What is the Hill s dog food lawsuit
Hills settles class action lawsuit over vitamin D recall
NEW YORK A Kansas federal judge has approved an initial $12.5 million settlement involving Hills Pet Nutrition and a class action lawsuit representing 71 people. The settlement would resolve a lengthy class action lawsuit claiming damages related to the companys widespread dog food recall in January 2019.
The recall involved 54 lots, approximately 675,000 cases of canned dog food, that contained potentially toxic levels of vitamin D. Multiple class action lawsuits were filed against the company by affected pet owners in February 2019.
Additionally, $4 million was awarded in attorney fees. US District Judge Julie A. Robinson, who approved the settlement, said more than 3,000 hours were spent litigating the case. The settlement was granted preliminary approval in February 2021 and allows class members to make claims for reimbursement both for purchasing the products and treatment of injuries to their pets. Any leftover funds from the settlement will go to Unleashed Pet Rescue.
Multiple lawsuits against Hills Pet Nutrition related to elevated vitamin D claims were consolidated in July 2019, after the US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation found there were common factual issues among the suits and that consolidating would streamline the process.
The suits each claim that varieties of dog food sold by Hill's Pet Nutrition contained dangerous levels of vitamin D, with some plaintiffs alleging the food led to their pets' deaths. According to a suit filed in New York, Hill's recalled some of its specialty pet food products in January 2019 but should have instituted a recall much earlier.
Stay up to date on thelatest pet food processing industry headlineson our News page.
Hills Pet Food $12.5M Class Action Settlement
Top Class Actionss 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.
This settlement is closed!
Please see what other class action settlements you might qualifyto claim cash from in ourOpen Settlementsdirectory!
EDITORS NOTE: This content has been sponsored and edited for clarity in collaboration with the sponsor.
UPDATE 3:
- Readers reported this settlement paying out more than $2,500 as of Feb. 4, 2022.
- Congratulations to everyone who filed a claim and got PAID!
UPDATE 2:
- The Court granted final approval to this settlement July 30, 2021.
- Let Top Class Actions know when you receive a check in the comments section below or on ourFacebook page.
UPDATE:
- It has come to our attention that there have been some isolated browser related issues impacting claim submissions. If you are having an issue submitting documentation, submit your claim without any documentation and email [email protected] assistance in uploading your file.
Consumers who purchased certain Hills Prescription Diet or Hills Science Diet canned dog food between Sept. 1, 2018 and May 31, 2019 may be eligible to claim up to $20 without a separate proof of purchase (such as a receipt) or their full purchase price with proof of purchase thanks to a $12.5 million class action settlement.
Compensation also is available for consumers whose pets were treated for injuries consistent with consumption of excess vitamin D. For all claim types (including for claims without a proof of purchase), consumers will be required to verify under penalty of perjury the facts relating to their claim.
A list of these products is available at www.PetFoodSettlement.com.
Class Members will be eligible to file one or both types of claims.
The deadline to file a claim is July 2, 2021.
For complete information visit www.PetFoodSettlement.com.
Anyone who purchased, in the United States, certain Hills Prescription Diet and/or Science Diet canned dog food products between Sept. 1, 2018 and May 31, 2019.
Varies.
- Those submitting a Dog Injury Claim with documentation of out-of-pocket expenses may be eligible to be reimbursed. Submitting a claim is not a guarantee of reimbursement.
- Class Members may submit a Consumer Food Purchase Claim for up to the full price of the Hills products they purchased, unless they have already received reimbursement from a Hills retailer or other source.
- Consumer Food Purchase Claims must be submitted with proof of purchase in order for the Class Member to recover the full purchase price.
- Without proof of purchase, Class Members may submit a Consumer Food Purchase Claim to receive the manufacturers suggested retail price up to a total of $20.
Proof of Injury/Proof of Purchase
Those submitting a Dog Injury Claim must provide documents showing screening or treatment of their dog for symptoms consistent with consuming excess vitamin D as a result of consuming or using the Hills products.
Consumer Food Purchase Claims may be submitted with proof of purchase, such as a copy of a receipt, loyalty card records, cans bearing the SKU of the covered Hills products, or other documented proof showing payment to an authorized retailer.
CLICK HERE TO FILE A CLAIM
NOTE: It has come to our attention that there have been some isolated browser related issues impacting claim submissions. If you are having an issue submitting documentation, submit your claim without any documentation and email [email protected] assistance in uploading your file.
NOTE:If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. If you are unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrators website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator).
In Re: Hills Pet Nutrition Inc. Dog Food Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2887 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
Hills Pet Food Settlementc/o Settlement Administrator1515 Market St., Suite 1700Philadelphia, PA 191021-833-537-1191
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.
Please note: Top Class Actions is not a settlementadministrator or law firm. Top Class Actions is a legal news sourcethat reports on class action lawsuits, class action settlements,drug injury lawsuits and product liability lawsuits. Top ClassActions does not process claims and we cannot advise you on thestatus of any class action settlement claim. You must contact thesettlement administrator or your attorney for any updates regardingyour claim status, claim form or questions about when payments areexpected to be mailed out.
Seven Class Action Lawsuits against Hills Pet Nutrition
Filed on February 26, 2019 in the Central District of California, pet owners versus Hills Pet Nutrition; a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit states they bring this suit against Hills for (bold added):
their negligent, reckless, and/or intentional practice of misrepresenting,failing to test for, and failing to fully disclose the presence oftoxic levels of Vitamin Din their Contaminated Dog Foods (defined below) and for selling Contaminated Dog Foods that are adulterated and do not conform to the labels, packaging, advertising, and statements throughout the United States.
This particular lawsuit asks that Hills Pet Nutritionbe required totest all ingredients and final products for such substances (such as excess Vitamin D) and asks for pet owner financial relief in the same amountHills offered veterinariansin a previous announcement; offer Plaintiff and the proposed class $500 vouchers for each can of Contaminated Food as they have offered veterinarians and (iv) restoring monies to the members of the proposed Class.
This lawsuit quotes several claims from the Hills website including these two (that the recall proved are not accurate claims):
(g) We conduct final safety checks daily on every Hills pet foodproduct to help ensure the safety of your pets food.(h) Additionally, all finished products are physically inspected andtested for key nutrients prior to release to help ensure your pet gets a consistent product bag to bag.
The lawsuit also includes a quote from the FDA alert on the many excess Vitamin D recalls; (bold added for emphasis) Vitamin D, when consumed at very high levels, can lead to serious health issues in dogsincluding renal dysfunction.
Represented (among others) in this lawsuit is the owner of Taki, a chihuahua mix who consumed the toxic Hills dog food starting in November of 2018. Taki died of renal failure in February 2019.
To read the full lawsuit,Click Here.
To contact this law firm,Click Here.
In another of the seven lawsuits filed against Hills Stella, a dachshund rescue from Florida consumed just six cans of Hills i/d dog food. On January 26, 2019 she was in total kidney failure and had to be euthanized.
Another lawsuit appears to say that Hills had a Vitamin D problem much earlier and in their dry dog foods (similar to the excess Vitamin D recalls of other brands previous to Hills recall); (bold added) As a result of online consumer complaints,Hills thus knew or should have known of the elevated vitamin D levels in the Specialty Dog Foods by at least February of 2018.
In the lawsuit quoted above, Duncan a seizure alert trained service dog died on January 12, 2019. Taco died on January 24, 2019. Lily died on November 27, 2019.
All of the above heart breaking pet deaths are just a tiny glimpse into the destruction this toxic pet food caused.
To read other lawsuits filed against Hills Pet Nutrition (regarding the excess Vitamin D):
Click Here.
Click Here.
Click Here.
Click Here.
Click Here.
Click Here.
The price a pet food manufacturer pays for NOT properly testing ingredients: 7 class action lawsuits.
The price a pet owner pays for a reckless manufacturer that doesnt properly test ingredients: painful illness and death of their pet.
Nothing has changed since the 2007 pet food recall.In 2007, Hills issued 3 recalls for melamine contaminated pet food. No pet food manufacturer in 2007 bothered to test or validate the quality of vegetable protein ingredients (such as wheat gluten) in advance of using those ingredients in their pet foods. Those ingredients were later found to be contaminated with melamine responsible for killing thousands of dogs and cats. Fast forward 12 years,AGAIN Hills did not test ingredientsor validate ingredient quality.
How many pets have to die until each and every pet food manufacturer tests and validates the quality of ingredients?
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan ThixtonPet Food Safety AdvocateAuthor Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsibleTruthaboutPetFood.comAssociation for Truth in Pet Food
Become a member of our pet food consumer Association.Association for Truth in Pet Food is a a stakeholder organization representing the voice of pet food consumers at AAFCO and with FDA. Your membership helps representatives attend meetings and voice consumer concerns with regulatory authorities.Click Hereto learn more.
Whats in Your Pets Food?Is your dog or cat eating risk ingredients? Chinese imports? Petsumer Report tells the rest of the story on over 5,000 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee.Click Hereto preview Petsumer Report.www.PetsumerReport.com
The 2019 ListSusans List of trusted pet foods.Click Hereto learn more.
Cooking pet food made easy,Dinner PAWsible
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your AreaClick Here
Significant Hills Prescription Pet Food Lawsuit Will Continue
The lawsuit Stevie Kucharski-Berger v. Hills Pet Nutrition was originally dismissed. But thankfully an appeals court decided the district court erred in dismissing the case. This VERY interesting lawsuit will continue.
This lawsuit challenges the validity of prescription pet food, even indicating that Hills and other prescription pet food manufacturers conspired to charge high prices for per federal law adulterated and misbranded products.
After learning that Hills prescription pet food has no medicine or drug, that no prescription is legally required to purchase it, and that it is not tested and approved for medicinal purposes by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Kucharski-Berger sued Hills alleging that Hills and other pet food manufacturers conspired to monopolize the prescription pet food market and to artificially inflate prices by self-imposing the prescription requirement.
Background: Prescription Pet Foods DO violate federal law.
Prescription pet foods are given a Get Out Of Jail Free card by the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM). Federal law defines any product that makes a claim to cure, treat or mitigate disease as a drug. And the FDA CVM admits: By virtue of their intended use to treat or prevent disease, such products meet the statutory definition of a drug.
Drugs are required by federal law to prove their effectiveness and safety. Drugs are also held to strict manufacturing standards. Federal law also clearly states that a product that claims to cure or treat disease that did not meet the legal requirements would be adulterated and misbranded.
But prescription pet food isnt held to federal law. The FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine allows prescription pet food to make claims to treat disease without proving effectiveness and safety and without meeting manufacturing standards. This Get Out of Jail Free card is accomplished through an FDA Compliance Policy Guide titled Labeling and Marketing of Dog and Cat Food Diets Intended to Diagnose, Cure, Mitigate, Treat, or Prevent Diseases. A Compliance Policy Guide (CPG) is FDA Center for Veterinary Medicines method to do things their way, not the legal way.
The FDA Center for Veterinary Medicines way with prescription pet food is to allow manufacturers to use food grade or feed grade ingredients (including ingredients sourced from diseased animals or non-slaughtered animals) and allows inferior feed grade manufacturing standards to make a product that claims to cure or treat a disease. Further, the FDA plays perfectly into the scam by requiring these unproven products to be sold ONLY by veterinarians.
This lawsuit challenges the entire concept of prescription pet foods AND challenges the high cost of these products.
Quoting:
The prescription requirement does not make a product safe that is otherwise unsafe, it simply mitigates the harm that the food may cause due to the failure to gain FDA approval.
For example, Hills produces a Prescription Pet Food product called Prescription Diet Urinary Care c/d Multicare cat food that sells for $5.62 per pound, and another substantially similar non-prescription product called Adult Urinary Hairball Control cat food that sells for $3.51 per pound. The two products make essentially the same health claims and have a 75 percent overlap in ingredients. The non-overlapping ingredients are not drugs and are not sufficient to justify one product being sold by prescription for a significantly higher price. Given the overlap in ingredients, and the absence of any drug or other ingredient required to be sold by prescription in the Prescription Pet Food product, the only meaningful distinction between the two products that is apparent to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated is the prescription requirement. The price differential is therefore based largely, if not entirely, on the prescription requirement imposed by Hills and the other manufacturing conspirators in the combination.
The lawsuit claims that Hills Pet Food engaged in deceptive acts and practices in connection with the sale and advertisement of Prescription Pet Food in trade or commerce in the State of Kansas by misrepresenting and marketing and selling Prescription Pet Food through a knowingly deceptive, misleading, and self-imposed prescription requirement having no legal basis or mandate.
And the lawsuit alleges that Hills and other major prescription pet food manufacturers worked together to control the prescription pet food market and prices.
Kucharski-Berger later proffers in her petition that she has been informed and believes that agreements between and among Mars, Purina, Hills, PetSmart, and Banfield prohibit and restrict PetSmart and Banfield from stocking and selling Prescription Pet Food made by other competitors. In furtherance of this conspiracy, Hills entered into a merchandising agreement with PetSmart and Banfield, which Mars and PetSmart owned, to sell Hills Prescription Pet Food in all PetSmart stores with an on-site Banfield pet hospital. She alleges that although Mars had the power to exclude Hills from PetSmart and Banfield, it entered into the merchandising agreement against its economic interests, but as part of the previously noted agreement to control the market. Purina later joined the conspiracy. She alleges that Hills and its coconspirators have intentionally blocked smaller prescription pet food manufacturers from selling in PetSmart and Banfield stores.
And specific to the price fixing, this appeals court ruling drops a huge bomb. The court stated:
Hills argues that Kucharski-Berger failed to allege direct evidence of a trust or conspiracy to fix prices.
But Kucharski-Berger did allege a specific meeting in March 2005 where the issue of the prescription requirement was discussed and agreements were made the purpose and effect of which was raising, fixing, stabilizing and pegging prices of Prescription Pet Food. The central theme was to agree that they would support the prescription requirement to keep prices inflated. This alone provided enough detail to put Hills on notice of what conduct it was alleged to have participated in. And if true, it is certainly the smoking gun that Hills argues is necessary to support a conspiracy claim.
We can be thankful to the appeals court for upholding this lawsuit. We will certainly be following this lawsuit as it proceeds, looking forward to evidence as it unfolds. As more court documents are posted, they will be shared.
To read the court document Click Here.
Personal Opinion: Thank heaven for the lawyers that are fighting the injustices of pet food. I hate to think of where wed be without them.
Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,
Susan ThixtonPet Food Safety AdvocateAuthor Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsibleTruthaboutPetFood.comAssociation for Truth in Pet Food
Become a member of our pet food consumer Association. Association for Truth in Pet Food is a stakeholder organization representing the voice of pet food consumers at AAFCO and with FDA. Your membership helps representatives attend meetings and voice consumer concerns with regulatory authorities. Click Here to learn more.
Whats in Your Pets Food?Is your dog or cat eating risk ingredients? Chinese imports? Petsumer Report tells the rest of the story on over 5,000 cat foods, dog foods, and pet treats. 30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee. Click Here to preview Petsumer Report. www.PetsumerReport.com
Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here
The 2021 ListSusans List of pet foods trusted to give her own pets. Click Here to learn more.
