Skip to main content

Coupons as Diamond Pet Food Settlement?

Related News


  1. Mike

    I wonder who owns who?

  2. Robin

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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