Rachael Ray Nutrish dog food has been the subject of a series of class action lawsuits since 2017, most of them accusing the brand’s manufacturers of misleading labeling around terms like “natural,” “grain-free,” and “preservative-free.” Federal judges dismissed the earlier cases. A newer suit filed in 2025 over “preservative-free” claims is still active as of 2026. Rachael Ray herself has never been named as a defendant in any of them.
The Active 2025 Preservative-Free Case
The lawsuit currently in play was filed in 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by plaintiff Sevak Krikorian. It targets Post Consumer Brands, the current owner of Nutrish, and alleges that the pet food is falsely advertised as containing “no artificial preservatives” and being “preservative-free” when it actually contains artificially produced citric acid.1Top Class Actions. Rachael Ray Pet Food Falsely Advertises Preservative-Free Products, Class Action Alleges
The complaint brings claims of unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Krikorian is seeking certification of a nationwide class along with a California subclass covering purchases from the past four years.1Top Class Actions. Rachael Ray Pet Food Falsely Advertises Preservative-Free Products, Class Action Alleges
As of March 2026, a judge partially narrowed the case but declined to dismiss it outright, allowing the core claims to move forward.2Malk & Pogo Law Group. Press
The “Natural” Labeling Lawsuits
The first Nutrish class action was filed in February 2017 by Christina Grimm in the Central District of California against Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, the original manufacturer. Grimm alleged that Nutrish and Dish products were marketed as “natural” despite containing synthetic additives, including L-Ascorbyl-2-Polyphosphate, Menadione Sodium Bisulfite Complex, Thiamine Mononitrate, caramel color, and undisclosed “natural flavors.”3Crowell. Grimm v. APN, Inc., Case No. 8:17-cv-00356-JVS-JCG By January 2018 the case was stayed while the California Department of Public Health considered writing rules for “natural” pet food claims.4Truth in Advertising. Rachael Ray Nutrish Dog Food That rulemaking is still in progress; as of mid-2024, the state issued a final statement of reasons for a proposed regulation.5California Department of Public Health. DPH-18-016 Final Statement of Reasons
The Glyphosate Suit
The most publicized “natural” case was filed in August 2018 by Markeith Parks in the Southern District of New York. Parks alleged that Nutrish was falsely labeled “natural” because it contained glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. His complaint cited independent testing showing glyphosate at 19.85 parts per billion in the food.6ClassAction.org. Parks v. Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, Case No. 1:18-cv-06936 Separate 2018 testing by HRI Labs reported higher levels in certain varieties, including 350 parts per billion in a Dish Super Premium sample and roughly 421 parts per billion in a Real Beef and Brown Rice recipe.7Pets and GMOs. Dog Food Glyphosate Test Results
The suit sought class status with damages above $5 million under the Class Action Fairness Act, bringing claims under New York consumer protection law along with breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.6ClassAction.org. Parks v. Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, Case No. 1:18-cv-06936
U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton dismissed the case in April 2019, and after an amended complaint, dismissed it again in February 2020. The court found the detected glyphosate levels represented only 0.005% to 0.01% of the FDA’s tolerance for the chemical and were too small to make the “natural” label materially misleading.8Daily Intake Blog. Federal Judge Dismisses Amended Complaint Over Dog Food Labeled as Natural Containing Trace Levels of Glyphosate Weed Killer Parks appealed to the Second Circuit in March 2020.9Truth in Advertising. Parks v. Ainsworth Notice of Appeal
The Heart Disease Case Over Grain-Free Food
In June 2019 the FDA named Rachael Ray Nutrish among 16 dog food brands it was investigating for a possible link to canine dilated cardiomyopathy, a heart condition tied to grain-free formulas heavy in peas, lentils, and potatoes. The FDA did not issue a recall or tell owners to stop feeding the brands, saying the science was inconclusive.10NBC News. FDA Names 16 Brands of Dog Food Linked to Canine Heart Disease
The investigation still prompted litigation. Luanny Cohen filed a class action in the Central District of California claiming Nutrish Zero Grain products were taurine-deficient and deceptively marketed as “100% complete & balanced.” Cohen’s own dog had been diagnosed with severe cardiomegaly consistent with DCM in October 2018 after eating the food.11ClassAction.org. Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Rachael Ray Nutrish Zero Grain Dog Food Hazardous to Dogs’ Health
U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi dismissed the case with prejudice on January 21, 2021. He ruled that Cohen had not plausibly shown grain-free food requires taurine supplementation to prevent DCM, that the scientific sources she cited were inconclusive, and that her own allegations contradicted themselves by simultaneously calling taurine fortification “required,” “not required,” and “possibly could be required.” Because Cohen had already been given a chance to fix the complaint, the judge barred further amendments.12ClassAction.org. Cohen v. Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, Case No. 2:20-cv-05289 Dismissal Order
The Dog DNA in “Just 6” Food
In April 2020, Erin Kirchenberg sued over Nutrish “Just 6,” a product sold as a limited-ingredient diet. DNA testing attached to the complaint reported 0.008% dog DNA and 0.012% horse DNA in a sample of the Lamb Meal and Brown Rice recipe, along with corn, wheat, soy, and beef, none of which appeared on the label. The suit alleged breach of implied warranty. The likely explanation offered was that the lamb meal, a rendered ingredient, had been processed at facilities handling multiple animal species.13Truth About Pet Food. Lawsuit Testing Finds Dog DNA in Dog Food
Who Actually Gets Sued
Rachael Ray has not been named as a defendant in any of these cases. The suits target the companies that make and sell the food. The Rachael Ray name is a registered trademark of Ray Marks II LLC, licensed to the manufacturers.14J.M. Smucker Co. The J.M. Smucker Co. Completes the Divestiture of Several Pet Food Brands to Post Holdings At least one complaint did name Ray Marks Co. LLC as a co-defendant alongside Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, alleging both entities were involved in formulating, manufacturing, advertising, or selling the products.15Truth in Advertising. Goetz v. Ray Marks and Ainsworth Pet Nutrition Complaint
The corporate defendant has changed over the years. Ainsworth Pet Nutrition originally manufactured the line. J.M. Smucker acquired Ainsworth in 2018, then sold Nutrish and several other pet food brands to Post Holdings in April 2023. Post now handles the brand through its Post Consumer Brands division, which is defending the current preservative-free lawsuit.14J.M. Smucker Co. The J.M. Smucker Co. Completes the Divestiture of Several Pet Food Brands to Post Holdings
Why These Lawsuits Keep Coming
A common thread runs through every Nutrish case: what “natural” and similar labels actually mean. The FDA has never formally defined “natural” for pet food and relies on a general requirement that labels not be false or misleading. The Association of American Feed Control Officials offers a model definition, under which a “natural” ingredient must come from plant, animal, or mined sources and cannot be chemically synthesized. Synthetic vitamins, minerals, and trace nutrients are allowed if the label carries a disclaimer such as “Natural with added vitamins, minerals and trace nutrients.”16AAFCO. Understanding Pet Food – Natural Those definitions are not binding federal law, and states adopt them unevenly. That gap between what consumers assume and what labels are required to prove is the space these lawsuits keep filling.