Skip to main content

Consumers v Party Animal Pet Food

Related News


  1. Sally Roberts

    Sorry low life LYING greedy, cannot even think of enough words for a business that wants us to trust them ! Hope they go to jail and shut them down too

  2. Jane

    Do you know what ingredients they did find in the food? It’s really oily (and apparently delicious!), so if it isn’t coconut oil, I’d love to know what it is!

  3. Underrated Movies

    Nice work, Susan. Apparently that pretty little “USDA Organic” label means absolutely nothing. Lesson learned. Regards…

    1. Peter

      “Organic” really does mean nearly nothing, owing to lack of enforcement. True organic production very intensive, and the products (in this example, meat) are/would be terribly expensive. But there is no consequence to using the term inappropriately.

      1. Peter

        Consumers really do need to have access to information about ALL of the foods that the Shers/Evanger’s are involved with. It is a legitimate safety concern.

  4. Pacific Sun

    Where the “rubber meets the road” is when Evanger’s (which no doubt has a Swiss Bank Account for such emergencies) offers a million dollar settlement out of court. With a $5 coupon promised to every wronged consumer. And for all records to be sealed! Whereas I believe “Nikki” truly wants reformation in the industry, we shall see what happens in this otherwise air-tight case.

    What’s so fascinating is to watch morons (like the Shers) openly impersonating another entity (in the face of one lawsuit) and yet living to see another day of successful business operation. How many IPS stores have even pulled their product.

  5. Ian

    OMG!!! Sorry that this happened via injury to pets…. but what an eye-opener for the industry at large. I’m sure a lot of pet food executives and manufacturers are cleaning up their act as we speak. I am also quite shocked at the bald-faced way that Sher sought to get all the pet food in question back ASAP “Mr. Sher requested that Ms. Black put all Party Animal food in her possession outside of her home and stated that FedEx would come pick it up and that he would replace the food with a different food at no cost. ” GOOD FOR HER THAT SHE DIDN’T GIVE IT ALL BACK!!! THANK YOU !!! I wonder how many other customers just trustingly gave it all back without independent testing? Susan, Ms Black deserves some kind of TAPF award as a fellow crusader !

    1. tallen

      I wholeheartedly agree!

    2. Pacific Sun

      Between returning nearly a case of PF (assuming it would be testing, to having the food tested herself …. I wonder how the idea of a lawsuit developed? You would think, the original lawsuit against Evangers, and now including Party Animal, would be combined, for greater impact. And with PA testing for Pentobarbital too, then how sick did HER pets get? Was that the trigger for action, or in reading about Evanger’s in the first place? Yes, I can see where the claim of “organic” is an additional plot twist, but still, the claim falls back to Evanger’s failure to perform, their misrepresentation, and lack of responsibility. So will this case, also be dependent now, upon how the case against the supplier/renderer turns ou? From what we’ve read on TAPF, Regulators are supposed to be very strict about actual labeling on a can or bag. As I said in the above post, …. we shall see.

      1. Dianne & Pets

        Perhaps if she joined with the other suit, she would be stuck if they decided to settle out of court and sign non-disclosure agreements. Maybe she is staying on her own because she won’t settle and she can only do that if she can’t be out voted by the other plaintiffs. Even if she tested because of the other suit, she was sold food that is adulterated and was mislabelled. Good for her.

  6. Marilyn C. Klein

    Does anyone know if any Party Animal cat food was involved in this ?

  7. Marsha

    So glad that she kept some of the food! Now lets see what they do! I would never give back food that a pet company wants. Let them squirm.

Leave a Reply