Skip to main content

Consumer Class Action Lawsuit filed against Evanger’s Pet Food

Related News

Comment8

  1. Ms. B Dawson

    Let’s hope this is the legal action against the Shers that finally gets them their due. This family seems be the Al Capone of the pet food industry, repeatedly slipping through the legal system and continuing to do business.

    Retailers and distributors should join in on this class action. The damage done to the industry as a whole is substantial. How many people will never trust commercial pet food again, including organic brands? I only hope that memories of this aren’t as short as with the Great Pet Food Recall.

    I’m also glad to see FDA called out. It will be interesting to see what repercussions that will create.

  2. geordie04

    I hope that blame is accorded exactly where it is due — this includes the FDA — and that this sets a ball rolling that comes to rest only when pet food is finally subject to effective safety regulation.

    Good luck to all the plaintiffs!

  3. Hannie

    I always thought Evangers was a healthy food & I fed it to my Lab for a while. Then I heard about some of the activities at their plant (like the gas line fiasco & how unsanitary it was) & that was it for me. I’m not sure how long ago that was but it’s been a few yrs. Now I’m thankful that I try to keep up to date on what pet food manufacturers are doing so I know whether or not I want to buy their food for my dog. As it is, I only use a tiny bit of kibble & the rest is human food that I cook for her. That’s the only way to be sure she’s getting real food & not friggin garbage. They make such a huge profit & it infuriates me.

  4. Reader

    Every legal initiative taken should be appreciated by the consumer. And this comment doesn’t mean, appreciation is not warranted. But I believe a company as desperate and underhanded as is Evanger’s will never let the light of testimony and deeper investigation, become a media spectacle. As with other suits, whatever the payout comes to be, Evanger’s will put it down on their annual loss sheet. And carry on. Maybe under a new name. What can’t seem to be corrected however (by consumers and legal counsel) is changing the course of non ethical behavior and mindset. Believing that somehow, animals aren’t entitled to the same treatment as human food demands! Animals (in their eyes) will always be an extension of property, and of insignificant monetary value.

    Sad but true.

    People should keep their expectations (of this suit) in check. Just as with Beneful, Purina, and a bunch of others over the long term.

    1. Batzion

      “Maybe under a new name.” I was thinking exactly the same thing. And yes, lawsuit payouts are considered part of the cost of doing business.

      Nevertheless, it is good to know that there may be retribution for little Talula’s death.

      Thank you, Susan for telling us about this.

    2. Peter

      For practical purpose… plaintiff’s counsel are the primary beneficiaries of class-action suits. The “lead party” who serves as the primary plaintiff (the consumer who brings the case to the court) is ordinarily named (“Mr. X Consumer vs. the defendant X X Company) and awarded a set-aside amount. The case is presented as representational of others, who are/may be “similarly situated” as the plaintiff. In order to reduce stress on the court system, the case is submitted for “certification” with multiple plaintiffs thus consolidated as a “class” to be considered at one time. Other consumers may then be invited to “join” the “class” if they meet certain criteria. That strengthens the class and the case itself. Cases/classes also get merged into district court systems along the way if claims overlap substantially for administrative convenience. Once a case is certified on behalf of thousands of consumers, the stakes are high. Many of the individual cases may be voluntarily withdrawn or dismissed for weaknesses by a judge, and as part of the process to narrow the issues. Its fair to expect about a third of the complaints are voluntarily dismissed or paid. But the filing attorneys would be paid, in every case. Still, even when a negotiated settlement on behalf of the class is reached—even if they are multi-million $ negotiations— there may be nearly nothing distributed to the consumers who were the basis for the suit in the first place. Often this may represent a “coupon” on future purchase of the product that none of them would consider buying again, anyway. Most affected consumers don’t respond to the requirement for paperwork involved considering these paltry “awards.” Almost none of the cases go to trial. In the end, while perhaps a moral victory for plaintiffs, settlements often are considered part of an overall manufacturing/marketing strategy and just a “cost of doing business.”

      I agree, sadly, as you suggest, that the Shers will likely pursue a course to avoid full litigation of the issues against them. The benefit, however, of this action, as all class-action suits, is raising consumer awareness. That is a good thing, and it may bring some meaning to the death of the Mael’s dog, which is important. If the allegations of the suit are accurate, I, for one, hope that damage to their company’s commercial reputation, which “has led to a significant loss of retail stores that will sell any of Evanger’s products” is amplified.

      In the meantime, the Sher’s have taken a page from the Blue Buffalo playbook, the one titled “Blame the Supplier!,” which (like BB) they are intending to re-direct (mis-direct, really) public attention with their suit against Bailey Farms LLC. In that, they continue to rely on the public’s lack of understanding of lax/non regulation in pet food manufacture, and, specifically, the issues revolving around the USDA-AFSIS non-certification. It is appalling and as Susan has discussed, the complaint revealed that the company was aware of and actively pursued its fraudulent claims of “human grade” ingredients.

      The Sher’s are pathological in their relationship with consumers and retailers.

  5. Chris Javier

    Thank you for sharing this.

  6. Carol

    My 96 lb shepherd mix almost died after consuming only 1/2 a can of this abomination Evangers calls dog food. I incurred $1500.00 in vet bills, not to mention the horrifying 2 days seeing my dog suffer and not knowing what was wrong with her! Finding out about 1 month after she was so sick, about the recall.
    I am joining in the class action lawsuit and will not stop spreading the word, sharing, shouting from the rooftops that NO ONE should EVER purchase this POISON!!!!!!

Leave a Reply