This is a class action on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased PetArmor manufactured, distributed, marketed and sold by Defendants, FidoPharm, Inc., Velcera, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. hereinafter, “Defendants”).
FidoPharm manufactures, produces and sells PetArmor and PetArmor Plus as a flea and tick control “Product” for dogs and cats (hereinafter the “Product” or “Products”). PetArmor contains the insecticide fipronil and PetArmor Plus contains fipronil and methoprene as active ingredients. PetArmor has the same active ingredients as Frontline which is manufactured by Merial Limited. PetArmor was introduced into the marketplace on or about May, 2011 as a “generic” brand of Frontline. FidoPharm states on its website that “the active ingredient in PetArmor, fipronil, has been proven safe and effective in studies and over many years”.
FidoPharm had, or should have had, knowledge of the adverse reactions that pets were experiencing after the application of the fipronil products. The “Products” traditionally are marketed and sold as packets with three separate applications in individual vials. Plaintiffs and Class Members all purchased the “Products” and did not use all or some of the “Products” because they are unsafe.
As alleged, Defendant FidoPharm misrepresents that PetArmor does not enter the bloodstream of the pet. Defendant FidoPharm claims on its website that PetArmor works the same way as Frontline, “The active ingredient in PetArmor is fipronil (the same as in Frontline® Top Spot®) PetArmor works the same way as Frontline Top Spot. PetArmor is just as safe and effective as Frontline Top Spot.” Attached as Exhibit B is Defendant FidoPharm’s website, www.petarmor.com containing this statement. Merial states on its website that Frontline is not absorbed into the pet’s bloodstream., “Frontline is absorbed into my dog’s bloodstream isn’t it? No. Frontline is dispersed in the oil layer of the skin and then stored in the sebaceous glands of skin.”
As further alleged FidoPharm had, or should have had knowledge that fipronil in the PetArmor product is absorbed into the bloodstream of the pet. Defendants knew or should have known that after application of these “Products” to dogs and/or cats according to the product instructions and representations the Products caused injury to said pets in that they became ill with central nervous system disorders/symptoms, rashes, itching, hair loss and loss of appetite requiring veterinarian visits, hospitalizations, cessation of use of remaining product and, in some cases, burials of those pets that died from complications caused by the use of the PetArmor products.
The product is unsafe because it causes skin irritation and neurological problems with greater severity and frequency than that cited in its misleading advertising and marketing. Defendants’ misrepresented the risk of use of the product to the public which was an unconscionable commercial practice.
