A quibble over kibble is proving to be a supreme problem at the highest court
US Supreme Court hears Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger
WASHINGTON (Gray DC) - Back in 2019, a pair of dog owners in Missouri bought prescription pet food from the company Royal Canin and Purina, that didn’t pass the smell test.
A lawyer in the case, Trip Coyne, says the company deceptively marketed the product as “prescription” so they could charge a premium.
“In the heart of our claim is that people were misled by a prescription requirement that was invented by the large food companies,” said Coyne.
Coyne explains why the deception causes consumers to roll over.
“Once you put it behind the pharmacy counter, people are just programed to pay whatever it costs because it’s a drug or medicine for their loved one. It’s no longer a normal consumer decision,” said Coyne.
Here’s where the scent of this story gets thrown off.
“The underlying basis for the claim, the claim about the dog food is not going to play any role before the United States Supreme Court,” said Scott Dodson, distinguished professor of law at University of California San Francisco.
He says the meat of this case is actually about whether someone can sue in state, or federal court.
“If the Eighth Circuit’s rule is upheld by the United States Supreme Court, it will limit the ability of plaintiffs to be able to select state or federal court, and it will limit the ability of defendants to it,” said Dodson.
Why is that important? He says companies usually have a leg-up in Federal Court. Individual plaintiffs usually fetch better results at the state level.
“It is conventional wisdom that corporations and businesses tend to prefer to litigate when they’re defendants in federal court as opposed to state court,” said Dodson.
A ruling could determine who gets a fair shake.
Copyright 2024 Gray DC. All rights reserved.