Appeals court revives part of Hill’s pet food lawsuit
Bottom line
A federal appeals court has revived part of KetoNatural Pet Foods’ lawsuit against Hill’s Pet Nutrition, keeping alive claims that Hill’s falsely disparaged grain-free and “BEG” diets in marketing aimed at veterinarians and pet parents. On July 14, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that KetoNatural had plausibly alleged certain statements on Hill’s website and in Hill’s veterinary education materials could qualify as commercial speech and could support a Lanham Act false advertising claim. The court also revived a related civil conspiracy claim tied to those statements. The decision partially reverses a November 5, 2024, Kansas federal court ruling that had dismissed the case. (law.justia.com)
Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, the ruling doesn’t decide whether Hill’s statements were false, and it doesn’t change the broader scientific uncertainty around diet-associated dilated cardiomyopathy. But it does put a spotlight on how nutrition messaging is framed, especially when educational materials for clinicians may also serve a commercial purpose. FDA has said its DCM investigation remains unresolved, that reported cases have involved both grain-free and grain-containing diets, and that adverse event reports alone can’t establish causation. That leaves practices navigating client questions in a still-contested evidence environment, where legal scrutiny of marketing claims may now run alongside scientific debate. (fda.gov)
What to watch: The case now returns to the district court for further proceedings, where discovery could shed more light on Hill’s marketing, veterinary outreach, and the evidentiary basis for the challenged claims. (law.justia.com)
A federal appeals court has given new life to KetoNatural Pet Foods’ high-profile case against Hill’s Pet Nutrition, ruling that key parts of the startup’s false advertising lawsuit can move forward. In a July 14, 2026 decision, the Tenth Circuit said KetoNatural plausibly alleged that some statements on Hill’s public website and in password-protected veterinary education materials could amount to commercial speech under the Lanham Act, reopening a dispute centered on claims about grain-free and “BEG” diets and canine dilated cardiomyopathy, or DCM. (law.justia.com)
The case began in February 2024, when KetoNatural sued Hill’s and initially named several affiliated nonprofits and veterinary researchers, alleging a coordinated effort to link grain-free diets to canine heart disease and steer consumers toward Hill’s products. By mid-2024, KetoNatural had voluntarily dismissed the other defendants, leaving Hill’s as the remaining defendant. In November 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed the complaint against Hill’s, finding the allegations insufficient. The new appellate ruling partially reverses that outcome. (docs.justia.com)
The Tenth Circuit’s opinion is narrow but important. It did not endorse KetoNatural’s underlying allegations as true, nor did it revive every theory in the complaint. Instead, the panel held that KetoNatural had plausibly alleged that at least some Hill’s statements could be actionable because they were promotional in nature and allegedly made unsupported factual claims about a link between BEG diets and heart disease. The opinion specifically points to Hill’s website and veterinarian-facing materials, including presentations that allegedly told clinicians there was a link between BEG diets and atypical breeds developing DCM. The court said KetoNatural had plausibly alleged those statements could be literally false under an “establishment claim” theory if the cited studies do not support the conclusions being drawn from them. (law.justia.com)
That legal fight sits on top of a scientific issue that remains unsettled. FDA said in its December 23, 2022 update that it did not plan further public updates until meaningful new scientific information emerged, and it has continued to describe the possible association between diet and non-hereditary DCM as complex and multifactorial. In its current Q&A, FDA says reports have involved both grain-free and grain-containing diets, most commonly with non-soy legumes or pulses high in the ingredient list, and that it has no definitive information showing the diets are inherently unsafe and need to be removed from the market. (fda.gov)
At the same time, mainstream veterinary guidance has not backed away from caution. AAHA’s nutrition guidance says increased reporting of diet-associated DCM has been seen in recent years, notes common dietary features such as grain-free formulations or diets high in lentils or peas, and says the most conservative approach, given current evidence, is to avoid grain-free diets or diets high in legumes while research continues. That tension, between unresolved causation and precautionary clinical guidance, helps explain why this case matters beyond the courtroom. (aaha.org)
Industry coverage has framed the appellate ruling as a partial revival, not a final win for KetoNatural. Bloomberg Law reported that the Tenth Circuit reinstated the portion of the Lanham Act claim tied to certain Hill’s website statements, along with the civil conspiracy claim based on those statements. Earlier trade coverage of the original filing described the suit as seeking $2.6 billion in damages and accusing Hill’s of influencing the FDA investigation and harming smaller competitors in the grain-free segment. (news.bloomberglaw.com)
Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, this case is less about whether Hill’s will ultimately lose and more about where the line sits between education, advocacy, and advertising in companion animal nutrition. If discovery moves forward, it could surface internal documents, marketing strategy, and the evidentiary basis for veterinarian-facing claims. That matters for clinicians who rely on manufacturer education, continuing education content, and branded nutrition resources while also trying to give pet parents balanced, evidence-based guidance in an area where the regulator itself says the science is incomplete. (law.justia.com)
What to watch: The next step is a return to the district court, where the surviving claims will proceed and the factual record may expand. For practices, the practical near-term issue is unchanged: expect continued questions from pet parents about grain-free diets, DCM risk, and whether brand-backed nutrition messaging reflects settled science or an evolving interpretation of it. (law.justia.com)
Common questions
What did the appeals court decide in the Hill’s case?
The Tenth Circuit revived part of KetoNatural Pet Foods’ lawsuit, allowing certain false advertising and civil conspiracy claims to move forward.Did the court decide that Hill’s statements were false?
No. The court said KetoNatural had plausibly alleged that some Hill’s statements could be actionable, but it did not decide whether they were actually false.Which Hill’s statements are at issue?
The ruling focused on statements on Hill’s public website and in veterinarian-facing education materials, including claims about a link between BEG diets and heart disease or DCM.What happens next in the case?
The case returns to the district court for further proceedings, where discovery may expand the factual record.