Hill’s “Prescription Diet” Pet Food

August 2019: The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of this case finding, among other things, that the complaint included enough details to meet the pleading requirements for the fraud claim. (Vanzant et al v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition and PetSmart, Inc., Case No. 17-3633, 7th Cir.)

December 2017: The named plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the dismissal of this case.

November 2017: A federal judge dismissed this action concluding, among other things, that the complaint did not meet the heightened pleading requirements for fraud-based claims.

June 2017: The claims against Banfield Pet Hospital and BluePearl Vet were voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled., the reasons for which were not disclosed. The next day, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint bringing similar allegations but naming only Hill’s Pet Nutrition and PetSmart as defendants.

April 2017: This case was transferred from state court to federal court. (Case No. 17-cv-2535, N.D. Ill.)

March 2017: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Hill’s Pet Nutrition, PetSmart, Banfield Pet Hospital, and BluePearl Vet for allegedly deceptively marketing that Hill’s “Prescription Diet” pet foods will treat and prevent conditions related to the heart, kidneys, liver, and joints, among other things, and that consumers need a prescription from a veterinarian to purchase the pet foods when, according to the complaint, the “Prescription Diet” foods are not materially different from non-prescription pet foods and consumers are not legally required to have a prescription to purchase them. (Vanzant et al v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc. et al, Case No. 2017CH03121, Illinois State Court – Cook County)

For more of TINA.org’s coverage of the marketing of pet products, click here.