decision, as well as the guidance of other NAD decisions … . We will incorporate changes to our ads and website that are consistent with the NARB recommendations, with all due diligence."

Blue Buffalo officially files lawsuit against Nestle Purina

The Blue Buffalo Company Ltd. officially filed a lawsuit against Nestlé Purina PetCare Company on May 14, 2014. The lawsuit, in response to a lawsuit filed by Purina against Blue Buffalo, claims defamation, unfair competition, false advertising and violations of trade practice statutes.

test
More specifically, the complaint states that Purina has blanketed the media with blatantly false ads about Blue Buffalo’s ingredients and malicious attacks on Blue Buffalo’s integrity. Blue Buffalo seeks injunctive relief, corrective advertising and damages "occasioned by defendants’ false and deceptive advertising campaign," according to the company.
"In our lawsuit we demand that Nestle Purina be held accountable for their actions, and that they stop their carefully orchestrated PR campaign designed to erode the trust that pet parents place in our BLUE brand," said Blue Buffalo Founder and Chairman Bill Bishop. "Product quality has always been at the center of everything we do at Blue Buffalo, so we are not about to let Nestle Purina make derogatory and unsubstantiated claims about our company, our people and our products."
The company said that while the matter is now in the courts, Blue Buffalo intends to continue defending its integrity and product quality. "[Litigation] is not the way Blue Buffalo likes to do business, said Bishop. "We’d much prefer an environment of transparency in which pet parents know the ingredients of every petfood, and decide for themselves which one they want to feed their dog or cat." 
The lawsuit was filed in US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in St. Louis under the case caption Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd. v. Nestle Purina Pet Care Company, and John Does 1 – 10.  

Lawsuit against American Pet Food Manufacturing Company claims supplier money owed

Georgia-based food supply company Foodpros Marketing Inc. has filed a lawsuit against pet treat manufacturer American Pet Food Manufacturing Company (APFM) for allegedly failing to pay for US$155,000 worth of chicken breasts and other items it had ordered.

test
Foodpros filed the complaint on May 1, 2014, in US District Court in London. APFM's founder, Kimberly Monday, is also named in the suit. According to the court filings, APFM received orders of tens of thousands of chicken breasts starting in August 2013 into September 2013. Foodpros claims the amount billed via invoices to APFM was due within 14 days of the goods being delivered and accepted. APFM and Monday paid a total of US$21,800, the lawsuit claims, in increments ranging from as little as US$500 to as much as US$5,000 between October 2013 and March 2014.
“The Defendant has become delinquent on its account and has failed to become current on its account payments despite several demands for it to do so,” the lawsuit claims. As of April 28, Foodpros claims APFM owes it US$155,000 and that “at the time the Defendant took possession of the goods, Defendant had no intention of paying FoodPros for the goods …”
APFM has been involved in multiple instances of litigation recently. In January 2014, APFM was ordered to pay roughly US$82,000 to settle a lawsuit brought against it by a local staffing service, The Job Shop, as part of a partial summary judgment. Nesco Resource, another staffing service, filed its own lawsuit against APFM in February, claiming the APFM owes it US$146,016.65 for temporary employment services it provided.

Blue Buffalo responds to Nestle Purina lawsuit

The Blue Buffalo Company Ltd. has responded to a lawsuit filed by Nestle Purina PetCare Company, claiming that the lawsuit's allegations are false. Blue Buffalo said that it intends to "aggressively defend the integrity of our brand and our products.

test
"It is an easy thing to make unsubstantiated claims, put them in a lawsuit and then publish them all over the web to disparage and defame a company," said Blue Buffalo. "It is quite another thing to prove those allegations." Nestle Purina's lawsuit claims that several of Blue Buffalo's products do in fact contain poultry by-product meal, corn and rice hulls, despite Blue Buffalo's marketing to the contrary. Blue Buffalo reiterated in its response that the company does not use chicken by-product meal or poultry by-product meal in any of its products; does not use ground corn in any of its products; and does not use artificial preservatives in any of its products.
"We’re disappointed to see one of the largest food companies in the world, with over US$100 billion in sales, launching such a baseless lawsuit against a family-run company and attempting to prosecute it on the Internet," said Blue Buffalo Founder and Chairman Bill Bishop. "My sons and I founded Blue Buffalo with the mission of bringing transparency to petfoods, and made the True Blue Promise to our pet parents. Clearly, some of our major competitors, who have built their business using lower cost ingredients, are upset. We will always stand behind our promise and our products."

Diamond Pet Food reaches class action settlement

A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging Diamond Pet Foods manufactured and distributed certain petfood products that allegedly led to illness and death in some animals that consumed them. The lawsuit was first filed in 2012 by a customer who claimed the company's dog food caused one of her dogs to die and another to become ill.

test
There are three subclasses of class members:

• Subclass I includes consumers who purchased certain petfood products in 2011 and 2012. Diamond Pet Foods will create a settlement fund limited to a maximum of US$750,000 to pay claims from those who purchased the petfood. Members of this subclass who submit a valid claim form will receive either payment up to a maximum value of two bags of petfood per pet; or a pro rata share of the net proceeds of the settlement fund for this subclass not to exceed the actual or estimated purchase price of up to two bags of the petfood per pet.
• Subclass II members who submit a valid claim form will receive a full reimbursement of the actual cost of veterinarian testing, care and/or treatment. The defendants will create a settlement fund limited to a total maximum of US$1.25 million to pay claims from this subclass.
• Subclass III members who submit valid claim forms shall receive one or more coupons with a face value of US$2. A maximum of 50,000 coupons will be distributed.
All class members must submit a valid form by July 11, 2014, and a final hearing will be held on September 15, 2014.

Clear Conscience Pet retains counsel in trademark infringement case

Natural pet nutrition company Clear Conscience Pet plans to defend its federal trademark rights to the SLIDERS brand. The company registered the trademark in 2010, but a competitor is now using the brand name for its own products.

test
Clear Conscience has defended the trademark successfully in the past without litigation, but this time, the other party is resisting. They feel that the SLIDERS name is generic in describing small sandwiches and thus not worthy of trademark protection. But Clear Conscience says the SLIDERS brand isn't a product description, it's a trademarked brand name for a family of healthy pet treats and gravies that evokes a lifestyle.
"Lest there be any doubt, SLIDERS is our federally registered trademark and brand name in the petfood and treats industry, it signifies a family of healthy pet treat products that are the very best ever made in our industry, and we will defend our intellectual property vigorously and tirelessly," said Anthony Bennie, founder and president of Clear Conscience.   

Nestle Purina, Walmart sued by pet owner over chicken jerky dog treats

Nestle Purina Petcare Co. is being sued by a man from Chicago, Illinois, USA, who claims his dog died from eating the petfood manufacturer's Waggin’ Train dog treats. 
According to a complaint filed in a Chicago federal court, Dennis Adkins says his 9-year-old Pomeranian became sick and died of kidney failure as a result of eating Waggin' Train's "Yam Good" chicken-wrapped treats. 
“Waggin’ Train has spent millions of dollars in promoting trust and confidence among consumers in its pet food products,” Adkins says in the complaint. “The product was not wholesome, was not nutritious and was unhealthy.” 
Adkins' complaint says that he purchased the treats on March 11 and fed one per day, in pieces, for three days, beginning March 13. He says he made no other changes to the dog's diet, but that the dog became ill on March 15 and died of kidney failure on March 26. Adkins also says in the complaint that his other 9-year-old Pomeranian did not consume the treats and did not become ill. 
According to an emailed statement from Nestle Purina, the company feels the Waggin' Train treats are "safe to feed as directed."
"We believe the claims made in the suit to be without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves,” Nestle says.
Additionally, Adkins is suing Walmart, where he bought the treats, for compensatory and punitive damages, alleging the companies breached warranties that guaranteed the treats were suitable for consumption.  
“At Walmart, we’re committed to providing our customers and their pets with safe and affordable food,” says Greg Rossiter, a Walmart spokesman. Rossiter says that all of the company’s petfood suppliers are required to comply with all applicable government safety regulations, and says the company is aware of the chicken jerky product concerns and is in contact with the Food and Drug Administration. 
Adkins is also asking the court to recognize a class of plaintiffs made up of consumers who bought Nestle or Waggin’ Train- brand dog treats containing chicken imported from China within the past four years and a sub-class of those who made the purchases from Walmart.
“Thousands of persons purchased the dog treats at issue, and hundreds of dogs died as a result,” says Adkins.

Pet food companies Mars, Heinz Watties dispute over trademark

Pet food manufacturer Mars and New Zealand pet food company Heinz Watties are in a dispute over whether Mars can trademark the marketing slogan for its Advance pet food line in Australia, according to a local report. 
Mars wants to trademark the slogan "Advance Advanced Pet Nutrition," but was denied by assistant trademarks commissioner, Jennie Walden, because she said the trademark phrase was likely to confuse consumers due to its similarity to what Heinz Watties says is its unregistered trademark of "Champ Advanced Dog Nutrition." Under the Trade Marks Act, trademarks cannot be legally registered if they seem likely to confuse or deceive consumers, the report says. 
Mars appealed the decision, with lawyer Earl Grey claiming the phrase merely described the product and was not a significant part of the packaging, and that Heinz Watties never applied to trademark its slogan.
"Consumers pay more attention to the distinctive and dominant elements of a sign," Grey said.
Heinz Watties' lawyer, Nigel Robb, said that while the phrase was not registered as a trademark, it has been a recognizable part of Champ petfood packaging since 1998.
"We are here considering what the public will perceive," said Robb. "It is inevitable that members of the public who have seen this product on sale for 10 years or longer will make a connection with that tagline ... it is part of the branding."
The appeal was heard by former solicitor-general, David Collins, who has not yet given his final ruling. 

Pet food manufacturers fined by France antitrust authority

Pet food manufacturers Nestlé SA, Mars Inc. and Colgate-Palmolive Co. were fined a collective €35.3 million (US$46.7 million) by France's antitrust authority for pressuring petfood distributors to mark up prices, the Wall Street Journal reported.
The Autorité de la Concurrence in France said "vertical agreements" between the three petfood companies and their respective distributors between 2004 and 2008 "limited competition on the markets for dry food for dogs and cats." According to the report, France's antitrust authority said Nestle and Mars were fixing prices, taking over policies and pushing competing pet food products off of store shelves. The antitrust authority also said that Colgate-Palmolive's Hill's Pet Nutrition brand forbid its wholesalers from exporting products from the US to France without prior explicit consent from Hill's. 
A spokesman for Colgate's petfood brands said the company was reviewing the decision and "continues to assert that it has never impeded or attempted to impede parallel trade at any time."
Nestlé was originally fined slightly more than €19 million (US$25.1 million), Mars was fined €11.6 million (US$15.3 million) and Colgate-Palmolive was fined €4.7 million (US$6.2 million), though the fines for Nestlé and Mars were reduced by 18 percent and 20 percent respectively, because the antitrust authority said the companies did not deny the charges and took action to meet antitrust regulations.
"We believe the fine is high given the facts and the limited impact to the market," a Mars spokesman said. "Royal Canin and Mars Inc. take very seriously competition law compliance."
"As soon as we began discussions with the competition authorities, we made a commitment to reorganize our commercial structure in order to address any concerns regarding commercial practices at the wholesale level," said Sophie Dubois, general director for Nestlé Purina Petcare France.

Settlement reached in Del Monte petfood business sale lawsuit

A Delaware, USA, judge recently accepted an October settlement involving Del Monte Foods' shareholders over a lawsuit that arose from the sale of the company's pet food business division in 2010 to Barclays Capital. The deal finalizes the US$89.4 million settlement arranged by the Delaware court that claims the two parties did not act properly in the sale of the pet food business to private-equity investors, led by KKR.

The shareholders sued Del Monte and Barclays, citing a potential conflict when the bank financed the debt needed for private-equity investors to buy the California, USA-based pet food maker for US$5.3 billion, while simultaneously acting as an advisor to the board on its sale negotiations. The shareholders claimed Del Monte's sale was organized to lessen bidding competition.
Earlier in the year, Delaware Chancery Court, Judge Travis Laster ruled in favor of plaintiffs citing Barclays' lack of disclosure, and most recently ruled that the US$89.4 million settlement "provides excellent consideration" to Del Monte shareholders, who will receive an additional 50 US cents to the company's buyout of US$19 per share. According to October filings with the Securities and Exchanges Commission, Barclays Capital and Del Monte Foods will split a US$89.4 million payment, sending US$23.7 million and US$65.7 million, respectively, to Del Monte's shareholders. Both Del Monte and Barclays denied any wrongdoing in the case.

Natura reaches deal in class-action pet food lawsuit

A US$2,150,000 settlement was reached with Natura Pet Products Inc., Natura Pet Food Inc., Natura Manufacturing and Peter Atkins in a class-action lawsuit regarding advertising of Natura's petfood, according to a report. The lawsuit originated after claims that the company misrepresented its pet food quality as "human-grade."
The company admitted no fault, but reportedly agreed to the cost of the settlement in order to avoid a court trial. The settlement calls for the company to create a US$2,150,000 fund, from which it would pay attorneys fees, expenses up to US$60,000 to lawyers representing the Class and costs to Class members who submitted claim forms. The US District Court for the Northern District of California will hold a hearing in this case on February 17, 2012, to consider whether to approve the settlement deal.

Pet Food Express says petfood antitrust lawsuit dismissed by US District Court

Pet Food Express announced that Royal Canin’s antitrust lawsuit against Pet Food Express was dismissed by Judge Marilyn Patel of the US District Court, Northern District of California.
The case focuses on a 1997 distribution agreement between the two companies that was signed by Royal Canin’s predecessor Pet Products Plus, but that Pet Food Express claims was violated when Mars Inc. purchased Royal Canin and sold the petfood to PetSmart stores. 
Pet Food Express is now seeking US$22.8 million in damages from Royal Canin, for what Pet Food Express calls a "breach of contract" by Royal Canin. The trial date is set for May 31, 2011.

Alabama Court awards Sunshine Mills US$61 million for malfunctioning software

In the second-largest jury verdict in Alabama since at least 2003, the Franklin County Circuit Court awarded US$61 million (including US$45 million of punitive damages) to petfood manufacturer Sunshine Mills against Ross Systems for malfunctioning software.
The three-week trial, which took place in late 2010, brought claims that software sold by Ross Systems created phantom orders, overstated inventories by billions of dollars and created havoc in Sunshine Mills' manufacturing, accounting and shipping departments. At one point, according to court testimony, trucks were backed up into the street as Sunshine Mills workers loaded and unloaded the same vehicles multiple times because of glitches in the software.
A second round of litigation is now in play. Ross has sued Sunshine Mills in US District Court in Atlanta, saying the company is still using its software, now without a license.

Michigan, USA, man charged with embezzlement from Wysong Corp.

Walter J. Reynolds of Bay City, Michigan, USA, is accused of embezzling more than US$100,000 from petfood producer, Wysong Corp., according to mlive.com.
Reynolds, 27, was charged Tuesday, Jan. 4, with three counts of embezzlement less than US$20,000, a five-year felony. The investigation into the embezzlement began in September 2010, according to Midland, Michigan, USA, Police Detective Lt. Gregory H. Kramer. Police released few details in the case and it is unknown if Reynolds was employed by Wysong or what work he performed for the company.

Appeals court rules in class-action petfood lawsuit

A 3rd District US Court of Appeals ruled that a US$24 million class-action lawsuit settlement over melamine-contaminated petfood was a "fair, reasonable and adequate" deal, but sent the case back to a New Jersey district court judge for more information.
The appeals court sent the case back to New Jersey US District Court Judge Noel Hillman, who originally approved the deal in November 2008, for more information supporting the purchase-claim limit of US$250,000. According to the appellate court decision, 20,550 of the 24,344 claims submitted in the suit were deemed payable for a total estimated amount of US26.4 million, which exceeds the settlement fund by more than US$2 million. Appeals filed by two separate parties previously blocked disbursements from this settlement fund. Lisa Rodriguez, liaison counsel for the multiple class-action suits covered by the settlement, described the appeals court’s concern as minor and said that claimants may seek reimbursement in a number of categories, including purchases, but that the decision generally favors the claimants.
The petfood scandal originated with Chinese suppliers that tried to boost the protein contents of their products by spiking wheat gluten and rice protein with nitrogen-rich melamine, a substance not approved for human consumption. The tainted product was imported by ChemNutra and sold to Menu Foods, a private label petfood manufacturer. It also affected several other petfood makers, including Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Mars Inc., Nestle Purina PetCare Co., The Iams Co., and Procter & Gamble. More information on the settlement and associated legal documents can be found here.

Petfood maker Sunshine Mills awarded $61 million in software lawsuit

Sunshine Mills was awarded US$61 million by an Alabama, USA, jury in a lawsuit alleging fraudulent sale and implementation of Ross Systems' enterprise resource planning beta software in 2005.
The lawsuit was filed in 2008 after the beta software demonstrated by Ross was supposed to work out-of-the-box but failed to do so when it went live, according to Daniel McDowell, one of the attorneys representing Sunshine Mills. Of the US$61 million in damages awarded by the jury, US$16 million were compensatory and US$45 million were punitive.
Ross Systems claims that the petfood maker "knowingly purchased a beta version of the software," which is still in use by Sunshine, and plans to appeal the verdict.

ASA challenges MPM leading brand claim

MPM Products has been cited by the Advertising Standards Authority (United Kingdom) for an advertisement pitting its Applaws cat food brand against Town & Country's HiLife, according to a news report.
Town & Country challenged MPM’s charges and asked MPM to prove its claims of Applaws being the leading brand in most UK pet stores.
In its defense, MPM provided data showing sales of Applaws from May 2008 to April 2009 and sales growth in 2008 were greater than the combined sales of three other cat food brands including HiLife, in the second and third leading specialist pet stores in the country.
ASA has rejected the ad, saying the data could not substantiate MPM's "leading brand" claims.

Australia suspends irradiation of cat food

An outbreak in neurological disorders in cats has lead Australia to cease sterilization of cat food by irradiation. Scientific studies have suggested food irradiation as the source of the illnesses afflicting cats, but exactly how irradiation is causing food to be toxic to cats is unknown.
Ninety cats in Australia were afflicted with neurological disorders after they ate Orijen imported dry cat food, manufactured by Champion Petfoods, according to Dr. Georgina Child, a neurologist familiar with the cases.
Only Australia, which requires irradiation of pet food, has reported issues with Orijen cat food; all other countries who imported non-irradiated Orijen cat food reported no problems.

Company to plead guilty in melamine case

ChemNutra Inc., a feed ingredient company, and its owners Stephen and Sally Miller intend to plead guilty in connection to 2007’s melamine-tainted petfood case, according to an article from The Associated Press.
In 2008, the Millers and ChemNutra were charged with selling contaminated ingredients to petfood manufacturers after pets fell ill or died from eating the contaminated petfood.
The Millers’ attorney recently filed legal documents in Kansas City, Mo., which stated the Millers agreed to plead guilty after negotiating with prosecutors. The company will also enter a guilty plea at a hearing June 16, according to the documents.