CASE NAME: Thea Zabnicki v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc.

CASE NO.: 1:26-cv-02899

JURISDICTION: United States District Court for the District of Colorado

FILED ON: June 28, 2026

CLASS DEFINITION: The proposed nationwide class includes all persons in the United States who purchased the challenged ACANA grain-free dog food products during the applicable limitations period, with an additional proposed New York subclass for purchasers in New York.

SUMMARY:

According to the complaint, Champion Petfoods USA, Inc. falsely marketed numerous ACANA grain-free dog food products as nutritionally complete, biologically appropriate, and beneficial for dogs while allegedly failing to disclose known risks associated with grain-free diets. The lawsuit contends that the products were promoted using statements such as “Complete Food for Dogs,” “Superfood for Dogs,” and “Biologically Appropriate,” despite allegedly lacking essential nutrients found in grain-containing diets and posing an increased risk of diet-associated dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), a serious heart condition. The plaintiff alleges that consumers paid premium prices based on these representations and that adequate warnings about the alleged risks were never provided.

ALLEGATIONS:

According to the complaint, Champion Petfoods manufactures and sells numerous ACANA grain-free dog food products throughout the United States. The lawsuit alleges that these products were marketed as premium, health-focused pet foods that provided complete and balanced nutrition suitable for regular canine consumption.

The complaint claims that grain-free diets replace traditional grains with ingredients such as peas, lentils, legumes, and potatoes. According to the lawsuit, these substitutions may reduce important nutrients while increasing reliance on ingredients that have been discussed in scientific literature regarding potential links to diet-associated dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). The complaint cites multiple veterinary studies, publications, and publicly available research that it alleges have associated certain grain-free diets with nutritional deficiencies and an increased risk of heart disease in dogs.

The plaintiff alleges that Champion continued marketing the products using claims emphasizing health, nutrition, and biological appropriateness despite this body of research. The complaint further alleges that no warnings appeared on the packaging informing consumers that grain-free diets could carry potential cardiovascular risks or may be appropriate only in limited medical circumstances.

The lawsuit focuses heavily on statements appearing on ACANA packaging, including representations that the food is “Complete Food for Dogs,” “Superfood For Dogs,” and “Biologically Appropriate.” According to the complaint, reasonable consumers would interpret these statements to mean the products provide safe, complete daily nutrition when, according to the plaintiff, they allegedly do not.

The plaintiff alleges she purchased several ACANA grain-free varieties between 2023 and 2025 after relying on these representations and believing the products were healthier than competing dog foods. According to the complaint, after consuming the products, her dog allegedly developed dilated cardiomyopathy, experienced heart failure, and later died. The lawsuit attributes those injuries to the alleged nutritional deficiencies associated with the grain-free formulations, although those allegations have not been proven in court.

The complaint also alleges that Champion knew or should have known about the alleged risks because of published veterinary research, FDA reports discussing grain-free diets and DCM, and prior litigation involving similar allegations against pet food manufacturers. Despite this alleged knowledge, the lawsuit claims the company continued selling the products without revised labeling or health warnings while charging premium prices based on their purported nutritional benefits.

Rather than seeking damages only for pet injuries, the lawsuit primarily seeks economic relief for consumers who allegedly overpaid for products that did not provide the advertised nutritional value. The plaintiff contends purchasers either would not have bought the products or would have paid substantially less had they known the alleged risks and omissions.

The complaint asserts claims for violations of consumer protection and false advertising laws, breach of warranty, failure to warn, and unjust enrichment. It seeks class certification, monetary damages, restitution, injunctive relief requiring revised labeling and warnings, attorneys’ fees, and other relief the court deems appropriate. Champion Petfoods has not yet filed its response to the allegations, and the court has not made any findings regarding the merits of the claims.