The Orijen lawsuits were a cluster of consumer class actions filed in 2018 accusing Champion Petfoods of selling Orijen and Acana pet food that contained undisclosed heavy metals, BPA, and, in some batches, pentobarbital, while marketing the products as premium and “Biologically Appropriate.” Every case was dismissed or decided in Champion’s favor. Four federal appeals courts sided with the company between 2021 and 2023, no class was ever certified for damages, and no purchaser received a payment.1CDWA. Orijen Acana Class Action US
What the Lawsuits Claimed
The first complaint, Weaver v. Champion Petfoods USA Inc., was filed in the Central District of California on March 1, 2018. Similar suits followed in Wisconsin, Iowa, New York, and Washington through that year, and a June 2018 complaint extended the allegations to Champion’s cat food.2Petful. Orijen Lawsuit 20183Truth About Pet Food. Another Champion Pet Food Lawsuit — Now It Is Cat Food
The core claim was that Orijen and Acana products contained arsenic, mercury, lead, and cadmium at unsafe levels. The Wisconsin complaint cited average concentrations of 890 micrograms per kilogram of arsenic, 230 of lead, 90 of cadmium, and 20 of mercury, and argued these were “much higher than in food humans consider safe to eat.”4Top Class Actions. Orijen Acana Dog Food Contains Arsenic, Class Action Claims Plaintiffs relied heavily on testing by the Clean Label Project, a nonprofit that had rated Orijen Six Fish one star for heavy metals.2Petful. Orijen Lawsuit 2018
Later amendments added two more allegations. First, bisphenol A (BPA) was said to be present in or at risk of being present in the food.5ClassAction.org. Slawsby v. Champion Petfoods USA Inc., et al – Complaint Second, in March 2018 two lots of beef tallow that Champion’s supplier JBS delivered tested positive for pentobarbital, a barbiturate used to euthanize animals. Champion had manufactured 1.7 million pounds of dog food using the affected tallow, and roughly 100,000 pounds reached retail before the rest was retrieved.6FindLaw. Weaver v. Champion Petfoods USA Inc LP
Why the Courts Rejected the Claims
Court after court found the plaintiffs could not clear basic evidentiary and legal hurdles. The reasoning fell into three patterns: no proof the metal levels were actually harmful, no reasonable consumer would read the marketing as a factual guarantee, and no standing to sue over the pentobarbital because the plaintiffs hadn’t bought the contaminated batches.
Wisconsin, February 2019
A Wisconsin federal judge dismissed the heavy metals claims with prejudice, finding that the trace metals and BPA were naturally occurring and that there was “no compelling evidence” tying them to any dog illness. The plaintiff had simply not proved the metals in the food were harmful.1CDWA. Orijen Acana Class Action US7Law360. Pet Food Co. Dodges Suit Alleging Harmful Heavy Metals
Seventh Circuit — Weaver, June 2021
The Seventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of Scott Weaver’s claims. Champion did not add BPA to its food, and testing showed no detectable BPA in the Orijen products Weaver had bought. Weaver produced no evidence that a reasonable consumer would read “Biologically Appropriate” as a guarantee of BPA-free food. On pentobarbital, he lacked standing: he had stopped buying Champion’s products in August 2017, months before the contaminated tallow arrived. His theory that Champion should have audited its supplier earlier was “mere speculation or conjecture.”6FindLaw. Weaver v. Champion Petfoods USA Inc LP
Tenth Circuit — Renfro, February 2022
The Tenth Circuit produced the sharpest language of the saga. It classified phrases like “Trusted Everywhere,” “Ingredients We Love [From] People We Trust,” and “Fresh and Regional” as “vague generalities” and “non-actionable puffery” that no reasonable consumer would treat as specific factual claims. “Biologically Appropriate” was a general statement of quality, not a promise that the food excluded heavy metals or fillers.8U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Renfro et al. v. Champion Petfoods USA, No. 20-1274 Reuters ran the ruling under the headline “‘Biologically appropriate’ dogfood label mere puffery, says court.”9Reuters. ‘Biologically Appropriate’ Dogfood Label Mere Puffery, Says Court The panel disposed of the pentobarbital claim on the same standing grounds as the Seventh Circuit: the plaintiffs had not alleged they bought the specific batches made with contaminated tallow.
Second Circuit — Colangelo, June 2023
On June 6, 2023, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Champion in Colangelo v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc., a fraud-by-omission case arguing Champion should have disclosed the presence of heavy metals. The court held the information was not “exclusively within Champion’s possession.” Nearly all pet food contains measurable heavy metals because they occur naturally, the packaging disclosed fish-based ingredients, published studies show seafood carries elevated concentrations, and regulators had issued guidelines on the topic since at least 2005. A reasonable consumer, the court concluded, “could have discovered that Champion’s pet foods had a material risk of containing some measurable amount of heavy metals.”10The Brooks Institute. Heavy Metals Pet Food Order Bloomberg Law called it Champion’s fourth consecutive appellate win in the deceptive-labeling litigation.11Bloomberg Law. Champion Petfoods Defeats Fourth Deceptive Label Lawsuit Appeal
Washington — Rydman, April 2024
The last active case, filed in Washington by plaintiff Holly Rydman, went through partial summary judgment for Champion on the “Biologically Appropriate” and heavy-metal omission claims. Claims about “fresh” and “regional” labeling survived that ruling, but on April 26, 2024, the case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of the parties, ending the class action series.12The Brooks Institute. Holly Rydman v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc., et al13PACER Monitor. Rydman v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc. et al
The Numbers Champion Put on the Record
Champion’s own testing data, drawn from three years of results between 2014 and 2017, put its heavy-metal levels well below regulatory ceilings. Arsenic averaged 0.89 mg/kg against a maximum tolerable limit of 12.50 mg/kg. Cadmium averaged 0.09 against a limit of 10.00. Lead averaged 0.23 against a limit of 10.00. Mercury averaged 0.02 against a limit of 0.27. Even the highest detected arsenic sample came in below 22% of the FDA-recommended limit, and cadmium and lead stayed under 5%.14Champion Petfoods. Champion Petfoods White Paper – Heavy Metals Champion called the suits “meritless” and said they rested on a “misinterpretation of the data.”2Petful. Orijen Lawsuit 2018
The Clean Label Project Problem
The testing that seeded the litigation came from the Clean Label Project, which used Ellipse Analytics to test 79 dog food products.15Clean Label Project. Dog Food Study White Paper Critics pointed to several methodological weaknesses: only one sample per product, no comparison of diets on a dry-matter basis, and no adjustment for the natural variation in metal concentrations between protein sources like ocean fish and poultry. Dana Brooks of the Pet Food Institute said the report failed to disclose “sampling methods, analytical protocols or how its findings compare to established safety thresholds.”16Pet Food Industry. Clean Label Project Redux — We’ve Seen This Playbook Before The study was not peer-reviewed, and CLP earned affiliate commissions on pet food sold through Amazon links on its site, including products it had rated poorly, while also running a paid certification program for brands.17All Pet Food. A Scientific Review of Clean Label Project’s Report on Heavy Metals in Dog Food
The Advocacy Suits That Did Change Labels
Two lawsuits filed by advocacy groups sat outside the consumer class actions and ended differently. Animal Equality sued in July 2020, alleging Acana fish marketed as “wild-caught” came from industrial farms in Idaho. The Organic Consumers Association sued over “free-run poultry” claims, alleging the birds came from Tyson contract growers kept indoors.18ClassAction.org. Champion Petfoods Acana Orijen Lawsuit Both were resolved by January 2021. Champion agreed to correct the “wild-caught” claims on its website for Acana products with farm-raised trout, provide more transparency about fish sourcing, and remove “free-run poultry” from affected packaging. It also agreed to bring in an animal welfare consultant for employee education.19Animal Equality. Resolved: Lawsuit Against Champion Petfoods Acana These suits sought advertising changes rather than consumer refunds, so no class was certified and no purchaser was paid.
Where Things Stand
Mars Petcare announced its acquisition of Champion Petfoods on November 1, 2022, and closed the deal on February 28, 2023. Champion now operates as an independent business unit within Mars Pet Nutrition.20Mars. Mars Petcare Completes Acquisition of Champion Petfoods No active class action against Champion over Orijen or Acana is being pursued, and the law-firm investigations that had been open have been formally closed.18ClassAction.org. Champion Petfoods Acana Orijen Lawsuit For consumers hoping to file a claim or collect a refund tied to the heavy-metals allegations, there is nothing to file against: none of the consumer class actions produced a monetary settlement or payment to purchasers.1CDWA. Orijen Acana Class Action US