This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Unfair Competition
False Advertising

The People of the State of California v. PetSmart LLC

Published: Jan. 19, 2024 | Result Date: Jul. 6, 2023 | Filing Date: Jun. 29, 2023 |

Case number: 23CV01534 Settlement –  $1,250,000

Judge

Timothy R. Volkmann

Court

Santa Cruz County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Edward T. Browne
(Office of Santa Cruz District Attorney)

Alyce C. Sandbach
(Office of the Alameda County District Attorney )

Hoon Chun
(Office of the Los Angeles District Attorney)

Kathryn L. Turner
(Office of the San Diego County District Attorney)

Matthew T. Cheever
(Office of the Sonoma County District Attorney)

Bryan M. Tierney
(Office of the Contra Costa District Attorney)

Andres H. Perez
(Office of the Marin County District Attorney)

Andrew J. Reid
(Office of the Ventura District Attorney)


Defendant

Matthew P. Kanny
(Goodwin Procter LLP)


Facts

On June 20, 2023, the Santa Cruz District Attorney's office, along with seven other district attorney's offices throughout California, filed suit against PetSmart LLC in Santa Cruz Superior. The complaint, seeking, among others, restitution, civil penalties, injunctive and other relief, alleged violations of the Business and Professions Code and Unfair Competition laws.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that after the Offices of Agricultural Commissioner, Weights and Measures Departments, conducted numerous pricing inspections at various defendant stores, it found significant patterns and practices of overcharging of products sold at its stores.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant did not admit to any liability or wrongdoing.

Result

The parties settled with defendant agreeing to pay a total of $1.46 million, which included $1.25 million in civil penalties; $110,000 reimbursement costs along with $100,000 in restitution to support consumer protection efforts. Moreover, defendant was required to implement new policies and procedures to improve pricing accuracy; was prohibited from engaging in false or misleading advertising and charging more than the lowest posted price. Finally, defendant additional audit and price accuracy procedures were required for a three-year period.


#142237

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390