The Royal Canin lawsuit is a proposed consumer class action filed in Missouri accusing Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. and Nestle Purina Petcare Co. of marketing ordinary dog and cat food as “prescription” products to justify inflated prices. After a six-year detour through the federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on January 15, 2025, that the case belongs in Missouri state court, where the underlying consumer claims are now set to be litigated on the merits.1Supreme Court of the United States. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger
What the Lawsuit Claims
Anastasia Wullschleger and Geraldine Brewer filed the case on February 8, 2019, in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri. They allege that Royal Canin and Purina sell certain pet foods with labels requiring a veterinary prescription, a setup that implies the products contain medication or special therapeutic ingredients not present in ordinary pet food.2Cornell Law Institute. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger According to the complaint, those “prescription” products are actually ordinary pet food, and the prescription requirement exists to justify significantly higher prices.3Justia. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger
The original complaint pleaded six causes of action: two counts under Missouri antitrust law, two counts under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (one by each plaintiff against the respective defendant), and two counts of unjust enrichment.4Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. Wullschleger Western District of Missouri Remand Order The complaint also referenced the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in describing how the defendants’ products are regulated, a reference that later mattered a great deal for where the case would be heard.3Justia. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger
How the Case Reached the Supreme Court
On March 26, 2019, Royal Canin and Purina removed the lawsuit from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, arguing that the complaint’s references to federal law gave the federal court jurisdiction.2Cornell Law Institute. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger The district court sent it back to state court. The Eighth Circuit reversed in March 2020, finding a federal question in the pleading.
Back in federal court, the plaintiffs took a different approach. They amended their complaint to strip out every reference to federal law, reclassified their antitrust-conspiracy claims as state-law civil-conspiracy claims, and dropped the unjust enrichment counts entirely.5Oyez. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger They then asked the district court to send the case back to state court again. The district court refused and dismissed the suit. On July 31, 2023, the Eighth Circuit reversed once more, ruling that because the amended complaint contained no federal claims, the federal court had lost jurisdiction and the case had to be remanded.6U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Wullschleger v. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc.
Because other federal appeals courts had reached the opposite conclusion, the Supreme Court agreed on April 29, 2024, to resolve the question. Oral arguments were held on October 7, 2024.7SCOTUSblog. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger
What the Supreme Court Decided
Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court on January 15, 2025. All nine justices agreed that when a plaintiff amends a complaint to delete the federal-law claims that enabled removal, the federal court loses supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims, and the case must be sent back to state court.5Oyez. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger
The Court’s reasoning was straightforward. An amended complaint replaces the original, so courts must assess jurisdiction based on the new operative pleading. If that pleading contains no federal claims, there is nothing for state-law claims to be “supplemental” to under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1367. The Court also said the same rule applies whether a case started in federal court or arrived there through removal; jurisdictional rules should be uniform.1Supreme Court of the United States. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger
One important limit: the ruling addressed only the procedural question of which court hears the case. It said nothing about whether the “prescription” pet food allegations have merit. The consumer fraud and antitrust claims still have to be proved.
Where the Case Stands Now
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the case was ordered remanded to the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, where Wullschleger and Brewer originally filed it in 2019. The consumer fraud and antitrust claims against Royal Canin and Purina remain to be litigated on the merits in Missouri state court.1Supreme Court of the United States. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger Class certification, discovery, and any ruling on whether the “prescription” labeling actually violates Missouri law are still ahead.
The Broader Prescription Pet Food Litigation
The Wullschleger suit is one piece of a larger wave of class actions challenging the prescription pet food business. The core allegation repeats across cases: manufacturers label certain pet foods as requiring a veterinary prescription, charge premium prices, and imply the products contain medicinal ingredients or are specially formulated to treat disease, when the foods are nutritionally similar to non-prescription alternatives.
The practice sits in a regulatory gray area. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, pet food products intended to treat or prevent disease are technically classified as drugs and would require pre-market approval. The FDA has chosen not to enforce that requirement for therapeutic pet diets that meet certain conditions, including distribution solely through licensed veterinarians or under veterinary direction. That approach appears in a 2016 Compliance Policy Guide, which is internal FDA guidance rather than a binding regulation.8U.S. Food and Drug Administration. CPG Sec. 690.150 – Labeling and Marketing of Dog and Cat Food Diets The lawsuits argue that because no law actually requires a prescription for pet food, the entire prescription framework is a manufacturer-created device to inflate prices.
Defendants across the related cases include Mars Petcare (which owns Royal Canin and Iams), Nestle Purina, and Hill’s Pet Nutrition, along with retailers such as PetSmart and veterinary chains including Banfield Pet Hospital.9Pope McGlamry. Petfood Class Actions In one of the more advanced parallel cases, Vanzant et al. v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition Inc. et al., a federal judge in the Northern District of Illinois certified a class on September 29, 2023.10Pope McGlamry. Judge Greenlights Class Action Against Hill’s for Deceptive Conduct in Marketing Prescription Pet Food
For pet owners who purchased “prescription” diets from Royal Canin or Purina and are watching this litigation, the Supreme Court’s ruling means the Missouri case is now moving forward in the venue the plaintiffs chose. Whether the marketing was deceptive, whether it violated Missouri consumer protection or antitrust law, and whether a class will be certified are questions that state court will now decide.