Crosner Legal has filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against a major national retailer, alleging that the company deceptively labels and markets certain dog food products by prominently claiming on the front of the packaging that they contain “No Artificial Colors, Flavors, or Preservatives.” According to the complaint, this statement is false because the products contain manufactured citric acid, which functions as an artificial preservative.
The lawsuit explains that the front labels of the products communicate to consumers that the food is free from artificial preservatives, a representation that is important to purchasers who increasingly seek pet food marketed as more natural and less processed. The ingredient panels for these products disclose the presence of citric acid identified as a preservative. The complaint alleges that the citric acid used is not the naturally occurring form found in citrus fruits, but rather a manufactured ingredient created through industrial fermentation that involves genetically modified black mold and chemical solvents. Regulatory bodies and scientific sources referenced in the complaint describe manufactured citric acid as synthetic and widely used in food manufacturing for its preservative properties.
The filing further notes that federal agencies, including the FDA and USDA, recognize citric acid as a preservative because it slows deterioration, helps prevent spoilage, and inhibits the growth of bacteria, mold, and yeast. Academic publications cited in the lawsuit similarly classify citric acid as a commonly used preservative in processed food products. These sources support the allegation that the products contain an artificial preservative despite representations to the contrary on the packaging.
The lawsuit alleges that reasonable consumers rely on statements such as “No Artificial Preservatives” when choosing food for their pets and are willing to pay a premium for products positioned as natural. By labeling the products in a way that suggests they are free from artificial preservatives when they contain a synthetic preservative ingredient, the retailer allegedly misleads consumers and gains an unfair advantage over competitors that do not make such claims.
The complaint asserts violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, as well as breach of express warranty. The action seeks restitution, damages, and injunctive relief requiring the retailer to correct its labeling and marketing practices so that consumers are not misled in the future.
Crosner Legal emphasizes that consumers deserve transparency when purchasing pet food products and should be able to rely on statements that appear prominently on product packaging. When companies state that a product contains no artificial preservatives while including a synthetic preservative ingredient, they misrepresent the nature of the product and undermine consumer trust. This lawsuit aims to hold companies accountable for deceptive marketing practices and ensure truthful labeling in the pet food marketplace.
If you purchased dog food advertised as containing no artificial preservatives but later learned that it includes manufactured citric acid or other synthetic ingredients, you may have legal rights. Contact Crosner Legal for a free and confidential case evaluation.
This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.