PetSmart Lawsuit: Groomer TRAPs, Dog Deaths, and Wage Settlement

PetSmart, the largest specialty pet retailer in the United States, has been sued repeatedly over the last decade on three main fronts: contracts that forced dog groomers to repay thousands in “training” costs if they left their jobs, the deaths of dogs during grooming appointments, and wage and hour violations affecting thousands of hourly workers. A PetSmart lawsuit filed by Colorado’s attorney general in July 2025 produced the most recent major settlement, but the company’s legal exposure runs back years and touches worker rights, animal welfare, and the fallout from its 2015 private equity buyout.

Colorado’s 2025 Case Over Groomer Training Contracts

On July 29, 2025, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser sued PetSmart in Denver District Court over what the state called deceptive “Training Repayment Agreement Provisions,” or TRAPs.¹ The complaint alleged violations of both the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and the Colorado Restrictive Employment Agreement Act.

PetSmart advertised its “Grooming Academy” as “FREE” and “PAID” training with “free tools.” According to the state, employees only saw the actual contract after they had enrolled and started working. That contract required a two-year commitment. Groomers who left before two years, whether they quit or were fired, owed PetSmart $5,500, or $5,000 if they declined the toolkit.² The amount was not meaningfully prorated. A groomer who quit after 11 months still owed the full sum; one who left at 23 months still owed half.¹

The state also alleged the contracts were often presented during shifts, on breaks, or while employees were actively grooming dogs, and that PetSmart kept enrolling workers into TRAPs even after Colorado amended its law in 2022 to restrict such arrangements.³

Collection was aggressive. Starting in 2019, PetSmart referred at least 21 Colorado workers to debt collector IC System, and at least eight of those workers had the debts reported on their credit records.² Former employees who didn’t pay were threatened with civil lawsuits, collection fees, attorneys’ costs, and interest at the “highest rate permitted by law.”¹

On November 13, 2025, the attorney general’s office announced a proposed settlement. PetSmart agreed to stop the deceptive academy advertising, halt all collection under existing TRAP contracts, notify every groomer who completed the program that they were free of any repayment obligation, and pay $225,000 to the state.⁴

The Earlier California Class Action

Colorado was not the first challenge to PetSmart’s training contracts. In July 2022, groomer BreAnn Scally filed a class action in California Superior Court, arguing the TRAP program was either an illegal cost-shifting scheme, since the training mainly benefited PetSmart, or, alternatively, that PetSmart was operating as an unapproved for-profit college by charging workers for skills training.⁵

PetSmart removed the case to the Northern District of California (Case No. 4:22-cv-06210-YGR). On May 25, 2023, the court effectively ended the case as a class action by ordering Scally into individual arbitration. The judge struck down one cost-splitting provision as unconscionable but otherwise enforced the arbitration agreement Scally had signed as a condition of employment.⁶ Scally sought leave to appeal.⁷

Lawsuits Over Dog Deaths During Grooming

The company has faced a separate stream of litigation from pet owners whose dogs died at PetSmart salons. A 2018 investigation by NJ Advance Media documented 47 dogs that died during or shortly after grooming at PetSmart stores between 2008 and the reporting date. Thirty-two of those deaths occurred after 2015, and 20 involved brachycephalic breeds such as English bulldogs, which are especially vulnerable to breathing problems and heat stress.⁸ A September 2021 report by the advocacy group United for Respect found that reported dog deaths in PetSmart’s care rose from 15 between 2008 and 2014 to more than 30 between 2015 and 2018.⁹

Former employees quoted in the NJ Advance Media investigation described an “assembly line” model after 2015 in which groomers were pressured to handle six to eight dogs per eight-hour shift, and said training was sometimes rushed. PetSmart denied any systemic problem, calling such assertions “false and fabricated.”⁸

Kobe the Toy Poodle

On November 17, 2020, a toy poodle named Kobe died during a nail trim at a PetSmart in Pittsburgh’s East Liberty neighborhood. The Humane Animal Rescue of Pittsburgh concluded the dog’s neck was likely hyperextended after employees restrained him with two tethers and his paws off the grooming table.¹⁰ Four former employees, Julie Miller, Shaphan Stonge, Elizabeth Doty, and Heather Rowe, were charged with felony animal cruelty and neglect.¹¹ Kobe’s owner, CBS Sports reporter AJ Ross, later sued PetSmart and two of the employees, alleging negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, consumer protection violations, and fraud.¹² Ross said PetSmart offered her a replacement dog if she signed a nondisclosure agreement. She refused.

Henry the Dachshund

In San Mateo, California, a dachshund named Henry died during a nail-trimming appointment in May 2016 after suffering a punctured lung and two broken ribs. The groomer, Juan Zarate, was arrested on suspicion of felony animal cruelty, and the owners sued PetSmart for negligent hiring and supervision.¹³

Scruffles the English Bulldog

Not every claim held up. Danielle DiNapoli sued PetSmart after her English bulldog Scruffles died in December 2017, one hour after arriving at a Flemington, New Jersey store. PetSmart countersued for defamation. A court ruled Scruffles died from pre-existing health issues and found DiNapoli had “deliberately withheld” a necropsy report. In January 2020 she publicly apologized, acknowledging that “other health factors caused Scruffles’ death.”¹⁴

One legal reality shapes all of these cases: pets are classified as property, so owners typically struggle to recover significant damages, and attorneys are often reluctant to take the cases. Following the 2018 investigation, PetSmart said it would install cameras in all grooming areas, adopt enhanced intake assessments requiring groomers to refuse service to pets showing distress, restrict brachycephalic breeds to uninterrupted “express grooming,” and commission an independent review board. The camera rollout began in August 2018 with a completion target of August 2019, and the company held open houses at all 1,650 salon locations in September 2018.¹⁵ Some former employees told reporters those procedural changes wouldn’t fix what they described as deeper problems with staffing pressure.⁸

The $10 Million California Wage Class Action

PetSmart’s employment litigation isn’t limited to training contracts. In Moore et al. v. PetSmart Inc. (Case No. 5:12-cv-03577, N.D. Cal.), roughly 16,000 current and former groomers, grooming trainees, and other hourly employees across 132 California stores alleged the company’s piece-rate pay system, which paid groomers 50 percent of the grooming fee, failed to meet minimum wage requirements for time spent on non-grooming duties like cleaning and stocking. The suit also alleged missed meal breaks and unreimbursed tool costs. U.S. District Judge Edward J. Davila granted preliminary approval of a $10 million settlement, with a final approval hearing scheduled for March 2014.¹⁶

Private Equity Ownership and Congressional Scrutiny

Critics have tied much of PetSmart’s recent legal trouble to its 2015 acquisition by the private equity firm BC Partners for $8.7 billion, the largest leveraged buyout of that year. Within ten months of closing, BC Partners extracted an $800 million dividend, recouping nearly 40 percent of its equity. The firm also separated PetSmart from the online pet retailer Chewy, transferring PetSmart’s shares in Chewy, later valued at $26 billion, to itself.¹⁷

In November 2021, Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Mark Pocan wrote to BC Partners citing reports that dog deaths had more than doubled since the acquisition and that cost-cutting had led to understaffing, reduced training quality, and unsafe conditions, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the company allegedly cut staff, increased workloads, and refused hazard pay.¹⁷ BC Partners responded that it had invested more than $1 billion into the business and that nothing was “more important than the safe and responsible care of the animals.”¹⁸ State inspections told their own story: PetSmart facilities in Colorado received over 70 violations of the Pet Animal Care Facilities Act between January 2019 and March 2020, and stores at 20 North Carolina locations were ordered to improve conditions between June 2018 and February 2020.⁹

1
Colorado Attorney General. Attorney General Phil Weiser Files Lawsuit Against PetSmart Over Deceptive Groomer Training
2
HuffPost. Colorado Sues PetSmart Over Training Repayment Agreements
3
Denver7. Colorado AG Sues PetSmart for Allegedly Deceiving Dog Groomers
4
Colorado Attorney General. Attorney General Phil Weiser and PetSmart Reach Settlement
5
Towards Justice. Groundbreaking Lawsuit Against PetSmart Alleging Illegal Training Repayment Agreement
6
Truth in Advertising. Scally v. PetSmart, Order Compelling Arbitration
7
Student Borrower Protection Center. Former PetSmart Groomer Seeks Leave to Appeal District Court Decision
8
NJ.com. PetSmart Investigation
9
United for Respect. Greed Unleashed Report
10
People. PetSmart Employees Charged After Poodle Dies During Grooming Visit
11
Oxygen. Charges Brought Against PetSmart Workers After Dog Dies
12
CBS News Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh Native Files Lawsuit Against PetSmart Over Dog’s Death
13
Courthouse News Service. PetSmart Sued Over Puppy’s Death at Hands of Groomer
14
NJ1015.com. NJ Woman Apologizes After PetSmart Bites Back Against Dog Death Claim
15
Chain Store Age. PetSmart Ups Its Grooming Game
16
Top Class Actions. PetSmart Employees Win $10M Wage and Hour Settlement
17
U.S. Senate. Warren and Pocan Seek Answers From BC Partners Following Reports of Inadequate Working Conditions and Rise in Pet Deaths at PetSmart
18
Forbes. PetSmart’s Private Equity Owners Dogged by Worker Rights Campaign