Weaver v. Champion Petfoods USA, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-dog food maker’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-consumer’s action, alleging that defendant violated Wis. Deceptive Trade Practices Act and other related claims, where, according to plaintiff, defendant’s packaging of its dog food product falsely claimed that its dog food was biologically appropriate, was made with fresh regional ingredients that were never outsourced, where plaintiff asserted that defendant’s dog food contained non-fresh and non regional ingredients, as well as BPA and pentobarbital. Plaintiff failed to present evidence, such as consumer surveys, to establish that phrase biologically appropriate was likely to materially mislead reasonable consumer into believing that defendant’s dog food was BPA-free, and plaintiff’s testimony was not enough to establish his claims. Also, plaintiff could not base instant action on presence of pentobarbital in defendant’s dog food, where plaintiff could not show that he purchased dog food that contained pentobarbital. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly find that defendant’s representation that its dog food was made with fresh and regional ingredients was not misleading, even though some ingredients were not fresh or regional, since: (1) defendant never claimed that all of its ingredients were fresh and regional; and (2) plaintiff failed to present evidence that reasonable consumer would have been misled by defendant’s representations. Too, plaintiff could not proceed on his fraud and negligence claims, where plaintiff failed to show that reasonable consumer would be misled by defendant’s representations about its dog food, or that defendant had duty to disclose risk that its dog food might contain BPA or pentobarbital.