A federal appeals court on Tuesday reinstated the adoption dispute resolution process for class action lawsuits filed by pet owners against pet manufacturers, veterinary clinic chains and a pet retailer who argued that the sale of prescription food in California.
The plaintiffs allege in the trial that the prescription requirement and advertising lead reasonable consumers to falsely believe that pet food has been subject to regulatory control and supervision and has medicinal and medicinal properties, according to the shared opinion of the 9th U.S. District Court in San Francisco Tamara Moore et al. v. Marks Petcare US, Inc. et al.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated California's law on unfair competition, the law on false advertising and the law on consumer law.
Mrs. Moore allegedly spent $ 3.44 per pound for prescription dog food with urinary care when over-the-counter pet food had a number of common ingredients sold for $ 2.73 and $ 2.45 per pound.
The U.S. District Court dismissed the case on the grounds that the appellants did not state a probable claim. When the majority of the panel of judges reversed the lower court's statement, the lower court said that the recipe for labeling pet food seems deceptive and misleading. Common sense dictates that a product that requires a prescription can be considered a drug that involves a drug or a controlled substance. … In addition, the brand name "prescription pet food" can be misleading. "
The majority said that" the district court seems to have discounted the potential to mislead in part because veterinarians play a role in the referral process. "I" regardless of the extent to which the district court assumed that veterinarians could tell the difference between food and medicine, is that the reasoning is insufficient according to the reasonable consumer test "the decision said.
The dissenting opinion says: "The sum and content of the complainants' allegations regarding the prescription coating is that a person who sees the word 'prescription' in connection with pet food would reasonably assume that the pet food has been monitored and approved by the FDA. [1
Complainant's attorney Michael A. Kelly, a shareholder in Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger in San Francisco, said he was pleased with the decision. He said the case can now continue to be discovered in what is "essentially a system" where manufacturers charge 25% to 40% more for regular pet food that does not contain medication.
Defense attorneys in the case could not be reached for comment.