Background
KetoNatural Pet Foods filed a class action against Hill’s Pet Nutrition alleging false advertising under the Lanham Act. KetoNatural claimed Hill’s conspired with veterinarians and non-profits to falsely disparage grain-free pet food as linked to canine heart disease. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, ruling the statements were not commercial speech and not literally false.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the four-part Bolger test to determine if speech constituted commercial advertising. It found Hill’s webpages and educational materials functioned as commercial speech because they promoted Hill’s brand with economic motivation. However, the court held that veterinarians’ public statements and academic articles were non-commercial speech protected by the First Amendment due to lack of direct economic motivation and lack of reference to Hill’s products.
What it means going forward
The ruling allows Lanham Act claims to proceed against manufacturers who use educational materials to disparage competitors, while shielding independent experts and academic publications from such liability unless direct economic quid pro quo is alleged.