When The Bowl Becomes A Crime Scene

On March 9, 2026, a California consumer filed a federal class action lawsuit against M.I. Industries, Inc., doing business as Instinct Pet Foods, alleging systematic false advertising across the company’s Original Real Recipe, Raw Meals, and Raw Boost Mixers product lines. The 21-page complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No. 26-CV-1470-BAS-AHG), claims the Nebraska corporation marketed its dog food products with bold “Made Without Artificial Preservatives” and “Nothing Artificial” label statements while formulating those same products with tocopherols and citric acid—ingredients the complaint identifies as chemical preservatives synthesized through industrial fermentation and laboratory chemical processes.

This is not a debate about nutritional science. This is a legal case about what words mean when you print them on a package and charge money for the product inside.

Plaintiff Nicole Flick, a San Diego resident, purchased Instinct’s Original Real Recipe dog food on June 6, 2025 from Amazon.com (Order No. 114-8078355-6650615). The complaint states that Flick “prefers to purchase foods free from artificial or synthetic ingredients and reviewed and relied on the label statements” before making her purchase. She is seeking to represent a class of all California consumers who purchased the disputed products within the four-year statute of limitations period.

The defendant’s principal place of business is located in St. Louis, Missouri. According to the complaint, all decisions regarding product formulation and labeling are made at that location. The company ships products directly to California consumers, operates e-commerce platforms targeting California buyers, and distributes through retail and wholesale channels throughout the state.

The Non-Financial Ledger

Pet ownership in the United States is an act of trust. You bring an animal into your home. You feed it. You assume the label on the bag tells you the truth. When that assumption breaks, the injury is not only economic. It is a betrayal of the relationship between a company and the people who depend on its honesty.

Nicole Flick is one person. The class action mechanism exists because she is not alone. The complaint alleges there are “thousands of Class members geographically dispersed throughout the state of California.” These are families who read the same labels, made the same purchasing decisions, and fed their dogs the same products under the same false belief: that they were buying food without artificial preservatives.

The economic harm is measurable. Flick and the putative class members paid a price premium for products marketed as free of artificial ingredients. The complaint alleges that “consumers conferred a benefit on Defendant by purchasing the Products, including an effective premium above their true value.” In the market for pet food, “natural” commands a higher price. The absence of artificial preservatives is a selling point. If that claim is false, the premium is unearned.

But there is a second harm. The complaint states that Flick “would like to purchase the Products and other products sold by Defendant in the future, but cannot currently do so because [she] cannot rely on the Products’ labelling.” This is reputational injury converted into market exclusion. Once trust is destroyed, the consumer cannot return to the product even if she wants to. The company has poisoned its own customer base.

The lawsuit does not allege that the preservatives in question caused physical harm to the animals who consumed the food. The claim is simpler and more damning: the label lied. The product did not match the promise. Consumers who wanted to avoid synthetic ingredients were deceived into purchasing products that contained exactly what they sought to avoid.

This is not a niche concern. The complaint references the American Association of Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), a private-industry body that produces model regulations for pet food labeling. AAFCO explicitly lists “mixed tocopherols” and “citric acid” as chemical preservatives on its public guidance page for consumers. The regulatory framework already categorizes these ingredients as the very thing Instinct’s labels say they do not contain.

Legal Receipts

The complaint cites federal law as the foundation for its claims. At 21 C.F.R. § 101.22(a)(5), the Code of Federal Regulations defines “chemical preservative” as follows:

“[A]ny chemical that, when added to food, tends to prevent or retard deterioration thereof, but does not include common salt, sugars, vinegars, spices, or oils extracted from spices, substances added to food by direct exposure thereof to wood smoke, or chemicals applied for their insecticidal or herbicidal properties.”

The complaint argues that both citric acid and tocopherols fall squarely within this definition. Neither ingredient is a salt, sugar, vinegar, spice, spice oil, wood smoke derivative, or insecticide. Both are added to food. Both prevent or retard deterioration. Therefore, both are chemical preservatives under federal law.

The complaint provides a detailed account of how citric acid used in commercial food products is manufactured. It states:

“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.”

The manufacturing process described in the complaint involves fermenting glucose (often derived from genetically modified corn) with the industrial mold Aspergillus niger in large-scale bioreactors, then chemically precipitating the resulting fermentation liquor with calcium hydroxide to form calcium citrate, which is subsequently reacidulated with sulfuric acid and crystallized into refined citric acid. Chemical solvents such as n-octyl alcohol and synthetic isoparaffinic petroleum hydrocarbons are used to extract the citric acid from the fermentation liquor, and the complaint alleges these solvents “frequently survive the reacidulation process in fragmentary form.”

The complaint describes this pathway as embodying “classic hallmarks of synthetic manufacture, not natural derivation.” It further states that the citric acid in Instinct’s products “is not extracted from fruit or any natural material but is manufactured from industrial feedstocks using fermentation and chemical processing.”

Regarding tocopherols, the complaint states:

“Synthetic tocopherols are created in laboratories through chemical synthesis. Synthetic tocopherols lack the complete spectrum of tocopherol compounds found in natural sources. The synthetic process begins with trimethylhydroquinone and isophytol, which are combined through various chemical reactions to create tocopherol molecules. These ingredients frequently survive the combination process in fragmentary form.”

The complaint distinguishes between natural tocopherols, which exist in the “d” form (such as d-alpha-tocopherol), and synthetic versions, which are typically in the “dl” form (dl-alpha-tocopherol). It states that federal regulations explicitly recognize tocopherols as synthetic, citing 21 C.F.R. § 182.3890, which lists tocopherols as a chemical preservative.

The complaint references multiple peer-reviewed scientific publications and FDA guidance documents to support these factual allegations, including a 2018 study published in Toxicology Reports and a 2020 study published in Mycobiology.

Societal Impact Mapping

Economic Inequality

The premium pet food market exists because consumers are willing to pay more for perceived quality and transparency. The complaint alleges that Instinct exploited this willingness by charging higher prices for products falsely marketed as free of artificial preservatives. The economic harm is distributed across thousands of California consumers, each of whom paid an inflated price based on false information.

Class actions exist to aggregate these individually small harms into a collective claim large enough to justify litigation. The complaint states that “the damages individual Class members suffered are small compared to the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex and extensive litigation needed to address Defendant’s conduct such that it would be virtually impossible for the Class members individually to redress the wrongs done to them.”

This is the arithmetic of corporate accountability. A company can deceive thousands of consumers and extract a few extra dollars from each transaction. The aggregate profit is substantial. The individual loss is too small to sue over. Without the class action mechanism, the company keeps the money and suffers no consequence.

Public Health

The complaint does not allege that the preservatives in question pose a direct health risk to animals. However, it does allege an informational injury: consumers who wished to avoid synthetic ingredients for health, ethical, or personal reasons were denied the ability to make an informed choice.

The 2018 study cited in the complaint, published in Toxicology Reports, is titled “Potential role of the common food additive manufactured citric acid in eliciting significant inflammatory reactions contributing to serious disease states: A series of four case reports.” The study discusses adverse reactions associated with manufactured citric acid in human subjects. The complaint does not claim this study applies to the dog food context, but its citation suggests an awareness that the distinction between natural and synthetic citric acid may have biological relevance.

Environmental Degradation

The complaint does not directly address environmental impacts. However, the manufacturing process it describes—industrial fermentation with genetically modified feedstocks, chemical extraction using petroleum-derived solvents, and multi-step reacidulation and crystallization—implicates resource use, waste generation, and supply chain dependencies that natural extraction from fruit would not involve.

The term “natural” on food labels is not merely a marketing preference. It is a signal to consumers about production methods, ingredient sourcing, and corporate values. When that signal is false, the market’s ability to reward environmentally preferable practices is undermined.

What Now?

The lawsuit names M.I. Industries, Inc. dba Instinct Pet Foods as the defendant. The company’s principal place of business is in St. Louis, Missouri. The complaint does not identify individual executives or board members by name, as the source document does not contain that information.

The case is assigned to Judge [REDACTED – Not in Source] in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The case number is 26-CV-1470-BAS-AHG. The complaint was filed on March 9, 2026.

Plaintiff is represented by Charles C. Weller, APC, located at 11412 Corley Court, San Diego, California 92126. Attorney Charles C. Weller (California State Bar No. 207034) signed the complaint.

The complaint alleges seven counts: (1) Violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.); (2) Unjust Enrichment; (3) Breach of Express Warranty; (4) Violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. — “Unfair” Conduct; (5) Violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. — “Fraudulent” Conduct; (6) Violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. — “Unlawful” Conduct; and (7) Violation of California Business & Professions Code Section 17500 et seq. (False Advertising Law).

Plaintiff seeks the following relief: class certification; a declaratory judgment that Defendant violated the statutes; compensatory damages; injunctive relief prohibiting further deceptive labeling and requiring corrective advertising; attorneys’ fees and litigation costs; pre- and post-judgment interest; and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

Pursuant to the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Plaintiff sent Defendant a pre-filing notice by certified mail at least 30 days before filing the complaint, demanding that the company rectify its actions, provide complete monetary relief, and notify affected customers. The complaint states that Defendant did not comply.

Watchlist

The following regulatory bodies have jurisdiction over aspects of this case or related enforcement authority:

• Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — Center for Veterinary Medicine, which regulates pet food labeling under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
• California Department of Food and Agriculture — Feed, Fertilizer, and Livestock Drugs Regulatory Services, which enforces state pet food regulations
• Federal Trade Commission (FTC) — Bureau of Consumer Protection, which enforces federal prohibitions on deceptive advertising
• California Attorney General — Consumer Protection Section, which enforces the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and related statutes

Grassroots Resistance

If you purchased Instinct Pet Foods products in California within the past four years and the label claimed the product was free of artificial preservatives, you may be a member of the putative class. Monitor the case docket for notices regarding class certification and claims processes. Document your purchases. Save receipts, order confirmations, and packaging.

Demand ingredient transparency from all pet food manufacturers. Read the fine print on ingredient panels. Compare marketing claims on the front of the package to the actual ingredient list on the back. If a product claims to be “natural” or free of artificial ingredients, verify whether tocopherols or citric acid appear in the ingredient list and contact the manufacturer to demand documentation of the sourcing and production method for those ingredients.

Support local and independent pet food producers who use transparent sourcing and short supply chains. When corporate manufacturers lie, the alternative is to build a parallel market they do not control.