The legal complaint, filed in Kansas on February 6, 2024, is 124 pages of scathing evidence against Hill’s Pet Food, the Morris Animal Foundation, the Mark Morris Institute, Dr. Lisa Freeman, Dr. Joshua Stern, Dr. Darcy Adin and others claiming all were involved in “an egregious, wide-ranging, and damaging campaign of coordinated, for-profit, faux-scientific misinformation by a large corporation” to make veterinarians and pet owners (falsely – per the lawsuit) believe grain-free pet foods were dangerous, linked to canine heart disease.

“Using the tools of professional science and Hill’s vast veterinary influence network, the goal of the scheme was to persuade American pet-owners that grain-free diets weren’t just “fad diets” but actually dangerous for dogs—an argument that, if successful, had the potential to eradicate the entire grain-free sector of the pet food market. They have been carrying out this wide ranging scheme ever since and it has been, by any measure, a breathtaking (if unlawful) success.”

The lawsuit complaint introduces the case with this information:

“Hill’s is unique among these three so-called “traditional” pet food companies for three different reasons. First, it is the smallest of the three—its annual revenues dwarf those of most other pet food brands, but they are only about 20% of Purina’s revenues. Second, as by far the largest maker of “prescription-only” diets in the country and as the self-proclaimed “#1 Vet Recommended Brand,” Hill’s is tied much more closely to the veterinary community than either Mars or Purina. For Mars and Purina, marketing to vets and distributing through vet clinics are both relatively inconsequential parts of their sprawling companies; for Hill’s, they are a major component of the business.“

“The third thing that makes Hill’s unique among the three “traditional” pet food companies is its uniquely poor financial performance in the years leading up to 2018, when the misconduct at the heart of this suit began. During this period, the market for pet foods made by “non-traditional,” often independent, brands was growing explosively. For example, from 2011 to 2017, sales of “grain-free” dog foods, a leading category among independent makers, rose from 15% to 44% of all dog food sales in American pet specialty stores. Purina was so large and diversified that it weathered this storm successfully, growing steadily and preserving its market share from 2014 to 2017. But Hill’s did not. Over the same four-year period, Hill’s annual revenues were pancake-flat and its market share plunged by more than 20%. Long the third-largest seller of complete-diet dog food in the country, Hill’s fell to fourth in 2018, after being overtaken by Blue Buffalo, the largest of the new wave of “non-traditional” pet food brands.”

“Thus, beginning no later than 2018, Hill’s and a cluster of associated entities and individuals (collectively with Hill’s, the “Defendants”) embarked on a drastic and unlawful course to reverse this slide. They carried out a scheme to falsely convince American dog owners that a massive, unrelated, and hugely diverse group of dog food products—essentially any product made by any of the hundreds of independent firms that were collectively eroding Hill’s market share—all increase the risk and severity of a deadly canine heart disease called dilated cardiomyopathy (“DCM”).”

“To carry out the scheme, Hill’s, along with a group of closely-bound academic veterinarians (the “Veterinarian Defendants”) and front organizations operating on Hill’s behalf, acted in a coordinated conspiracy.”

“First and most explosively, the Veterinarian Defendants fraudulently induced the United States Food and Drug Administration to launch a high-profile investigation into DCM.”

“The second strand of Defendants’ scheme: Hill’s co-conspirators, the Veterinarian Defendants authored study after study about DCM and then mischaracterized the findings.”

“The Defendants also created and fostered social media environments including at least one Facebook group that was an echo chamber, suppressing any contradiction of the propaganda campaign.”

And then this lawsuit proceeds to provide detail after detail to how the Defendants allegedly fabricated the entire grain-free pet food link to canine heart disease scheme.

Such as “Part One: The Cherry-Picking Scheme
(Defendants Fraudulently Induced the FDA to Launch a High-Profile Investigation into Grain-Free Diets and Canine Dilated Cardiomyopathy)“

Quoting: “Significantly, 23 of the 28 canine cases in this report, or more than 80%, came from either Dr. Freeman or Dr. Adin. Just five came from sources other than these Defendants, in a nation with 70 million dog owners.”

“Dr. Freeman and Dr. Adin deliberately and intentionally chose an unrepresentative group of cases to show the FDA. They did this by “cherry-picking” DCM cases involving grainfree diets and submitting those to the FDA while simultaneously withholding cases involving grain-containing diets.”

The lawsuit included this image of an email from Dr. Freeman to FDA regarding her “protocol” to submit DCM cases to FDA (note the second bullet point under item 2):

Lawsuit continues (bold added): “In other words, under the protocol that Dr. Freeman established, an FDA report should only be submitted if a DCM-positive dog was not eating one of the core products made by either Hill’s or one of the other two largest and best-established manufacturers in the country. Freeman’s own protocol establishes that she cherry-picked her sample in a way that would create the impression of a connection between smaller brands’ products and DCM, whether grain-free or not.”

The above is only a small part of a very detailed lawsuit. It includes a wealth of information evidencing the many involved – and why they are involved – in the claimed scheme. It includes damning information about the influence of Hill’s with veterinary schools, information on Dr. Freeman’s similar attack on raw pet food, and so much more.

To read the full complaint, Click Here.

The lawsuit is a class action, but the only Plaintiff mentioned is Ketonatural Pet Foods, Inc. The suit is seeking “lost profits, reputational damages, and other economic injuries in an amount exceeding $2 billion (precise amount to be proven at trial).”

Personal opinion: This lawsuit took courage to file; filing any lawsuit against Big Pet Feed giants is not a simple matter. This lawsuit gives us hope that manufacturers and veterinary scientists will – in the future – ‘think twice’ before participating in potential schemes to defraud the public. Hidden secrets CAN become public knowledge when determined individuals have the courage and endurance to keep digging for the evidence. Kudos to Ketonatural Pet Foods for their determination. We will continue to watch this lawsuit closely.

Wishing you and your pet(s) the best,

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