A new lawsuit has been filed against a prominent pet supplement company alleging false advertising and deceptive marketing practices. Brian Kelly, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, lodged the complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on September 5, 2024, against FoodScience LLC d/b/a VetriScience Laboratories.
The crux of the case revolves around VetriScience's GlycoFlex® Plus and GlycoFlex Stage 3 canine joint support supplements. These products are marketed with claims that they are "clinically proven" to treat all joint problems in dogs and can provide "up to 41% increase in hind leg strength in just 4 weeks." However, Kelly contends that these assertions are not only misleading but also entirely false. According to the complaint, VetriScience has never conducted a clinical study on its GlycoFlex supplements. Instead, it relies on a small-scale pilot study from 2006 involving only seven dogs subjected to artificially induced osteoarthritis. The results showed significant improvement in just three out of seven dogs, which does not substantiate the broad claims made by VetriScience.
The lawsuit highlights that VetriScience waited until 2018—twelve years after the pilot study—to start making bold claims about GlycoFlex being clinically proven. This delay suggests that even VetriScience did not initially believe its own marketing messages. The National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs has emphasized that any representation of a product’s efficacy as “clinically proven” must closely match underlying evidence due to its strong influence on consumer decisions.
Kelly argues that VetriScience's deceptive marketing exploits consumers' willingness to pay a premium for scientifically backed products in an overcrowded market estimated at $1.6 billion as of 2020. He purchased GlycoFlex multiple times between 2021 and 2024 for his dog that suffered from joint issues unrelated to osteoarthritis, relying on the company's false claims. When he saw no improvement in his dog's condition, he ceased purchasing the product.
The plaintiff seeks financial recompense for himself and other class members who were misled by VetriScience’s advertising. Specifically, Kelly is asking for actual damages, statutory damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350. He also demands that the court certify this action as a class action.
Representing Kelly are attorneys James R. Denlea and Jeffrey I. Carton from Denlea & Carton LLP along with Philip M. Smith from Kravit Smith LLP. Case ID: 1:24-cv-06222.