Nutro Natural Choice Class Action Lawsuit, Did Mars Petcare Mislead Dog Food Buyers?

Prepared by the AllAboutLawyer.com Editorial Team and reviewed for factual accuracy against official court complaint documents and primary legal news sources on May 1, 2026. Last Updated: May 1, 2026

A class action lawsuit against Mars Petcare US Inc. is challenging labeling on Nutro Natural Choice dog food, alleging the products are falsely marketed as containing “No Artificial Flavors, Colors, or Preservatives” despite including ingredients the plaintiff claims function as synthetic preservatives. The suit was filed April 6, 2026, in federal court and targets one of the most prominent “natural” claims in the premium pet food market. No settlement has been reached. Mars Petcare has not publicly admitted any wrongdoing.

Quick-Facts

Field	Detail
Lawsuit Filed	April 6, 2026
Defendant	Mars Petcare US, Inc. dba Nutro Pet Foods
Alleged Violation	California Unfair Competition Law (UCL); California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); California False Advertising Law (FAL); violation of 21 C.F.R. § 501.22(a)(5) (federal chemical preservative definition)
Who Is Affected	California residents who purchased Nutro Natural Choice dog food products within four years prior to April 6, 2026 (i.e., from approximately April 2022 onward)
Current Court Stage	Early litigation — complaint filed, no class certification or ruling yet
Court & Jurisdiction	U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
Lead Plaintiff	Flick (first name TBD — full plaintiff name not released in publicly available sources reviewed)
Case Name & Number	Flick v. Mars Petcare US Inc. — case number TBD — [reason: not yet published in sources available at time of publication; check PACER for the Southern District of California for current docket]
Next Hearing Date	TBD — no hearing has been scheduled at this stage of litigation
Official Case Website	TBD — no settlement administrator website exists; this case has not settled
Last Updated	May 1, 2026

What Is the Nutro Natural Choice Lawsuit About? Flick v. Mars Petcare US Inc., Southern District of California

If you’ve ever paid extra for a dog food specifically because the bag said “No Artificial Flavors, Colors, or Preservatives,” this case is worth understanding. That is exactly the claim on the front of Nutro Natural Choice packaging — and it is exactly what this lawsuit challenges.

The 21-page lawsuit charges that Mars Petcare has extracted a premium price for its Nutro Natural Choice dog foods by promoting them as natural, even though they contain the synthetic preservatives citric acid and mixed tocopherols. The plaintiff argues this is not a gray area — it is a clear-cut false advertising claim with a regulatory foundation behind it. The Code of Federal Regulations defines chemical preservatives as substances added to foods to prevent or slow down deterioration, excluding salt, sugar, vinegar, spices, and certain naturally derived additives. Citric acid and mixed tocopherols fall within this definition, according to the complaint.

So why does it matter whether these ingredients are “natural” or “synthetic”? The lawsuit gets specific. Approximately 99% of the world’s production of citric acid is carried out using the fungus Aspergillus niger since 1919, and the use of naturally produced citric acid in commercial foods is prohibitively expensive. In other words, the citric acid in your dog’s food almost certainly came from an industrial fermentation facility — not from lemons. The same logic applies to tocopherols. D-alpha tocopherol is a natural tocopherol, typically derived from vegetable oils such as soybean, sunflower, rapeseed, or wheat germ oil. By contrast, dl-alpha tocopherol is a synthetic tocopherol derived from petrochemical sources. Its manufacturing process involves the synthesis of trimethylhydroquinone and isopropyl, which are both sourced from petrochemical feedstocks such as acetone, phenol, and isobutylene.

The lawsuit also leans on guidance from the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), the industry body that sets pet food labeling standards, which has classified both citric acid and mixed tocopherols as chemical preservatives. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and is governed by three California statutes: the Unfair Competition Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the False Advertising Law. These are the same state laws that have supported successful consumer fraud lawsuits against other pet food makers in recent years. If you’ve followed cases like the Blue Buffalo grain-free dog food class action lawsuit, you’ll recognize the framework — California’s consumer protection laws give plaintiffs powerful tools to challenge label claims in the pet food industry.

Mars Petcare is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee, and is the parent company behind major brands including Pedigree, Royal Canin, Whiskas, and Nutro. The complaint states that all decisions about Nutro product formulation and labeling are made at that Franklin, Tennessee headquarters.

Related article: Destination XL Class Action Lawsuit, Did DXL’s Promotional Emails Violate Washington Anti-Spam Law?

Are You Part of the Nutro Natural Choice Class Action Lawsuit?

You do not need to have been harmed in the traditional sense — sick pet, vet bills, or documented financial loss — to potentially be part of this case. The theory here is simpler: you paid a premium for a product based on a claim the plaintiff says was false. Here is how to know if you might be included.

You may be part of this class if:

• You are a California resident who purchased any Nutro Natural Choice dog food product.
• You made that purchase on or after approximately April 6, 2022 (within four years prior to the filing date of April 6, 2026).
• You purchased the product for your own household and not for resale.
• You relied — even in part — on the front-of-bag claim that the product contained “No Artificial Flavors, Colors, or Preservatives” when making your purchase decision.
• You bought the product through any channel: retail stores such as PetSmart, Petco, or Chewy, or online through Amazon or other e-commerce platforms.

You are likely NOT included if:

• You purchased Nutro Natural Choice dog food outside California — the class is currently defined as California residents only.
• You made your purchase before April 2022.
• You purchased a Nutro product line other than Natural Choice — the complaint specifically targets the Natural Choice formulas, not Nutro Ultra, Nutro Wholesome Essentials, or other sub-brands.
• You are a reseller or commercial purchaser, not an individual consumer.

This is an early-stage lawsuit. The class has not been formally certified by the court yet. The exact class definition may narrow or expand as the case develops. If you are unsure whether you qualify, your best option right now is to preserve any records of your Nutro purchases — receipts, Amazon order history, loyalty card data from pet store apps, or credit card statements — and monitor this case for updates.

What Are Nutro Plaintiffs Seeking in This Lawsuit?

This is not a case about pet illness or physical harm to animals. Plaintiffs are seeking economic damages — money to compensate consumers for the price premium they paid based on what the lawsuit calls a false label claim.

Plaintiff purchased products that she would not otherwise have purchased, but for Defendant’s misrepresentations. Under California’s consumer protection statutes, that is the key theory: if you paid more for Nutro Natural Choice because it said “No Artificial Preservatives,” and those preservatives were actually present, you overpaid. The lawsuit seeks restitution of that price premium on behalf of the entire California class.

Beyond money, plaintiffs are also seeking injunctive relief — a court order requiring Mars Petcare to change its Nutro Natural Choice labeling so that future buyers are not misled. The distinction between “natural,” “synthetic,” and “preservative” remains a persistent target for lawsuits over pet food labeling. Unlike broader challenges to the word “natural” on packaging, this lawsuit focuses on a narrower and more verifiable claim — the explicit statement that no artificial preservatives are present. A claim about the absence of artificial preservatives may be easier to test against ingredient function and classification than the broader, more subjective meaning of “natural.”

No specific dollar amount has been requested in the complaint. Under California’s CLRA, courts can award actual damages, restitution, and statutory penalties, as well as attorneys’ fees to prevailing plaintiffs. The final recovery for individual class members — if any settlement is reached — would depend on the price premium attributable to the misleading label, the total number of valid claims filed, and the court’s ultimate rulings on class certification and liability.

What Should You Do If You Were Affected by Nutro Natural Choice?

There is no claim form to file right now. No settlement exists. Here is what you should actually do at this stage.

Save your purchase records. If you bought Nutro Natural Choice dog food in California since April 2022, pull together whatever documentation you have. Amazon order history, Petco or PetSmart reward program records, credit card statements, and paper receipts all count. You do not need to do anything formal with these right now — but they will matter if this case reaches a settlement and a claim form opens.

Do nothing else — yet. Most class members are automatically included in the class if and when it is certified. You do not need to sign up, register, or contact anyone to preserve your rights at this stage. Simply buying the product during the class period and meeting the California residency requirement places you in the class.

Consider consulting a product liability attorney if your losses were significant. If you believe you spent a substantial amount on Nutro Natural Choice products specifically because of the “No Artificial Preservatives” claim, a free legal consultation with a consumer rights lawyer experienced in false advertising class actions can help you evaluate whether an individual claim makes sense alongside or instead of the class action.

Monitor epoasettlementtbc.com for case updates. TBD — no official case website has been established. Because many different pet foods include citric acid and tocopherols and make similar “No Preservatives” label claims, this lawsuit has drawn attention across the pet food industry. Multiple publications are tracking it. AllAboutLawyer.com will update this article when a settlement is proposed or a claim form becomes available.

Nutro Natural Choice Class Action Lawsuit Timeline

Milestone	Date
Lawsuit Filed	April 6, 2026
Plaintiff’s Purchase	March 19, 2024 (named plaintiff’s documented Nutro purchase from Amazon)
Class Certification Motion	TBD — not yet filed; typically follows initial motion practice
Last Major Court Ruling	TBD — no rulings issued at time of publication
Next Scheduled Hearing	TBD — no hearing date set
Expected Settlement Timeline	TBD — this case was filed weeks ago; false advertising class actions of this type typically take 18–36 months to reach a settlement, if one is reached at all

Frequently Asked Questions

Is there a class action lawsuit against Nutro dog food? 

Yes. Flick v. Mars Petcare US Inc. was filed April 6, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The lawsuit alleges Nutro Natural Choice dog foods are falsely labeled as containing “No Artificial Flavors, Colors, or Preservatives” when they actually contain citric acid and mixed tocopherols — both classified as chemical preservatives under federal regulations and AAFCO guidelines.

Do I need to do anything right now to be included in the Nutro lawsuit?

 No. At this stage, you do not need to register, sign up, or contact anyone to preserve your potential rights. Most class members are automatically included once the class is certified by the court. Your only action right now is to save documentation of your Nutro Natural Choice purchases made in California since approximately April 2022.

When will a settlement be reached in the Nutro case? 

TBD — the lawsuit was filed in April 2026 and is in its earliest phase. No settlement discussions have been publicly reported. False advertising class actions involving consumer packaged goods typically take one to three years to resolve, and some do not settle at all. AllAboutLawyer.com will update this article when a settlement is proposed.

Can I file my own lawsuit against Mars Petcare instead of waiting for the class action?

 Technically yes, but practically speaking it rarely makes financial sense. Individual false advertising claims in California are governed by the same UCL, CLRA, and FAL statutes as the class action. A product liability attorney or consumer fraud lawsuit specialist can advise you on whether your individual losses — typically the price premium paid — justify pursuing a separate legal claim. Most consumers are better served waiting for the class action to resolve.

How will I know if the Nutro lawsuit settles?

 If the case reaches a proposed settlement, the court will require Mars Petcare to notify all class members — typically by mail or email — using purchase records from the retailer or through a broader publication notice. AllAboutLawyer.com will publish a full settlement guide with the claim form link, payout details, and deadline as soon as one is confirmed. You can also monitor the federal court docket for the Southern District of California directly through PACER.

Are other Nutro products covered by this lawsuit?

 The complaint specifically names Nutro Natural Choice dog food formulas. Other Nutro sub-brands — including Nutro Ultra and Nutro Wholesome Essentials — are not currently named in this complaint, though they may contain similar ingredients. Because many different pet foods include citric acid and tocopherols and make similar “No Preservatives” label claims, we assume there are quite a few manufacturers closely watching this lawsuit.

Has Mars Petcare been sued before over pet food labeling?

 Yes. Mars Petcare has faced multiple labeling-related lawsuits over the past decade, including cases challenging “natural” claims on Nutro products and separate litigation involving Nutro Limited Ingredient Diets. Those cases were separate matters with different legal theories. This new preservative-labeling lawsuit is a distinct case focused specifically on the “No Artificial Preservatives” claim on Nutro Natural Choice packaging.

Sources & References

• Court Complaint: Flick v. Mars Petcare US Inc., filed April 6, 2026 — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (complaint PDF via classaction.org/media/flick-v-mars-petcare-us-inc-complaint.pdf)
• PetfoodIndustry.com: Lawsuit claims mixed tocopherols and citric acid negate “no artificial…” claims (April 2026)
• Washington State Bar News: Insurance Coverage for Alleged Violations of the Wage Transparency Statute — cited for AAFCO regulatory context
• U.S. Code of Federal Regulations: 21 C.F.R. § 501.22(a)(5) — definition of chemical preservative in animal feed

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal claims and outcomes depend on specific facts and applicable law. For advice regarding a particular situation, consult a qualified attorney.

Prepared by the AllAboutLawyer.com Editorial Team and reviewed for factual accuracy against official court complaint documents and primary legal news sources on May 1, 2026. Last Updated: May 1, 2026.