Renfro v. Champion Petfoods USA, 25f4th1293

Background

Champion Petfoods (maker of Acana and Orijen) labeled its dog food with promotional phrases including “Biologically Appropriate,” “Trusted Everywhere,” and “Fresh Regional Ingredients,” and listed ingredient types/amounts on some packaging.
Plaintiffs filed a Colorado class action alleging CCPA violations, breach of warranty, fraud, unjust enrichment, and negligence based on those labels and alleged inclusion/risk of contaminants (notably pentobarbital in beef tallow).
FDA notified Champion in 2018 that some beef tallow shipments were contaminated with pentobarbital; plaintiffs did not allege they purchased the specific bags confirmed to contain that contamination.
The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to plead materially false or misleading statements (concluding key labels were puffery or too subjective) and for lack of standing as to pentobarbital-contaminated products.
The Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed: packaging statements were nonactionable puffery or unverifiable subjective claims, plaintiffs lacked standing for pentobarbital-related injuries they did not suffer, and omission-based claims failed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether “Trusted Everywhere” and “Ingredients We Love / People We Trust” are actionable misrepresentations	These phrases imply specific testing/regimen assurances and lack of certain fillers or contaminants, so they are factual and material	The phrases are vague, subjective marketing puffery not capable of empirical verification	Held: Puffery — not actionable under CCPA; no reasonable consumer would rely on them as factual assertions
Whether “Fresh Regional Ingredients” is a factual claim	Plaintiffs say packaging misleads by including material amounts of non-fresh/non-regional ingredients	Champion argues the claim is a subjective marketing statement and packaging disclosed actual ingredients	Held: Subjective/vague and not empirically verifiable; packaging disclosures undercut any plausible deception
Whether “Biologically Appropriate” is false and whether plaintiffs have standing for pentobarbital-related harms	Plaintiffs claim the phrase implies specific ingredient composition/quality and that products were contaminated or at risk of contamination	Champion says phrase is a general quality claim; plaintiffs lack Article III standing for pentobarbital because they didn’t buy contaminated bags	Held: Plaintiffs lacked standing as to pentobarbital-contaminated bags; generally, “Biologically Appropriate” is non-actionable puffery/subjective and not pleaded as false in a material, verifiable way
Omission / fraudulent concealment (duty to disclose)	Champion omitted material facts (risks of pentobarbital, use of regrinds, non-regional/non-fresh ingredients) to induce purchases	Champion contends no duty to disclose beyond what packaging stated; promotional claims are puffery and do not give rise to a concealment duty	Held: CCPA omission claim forfeited for failure to press below; fraudulent concealment fails — no duty to disclose and puffery does not become actionable because plaintiffs dislike some ingredients

Key Cases Cited

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Rhino Linings USA, Inc. v. Rocky Mt. Rhino Lining, Inc., 62 P.3d 142 (Colo. 2003) (CCPA misrepresentation requires a false statement with capacity to deceive)
Alpine Bank v. Hubbell, 555 F.3d 1097 (10th Cir. 2009) (definition and limits of puffery)
Park Rise Homeowners Ass'n v. Res. Const. Co., 155 P.3d 427 (Colo. App. 2006) (generic quality claims are puffery under CCPA)
In re Rumsey Land Co., LLC, 944 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir. 2019) (duty to disclose and Restatement §551 guidance)
Mallon Oil Co. v. Bowen/Edwards Assocs., Inc., 965 P.2d 105 (Colo. 1998) (fraudulent concealment and duty-to-disclose principles)