Pet Food Lawsuits: Orijen and Acana Heavy Metals, Rachael Ray Nutrish Preservatives

Orijen and Acana are premium dog and cat foods made by Champion Petfoods. In May 2017, after a poor rating from the Clean Label Project, Champion published a white paper disclosing heavy metal levels in its foods and saying they were within ranges considered acceptable for dog foods. Starting in 2018, buyers filed class actions in several federal courts claiming the foods contained arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury, and BPA that contradicted marketing describing the foods as fit for humans.

The New York case, filed October 16, 2018, did not claim the food was unsafe or harmed any pet. The plaintiff said she would not have paid premium prices had she known about the metals. The trial court granted summary judgment to Champion on the heavy metal claims, and in June 2023 the Second Circuit affirmed, ending that case in Champion's favor.

As of September 2026, we found no pending Orijen or Acana heavy metal class action and no settlement. Champion's position, set out in its 2017 white paper, is that the levels were within ranges acceptable for dog foods.

The Champion litigation is a useful warning about what these cases need. In the New York case, the plaintiff did not claim the food was unsafe or harmed her pets; her theory was purely that she would not have paid premium prices had she known about the metals. Without proof that the marketing promised metal-free food, or that a reasonable buyer understood it that way, the claims failed at summary judgment and on appeal. Future heavy metal cases against pet food makers will likely need consumer survey evidence and testing tied to specific products and dates.

Krikorian v. Post Consumer Brands LLC, No. 2:25-cv-02122, was filed March 10, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Post Consumer Brands owns the Rachael Ray Nutrish pet food line. The complaint says the products are advertised as containing no artificial preservatives but contain citric acid, which it describes as an artificial preservative ingredient. It brings claims under California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, plus express warranty and unjust enrichment, on behalf of purchasers throughout California and the United States.

On March 20, 2026, Law360 reported that a federal judge trimmed implied warranty and omission allegations but refused to dismiss the false advertising suit. The remaining claims focus on affirmative misrepresentation: that the "no artificial preservatives" statement itself was false. No class has been certified.

The earlier Nutrish "natural" suit

A separate June 2024 class action against Ray Marks Co. LLC, which owns the Rachael Ray trademark, and Ainsworth Pet Nutrition claimed Nutrish products labeled "natural" contain synthetic ingredients such as citric acid, glycerin, zinc sulfate, copper sulfate, dicalcium phosphate, and xanthan gum. We could not confirm a ruling or settlement in that case.

The complaint says the case covers purchases sold online and in stores throughout California and the United States, and it describes citric acid as a manufactured ingredient that acts as a preservative. Post's likely defense, common in citric acid cases, is that the ingredient is used for other purposes or is not an artificial preservative in the way shoppers understand that phrase. The March 2026 ruling did not resolve that factual dispute; it only found the misrepresentation claims were adequately pleaded.

In Jeruchim v. The J.M. Smucker Co., No. 22-cv-6913 in the Northern District of California, buyers claim Smucker marketed pet foods as "100% healthy" and "nutritious" while the food contained titanium dioxide and the packaging may contain PFAS. On January 22, 2026, the court certified a class of all persons in California who bought certain 9Lives, Kibbles 'n Bits, or Meow Mix products from November 4, 2018 through December 31, 2022.

The court wrote that Smucker did not need to label its products "PFAS Free" for shoppers to assume they were free of such materials, especially when the packaging stressed health and nutrition. Whether PFAS actually migrates from packaging into food remains disputed and will be decided later. For background on these chemicals, see PFAS in consumer products and PFAS.

Smucker also argued that the named plaintiffs had not relied on the labels. The court noted that the plaintiffs first testified they had not reviewed the labels, but it credited later declarations saying they had. It also found the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that PFAS in packaging poses an unreasonable safety hazard that must be disclosed. The case continues toward trial or settlement, and certification does not mean Smucker has been found liable.

If you are in the certified Smucker class, you should receive notice explaining your right to opt out; you do not need to do anything to stay in. For Nutrish, you are a proposed class member but no class has been certified yet. See what class certification means.

Being in a certified class is different from being a proposed class member. In the Smucker case, California buyers of the covered products within the class period are already members unless they opt out after notice. In the Nutrish case, buyers are only proposed members until the court certifies a class or approves a settlement. In both cases, you do not need to sign up or hire a lawyer to stay included.

Pet owners often search for a lawsuit when what they need first is recall information. The two are different, and mixing them up can cost you time.

• A recall is a company's removal of a product from the market, often announced through the FDA, because of contamination, a formulation error, or another safety problem. Recalls tell you to stop feeding a product and how to get a refund or replacement from the seller or maker.
• A class action is a lawsuit on behalf of many buyers, usually seeking money for a misleading label or a defect. The cases on this page are label cases; none involves a recall.
• An individual injury claim is a separate lawsuit for a pet that got sick or died. Veterinary bills and the food's lot number are the key evidence.

If your pet became ill after eating a food, stop feeding it, keep the bag and lot code, save your vet records, and check the FDA's recall announcements for that brand. You can also report a problem to the FDA, which tracks complaints about pet food. See recall versus class action for how the two paths differ.

In the Smucker case, the certified class runs from November 4, 2018 through December 31, 2022, more than 4 years of purchases, which shows how long a class period can reach back. Class periods are tied to the statute of limitations and to when the challenged label was in use, so older purchases can matter.

None of these cases has settled, so there is no payout figure. Pet food refund cases usually aim to recover the price premium buyers paid because of a label claim. Because premium foods can cost far more than store brands, buyers who spent heavily over several years and can document it through Chewy, Amazon, or loyalty records would likely recover more than people claiming without proof. As of September 2026, no court had approved a settlement or claim form in the Nutrish, Smucker, or Champion cases. See whether you need proof of purchase.

Pet food labels are regulated by the FDA and by state feed laws, but "natural" and "no artificial preservatives" claims are mostly tested through state false advertising laws. Courts ask whether a reasonable consumer would be misled. The Champion rulings show a common defense: if the metals come naturally from ingredients and the company did not claim the food was metal-free, a court may find no deception. The Nutrish case turns on whether citric acid functions as a preservative and whether calling the food free of artificial preservatives was false.

California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act allows 3 years to sue and its Unfair Competition Law allows 4 years, under the state's statute of limitations rules, and a pending class action generally pauses those deadlines for proposed class members.

No Nutrish, Smucker, or Champion settlement claim form exists as of September 2026.

1. Download your Chewy, Amazon, or store order history for Rachael Ray Nutrish and Smucker pet foods.
2. Photograph labels showing preservative, natural, or health claims.
3. If you are in California and bought 9Lives, Kibbles 'n Bits, or Meow Mix from 2018 through 2022, watch for a class notice.
4. If a pet became sick, keep veterinary records and any remaining food.

If your pet was harmed and you want to know whether you have an individual claim, independent attorneys can look at it. A free case review takes about two minutes. Related: heavy metals in candy and food recalls.

How the free case review works: you answer a few questions about the food you bought, how long you fed it, and whether your pet had any health problems. It is free and there is no obligation. If your situation fits the cases independent attorneys are handling, one may follow up. If a pet food settlement is approved, you would file only through its official settlement website.

Nutrish and Smucker purchases can stretch back years. In the Smucker case the certified class begins November 4, 2018. If you want to bring an individual claim outside a class, for example because a pet was harmed, talk to an attorney well before any opt-out deadline in a notice you receive.