TBD BRANDS ACCUSED OF SELLING FAKE FROZEN YOGURT TO PET OWNERS

THE DISCOVERY

In August 2025, Veronica Klos walked into a Petco in Brooklyn, New York, looking for a healthy frozen treat for her dog. She found YöPup Frozen Yogurt Cups. The packaging was unambiguous: bold text declaring “Frozen Yogurt Cups” across multiple product flavors including Banana and Peanut Butter, Apple Juice and Cheddar, and Pumpkin and Bacon.

Klos purchased the product. She relied on the yogurt claim. She believed she was buying a product that contained actual yogurt, a food widely recognized for its gut-healthy probiotic properties. She paid a premium price for that belief.

Seven months later, in March 2026, Klos learned the truth: the product she purchased contained no yogurt whatsoever.

The revelation came from Exact Scientific Services, Inc., an ISO 17025-certified independent food testing laboratory. On February 16, 2026, the lab conducted whole genome next-generation DNA testing on YöPup products. This testing method amplifies even trace amounts of genetic material in a sample, including fragmented DNA or DNA from dead microbes. It is designed to detect the presence of organisms at levels far below what traditional methods can identify.

The results were unequivocal: neither Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus nor Streptococcus thermophilus were detected in the Products.

“Neither Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus nor Streptococcus termophilus were detected in the Products. Accordingly, the Yogurt Claim is false and deceptive.”

Those two bacteria species are not optional ingredients. They are the legal definition of yogurt.

THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF YOGURT

Since 1905, yogurt has been characterized by the presence of two specific lactic acid-producing bacteria: Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus. These bacteria, when combined with dairy ingredients, convert the sugar in dairy into lactic acid. This chemical process thickens the dairy and produces the health benefits for which yogurt is famous.

The Food and Drug Administration has codified this historical understanding into federal law. Under 21 C.F.R. § 131.200(a), yogurt is defined as a product “produced by culturing one or more of the basic dairy ingredients with a characterizing bacterial culture that contains the lactic acid-producing bacteria, Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus.”

This is a standard of identity. It is not a suggestion. It is not a guideline. It is the federal legal threshold that determines whether a product can be called yogurt.

According to the class action complaint, YöPup products fail this standard entirely. The lawsuit alleges that TBD Brands marketed and sold a product labeled “Frozen Yogurt” that contains none of the bacteria required by federal law to use that term.

THE NON-FINANCIAL LEDGER

Veronica Klos did not buy YöPup products casually. She made a deliberate choice. She read the label. She saw “Frozen Yogurt Cups” and understood that to mean the product contained yogurt. She believed yogurt was healthy for her dog. She was willing to pay more for that benefit.

The complaint describes her decision-making process in clear terms: “This belief was an important part of her decision to purchase the Product. Had Plaintiff known that the Product does not contain yogurt, she would not have purchased the Product, or she would have paid less for it.”

This is not about a few dollars. It is about trust. It is about a consumer making an informed choice based on representations made by a corporation. When those representations are false, the harm is not limited to the purchase price. The harm includes the betrayal of that trust.

Klos is not alone. The proposed class in this lawsuit includes all people who purchased YöPup products in New York during the applicable statute of limitations period. The complaint alleges that the number of affected individuals is “at least in the hundreds.”

Each of those individuals believed they were buying yogurt. Each of them relied on the label. Each of them paid a premium price for a product that, according to the lawsuit, did not contain what it claimed to contain.

Pet owners often see their animals as family members. They research products. They read ingredient labels. They seek out foods marketed as healthy, probiotic-rich, and veterinarian-recommended. The complaint alleges that TBD Brands exploited that care and attention by making false claims that consumers had no practical way to verify without expensive laboratory testing.

“Consumers prefer to purchase healthy foods for their pets and are willing to pay a premium on foods marketed and labeled as being healthy.”

The lawsuit alleges that Klos and other class members suffered “injury in fact and lost money as a result of Defendant’s misleading, false, unfair, and deceptive practices.” That injury is both economic and psychological. It is the cost of the product. It is also the violation of the expectation that a label means what it says.

LEGAL RECEIPTS

The class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York contains multiple verbatim quotes from legal documents, regulatory definitions, and corporate marketing materials. These are not paraphrases. They are direct excerpts from the record.

The complaint includes screenshots of TBD Brands’ website. Those screenshots show the company explicitly describing the role of yogurt bacteria in canine digestion. The website states that dogs generally struggle to digest dairy products due to a lack of lactase enzymes, and that yogurt offers a solution because “the bacteria used to create yogurt breaks down lactose as it feeds and multiplies; this process renders the lactose ‘predigested state’ and provides lactase as a byproduct.”

The lawsuit alleges this corporate knowledge is evidence of intentional deception. TBD Brands, according to the complaint, knew exactly what yogurt was, knew exactly what bacteria were required to produce it, and chose to market a product as yogurt despite knowing it lacked those bacteria.

The complaint further notes that the “Guaranteed Analysis” printed on the back label of YöPup products lists the total microorganisms as “L. Acidophilus, B. Longum, L. Casei, and B. Bifidum.” Neither Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus nor Streptococcus thermophilus appear on that list.

This omission, the lawsuit alleges, is not an oversight. It is confirmation that the product does not contain yogurt as defined by federal law.

SOCIETAL IMPACT MAPPING

Economic Inequality

The premium pet food market has exploded in recent decades. Consumers increasingly view their pets as family members and are willing to pay higher prices for products marketed as healthy, natural, or probiotic-rich. According to sources cited in the complaint, the yogurt industry alone was estimated to be worth $3.13 billion in 2025.

This market growth creates an economic incentive for companies to exploit health-related labeling. The complaint alleges that TBD Brands charged premium prices for YöPup products based on the yogurt claim. Consumers paid more because they believed they were getting yogurt. If the product does not contain yogurt, those consumers paid a premium for nothing.

This dynamic disproportionately harms lower-income consumers. Wealthier pet owners can absorb the cost of a fraudulent purchase. Working-class families cannot. When a company charges a premium price for a misrepresented product, it extracts wealth from those least able to afford the loss.

The lawsuit seeks to recover that money. It demands actual damages, statutory damages under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, treble damages, and attorneys’ fees. But the economic harm extends beyond individual refunds. It includes the broader erosion of trust in labeling standards and the normalization of corporate dishonesty.

Public Health

Yogurt is widely recognized as a health food due to its probiotic content. Probiotics are live bacteria that provide health benefits when consumed in adequate amounts. The specific bacteria required for yogurt—Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus—are particularly valued for their role in gut health.

According to the complaint, TBD Brands marketed YöPup products with explicit reference to their probiotic benefits. The company’s website touted the health advantages of yogurt for dogs, specifically emphasizing the bacteria’s ability to break down lactose and improve digestive health.

If the products do not contain those bacteria, consumers are not receiving the health benefits they paid for. Pet owners who purchased YöPup products believing they were supporting their dogs’ digestive health were, according to the lawsuit, deceived.

This deception has broader public health implications. It undermines consumer confidence in probiotic labeling. It creates skepticism about health claims on pet food products. It signals to other companies that false health marketing is profitable and enforceable standards are weak.

Environmental Degradation

This case does not directly involve environmental harm. However, it raises questions about the integrity of food production and labeling systems that indirectly affect environmental sustainability. When companies can market products with false health claims, they distort consumer behavior and market incentives.

Consumers who seek out probiotic-rich, fermented foods often do so as part of a broader commitment to health and sustainability. They are more likely to research ingredients, avoid ultra-processed foods, and support companies that prioritize transparency. False labeling erodes that market dynamic and rewards corporations that cut corners.

THE “COST OF A LIE” METRIC

WHAT NOW?

The lawsuit names TBD Brands, LLC as the defendant. The company is a New Hampshire limited liability company with its principal place of business in Exeter, New Hampshire. Its sole member is Jody T. Rodgers.

Veronica Klos sent a pre-suit notice letter to TBD Brands via Certified Mail on April 3, 2026. The letter was received by the company in April 2026. The class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on June 9, 2026.

The case is assigned docket number 1:26-cv-03456. It alleges four causes of action:

• Violation of New York General Business Law § 349: Deceptive acts and practices in consumer-oriented conduct.
• Violation of New York General Business Law § 350: False advertising.
• Breach of Express Warranty: Violation of New York Uniform Commercial Code § 2-313.
• Fraud by Misrepresentation: Intentional and knowing false representation inducing consumer purchases.

The complaint seeks certification of a class consisting of all people who purchased YöPup products in New York during the applicable statute of limitations period. It demands actual damages, statutory damages, treble damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and a jury trial.

If you purchased YöPup Frozen Yogurt Cups in New York and believe you were misled by the yogurt labeling, you may be part of this class action. Document your purchase receipts, product packaging, and any marketing materials you relied upon. Consumer fraud cases succeed when individual victims organize collectively and demand accountability.

Support independent consumer advocacy organizations. Share this investigation with other pet owners. Demand that retailers like Petco enforce accurate labeling standards for the products they sell. Corporate deception thrives in silence. Break that silence.