Vanzant v. Hill’s Pet Nutrition, Inc.

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ action, alleging that defendants violated Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act, when defendant’s misled plaintiffs to believe that cat food sold by defendants required pet prescription from veterinarian, where said cat food was not materially different from lower-priced nonprescription cat food, and where prescription requirement was illusory. While Dist. Ct. found that plaintiff’s claim was barred by statutory safe harbor for conduct specifically authorized by U.S. Food and Drug Administration, safe harbor provision did not apply, since FDA issued guidance did not specifically authorize conduct alleged here. Moreover, plaintiffs adequately alleged that defendants’ marketing practices were deceptive, where no prescription was necessary to obtain instant cat food, and where plaintiffs saw specific prescription language when they made their purchases and suffered damages because they paid higher price for said cat food.