Pet Food News

Coupons as Diamond Pet Food Settlement?

No kidding.  Diamond Pet Food agrees to a class action settlement from their 2012 Salmonella recall providing $2 coupons.  (Some)  Class members shall receive one or more coupons.

Even though Diamond Pet Food “deny any wrongdoing” in the 2012 Salmonella recall which resulted in Chicken Soup for the Pet Lover’s Soul, Country Value, Diamond, Diamond Naturals, Premium Edge, Professional, 4Health, Taste of the Wild, Apex, Kirkland Signature and Canidae being pulled from store shelves for possible contamination – the pet food manufacturer has agreed to a settlement with pet owners.


“There are three subclasses of class members. Subclass I includes consumers who purchased certain pet food products in 2011 and 2012.”

“The defendants will create a settlement fund limited to a maximum of $750,000 to pay claims from those who purchased the pet food. Members of this subclass who submit a valid claim form will receive either payment up to a maximum value of two bags of pet food 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 pet food per pet if the settlement fund is exhausted, if the total amount claimed by the eligible Subclass I members exceeds the funds available.”

“If applicable, Subclass I members can request reimbursement of the cost of veterinary care and/or the fair market value of the pet as set forth in Subclass II, according to the settlement order.”

“The defendants will create a settlement fund limited to a total maximum of $1.25 million to pay claims from Subclass II. Members of this subclass who submit a valid claim form will receive a full reimbursement of the actual cost of veterinarian testing, care and/or treatment.”

And then there is Subclass III pet owners… 

“Class members who submit valid claim forms shall receive one or more coupons with a face value of $2. A maximum of 50,000 coupons will be distributed.”


There is no information provided for pet food consumers who wish to get their $2 coupon from Diamond as reimbursement for a sick pet.



Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,

Susan Thixton
Pet Food Safety Advocate
Author Buyer Beware, Co-Author Dinner PAWsible
Association for Truth in Pet Food

What’s in Your Pet’s Food?
Is your dog or cat eating risk ingredients?  Chinese imports?  Petsumer Report tells the ‘rest of the story’ on over 2500 cat foods, dog foods,  and pet treats.  30 Day Satisfaction Guarantee.



2014 List
Susan’s List of trusted pet foods.  Click Here



Have you read Buyer Beware?  Click Here

Cooking for pets made easy, Dinner PAWsible

Find Healthy Pet Foods in Your Area Click Here

April 4, 2014

About Author


13 COMMENTS ON THIS POST To “Coupons as Diamond Pet Food Settlement?”

  1. Mike says:

    I wonder who owns who?

  2. Robin says:

    Why would the attorneys for the Class Action Plantiffs agree to such a ludicrous settlement??? Your food killed me pet…..but I’ll agree to accept some more at a DISCOUNT to make up for it”???? I realize this is a bit of an exaggeration, ( or maybe not) but still, the idea that proving more potential poison to a distraught pet owner after your original poison caused illness or death in the first place is insane.

  3. Dianna says:

    Who’s paying THOSE attorneys, we all wonder! What a slap in the face. Your pet food killed my cat but gee, thanks for the big $2 coupon so I can see my other cat die????

    I can’t believe the cruelty that goes along with the greed of these corporate brand name pet poisons!

  4. Ann says:

    Handling these products made some humans very ill — that’s how it all started — with the CDC tracing the source of illness in people to the dog food.

    Nothing Diamond does surprises me. What does mystify me is why informed consumers (who know Diamond’s history) continue to patronize this company’s products.

  5. Hope Williams says:

    I certainly see your points of view Mike and Robin and Dianna and in some ways totally agree with them. However two things come to mind: there could have been a settlement with key plaintiffs and it was agreed to not be disclosed AND the “coupon” part of the settlement simply makes for a PUBLIC interpretation that Diamond just doesn’t give a damn about pets but only profit. I know I for one am going to communicate this settlement to others and allow the others to come to their own opinions and I’m thinking they won’t be favorable after they review the list of foods that were removed from shelves–particularly Taste of the Wild!

  6. Juno's mom says:

    What I sent to Diamond:

    If you did the right thing, everyone would win, but you won’t.

    Profits and stockholders trump your customer’s pets, also known as family members. We see a degradation in quality when small companies sell to larger ones; same label, different product, i.e. Taste of the Wild.

    I doubt if anyone at Diamond will give a second thought to this comment or that it will make any difference, so I will take a proactive approach and perform due diligence by researching everything my pets consume down to sources.

    I will no longer purchase any of your products for my customers nor myself. Your settlement of offering coupons for a product that can no longer be trusted is an insult. This is how you lose customer confidence, but again, I don’t believe you care.

  7. Chris Sollers says:

    It’s not only Diamond at fault here ,it’s also the lawyers who accepted this settlement. It’s all about the money for them.

  8. Lesliek says:

    A total joke , just like most of the settlements involving big pet food . How a company handles a problem & deals with customer complaints is as important to me as how , where & of what it is made . They all matter if you or any 2 or 4 legged family member is putting it into their mouth .

  9. Maria says:

    What a joke!! Who would use the coupons which I am sure they know, no one will use them. It is a disgrace these companies thinks so little of our family members which are our pets.

  10. Tammy Baugh says:

    OK thanks for informing us of this. But I did convince Ronnie to buy a big bag of the Diamond Naturals. It did make Bruno ( our 200 lb Saint Bernard) vomit. I was wondering what was causing it. And 3 days later the news mentioned it or I saw it in the paper. Anyhow I called the Diamond company bag in hand. I read off the numbers. They quickly sent a refund check. We got Bruno a different type of food. No vet necessary problem solved. But what about those who were not as fortunate? Least it didn’t kill any of us! They can keep their coupon. We don’t want anymore of that!

  11. Libby says:

    Let me see if I follow this. Pets died. Some people lost their entire pet families. Some pets who didn’t die have been left with horrible medical problems which they will suffer for their entire lives. So, Diamond will give a $2 coupon, maybe more than one coupon. Am I missing something, or is this completely insane, not to mention a horrible slap in the face. What gives? How did anyone agree to this travesty? And who would want any more Diamond food, anyway. Diamond killed pets and they are “giving” bereaved owners the opportunity to pay them more money for more of the food that killed the pets.

  12. Peter says:

    The real issue that frames the legal environment as it relates to pet food manufacture is the “pets” are defined as “property,” and as such, are disposable. Liability is limited. Plaintiffs essentially cannot define the worth of their dogs or cats legally. Until this changes, pet food manufacturers will be able to consider these legal actions merely a cost of doing business, and be assured, their profit metrics accommodate that very readily. Remember, Menu Foods still lives today.

  13. Cynthia says:

    Wait – did any pets actually die from this? All the articles I read said that Diamond did a voluntary recall however no cases of illness were reported, and none of the recalled product tested positive for salmonella. Are there articles stating otherwise? If not, then Diamond is being quite generous. A recall is tremendously expensive for a manufacturer. I would like to know more facts before throwing Diamond under the bus.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

100% Supported by Consumers

This website and the advocacy work of Susan Thixton is

100% Consumer supported.

For Consumers
Susan Thixton author of this website is one of four pet food safety advocates.

Susan Thixton, Dr. Cathy Alinovi, Mollie Morrissette and Dr. Jean Hofve.

Each of the above has worked diligently to establish a working relationship with FDA and have advisory positions on AAFCO committees representing pet food consumers. We are working to give you a voice.
Support Independent Pet Food Stores
Click Here to find a store in your state.
Susan Thixton's author is a founding partner of the international pet food consumer association - Association for Truth in Pet Food. Through our consumer association, Susan has advisory position to AAFCO's Pet Food Committee and Ingredient Definitions Committee.