IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

REGINA BULLARD individually and on behalf 

of all others similiarly situated,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

Bayer Healthcare LLC; Bayer Corporation; and, 

Elanco Animal Health, Inc.

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-22904

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANED

Plaintiff Regina Bullard (“Plaintiff”) on behalf of herself and all others similarily situated 

(collectively “Plaintiffs”), by her attorneys, alleges upon information and belief, except for 

allegations pertaining to Plaintiffs, which are based on personal knowledge:

INTRODUCTION 

1. Seresto flea and tick collars—some of the top-selling flea and tick preventative 

collars in the country—have been associated with tens of thousands of pet injuries and 

approximately 1,700 pet deaths. Defendants Bayer Healthcare LLC and Bayer Corporation

(collectively “Bayer”) and Elanco Animal Health, Inc. (“Elanco”) (collectively, “Defendants”) hid 

that information from, and patently misled, consumers. Indeed, even after reports of Seresto’s 

serious side effects became public, Defendants have downplayed the reports and continued to 

represent that Seresto is safe for pets to use when it is not. 

2. The danger of Seresto flea and tick collars is so severe that it instigated a 

Congressional investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Subcomittee on 

Economic and Consumer Policy. After an in-depth, 16 month investigation that involved review 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 1 of 90
2

of internal documents of the Defendants, which were not been made available to the public, the 

House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s Subcomittee on Economic and Consumer Policy 

issued a report in June of 2022 (“Seresto Report”) recommending a recall of the Seresto flea and 

tick collar due to the dangers it posed to pets and humans.1 

3. Indeed, Since Seresto collars were launched in 2012, the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (“EPA”) has received reports of approximately 2,500 pet deaths and more than 

98,000 other incident reports—all linked to the collars. Seresto’s danger stems from its unique 

combination of imidacloprid and flumethrin, two dangerous pesticides that, together, magnify their 

harmful effects. According to one retired EPA employee, Seresto flea and tick collars “have the 

most incidents of any pesticide pet product she’s ever seen.”2 And as stated in the Seresto 

Congressional Subcommittee Report: “[t]he Seresto collar had nearly three times the rate of total 

incidents, and nearly five times the rate of “Death” or “Major” incidents, as the second most 

dangerous flea and tick product. The [Seresto] collar had nearly 21 times the rate of total incidents, 

and over 35 times the rate of “Death” or “Major” incidents, as the third most dangerous product.” 

Seresto Report at 1.

4. Moreover, due to the dangers and risks posed by the Seresto collars, Canada - after 

reviewing incident and toxicology studies - banned the sale of the Seresto collar within its borders

based on its conclusion that the Seresto collar posed too great a risk to animals and humans to be 

safe for use. Other countries have required that severe warnings be placed on the packaging of the 

1 Available at https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/

2022.06.15%20ECP%20Seresto%20Staff%20Report%20FINAL.pdf

2 Popular flea collar linked to almost 1,700 pet deaths, available at 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2021/03/02/seresto-dog-cat-collars-foundharm-pets-humans-epa-records-show/4574753001/. 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 2 of 90
3

Seresto packaging to warn consumers of the risk, such as the word “POISON” in large font on the 

front of the packaging.3 

5. At no point have Defendants disclosed this information to United States consumers. 

To the contrary, they have maintained and represented that Seresto collars are safe for pets to use. 

Despite Defendants’ claims, Seresto collars have resulted in millions of dollars in damages for pet 

owners—both in the form of collars that they overpaid for or would have never purchased had 

consumers known of Seresto’s dangers, and also in veterinarian and other medical expenses 

incurred by pet owners with pets injured by the Seresto collar and its pesticides. 

6. Even worse, according to a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity—

an expert on pesticide regulations in the U.S.—the reported deaths and injuries are “just the tip of 

the iceberg.”4“Most of the time, people are not going to make the connection or they’re not going 

to take an hour or so out of the day and figure out how to call and spend time on hold.”5

7. Defendants, of course, have not warned consumers because Seresto pet collars 

accounted for more than $300 million in revenue in 2019 alone. Seresto pet collars are an 

enormous business segment, and consequently, Defendants have refused to make the product safer 

or warn consumers about the potential risks. While Defendants sell Seresto collars as “veterinary

medicine,” that is a misnomer. The over-the-counter collars do not constitute “medicine” but 

rather, are toxic pesticides that can harm—and even kill—pets.

3 See https://www.amazon.com.au/Seresto-Over-Flea-CollarCollars/dp/B01FXI5CHY/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1W7YYEQYPKA3J&keywords=Seresto&qid=1661

356304&sprefix=seresto%2Caps%2C123&sr=8-1 (website from Amazon in Australia, with 

front of Seresto packaging stating “POISON” 

4 Popular flea collar linked to almost 1,700 pet deaths, available at 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2021/03/02/seresto-dog-cat-collars-foundharm-pets-humans-epa-records-show/4574753001/

5

Id.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 3 of 90
4

JURISDICTION

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1332(d)(2) and (6) of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) because: (i) there are 100 

or more class members, (ii) there is an aggregate amount in controversy exceeding $5,000,000, 

exclusive of interest and costs, and (iii) there is minimal diversity because at least one plaintiff and 

one defendant are citizens of different states.

9. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1367. 

 PARTIES

Plaintiff Regina Bullard

10. Plaintiff Regina Bullard is a resident and citizen of Miami, Dade County, Florida. 

She purchased a Seresto Collar and used it on her dog, Coco. Plaintiff purchased the Seresto Collar 

because, consistent with Defendants’ representations, Plaintiff believed it would promote the pet’s 

health and not cause harm.

11. Plaintiff Bullard purchased approximately three Seresto Collars. Plaintiff 

purchased the first collar for approximately $55.08 on May 19, 2020, from Petco. Plaintiff used 

each collar she purchased on her pet Coco consistent with manufacturer instructions. 

Harm to Plaintiff Bullard’s Dog

12. After purchasing the Seresto Collar, Plaintiff Bullard placed the Seresto Collar 

around her dog’s neck as directed by the instructions included with the Product. However, after 

putting the Seresto Collar on her dog, Coco started experiencing diarrhea, vomiting, weight loss, 

and shaking/seizures. 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 4 of 90
5

13. Plaintiff Bullard understandably grew concerned as a result of her pet’s unusual 

symptoms. Upon learning of the serious safety risks posed by the Seresto Collars, Plaintiff Bullard 

removed the Seresto Collar from her dog and has stopped using it. 

14. Plaintiff Bullard undertook various efforts to resolve the health conditions her dog 

was experiencing, which developed after she placed the Seresto Collar on her dog, Coco. After 

removing the Seresto Collar, Plaintiff Bullard decided to change Coco’s diet and health regimen. 

Unfortunately, these efforts were unsuccessful, and the adverse effects of the Seresto Collar 

resulted in Coco passing away.

15. Plaintiff Bullard incurred out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of $252 due to 

medical expenses and other costs related to the Seresto Collar. These expenses were incurred as 

a result of harm caused by Plaintiff Bullard’s use of the Seresto Collar on her dog, Coco.

16. Had Defendants disclosed the existence of the serious safety risks associated with 

Seresto Collars and made Plaintiff Bullard aware of such risks, Plaintiff Bullard would not have 

used the Seresto Collar on her dog, Coco, and Coco would never have suffered the injuries she 

developed as a result of using the Seresto Collar. Additionally, Plaintiff Bullard would never have 

incurred the out-of-pocket medical for her dog’s treatment for injuries arising from use of the 

Seresto Collar. 

17. Both Plaintiff Bullard and her dog were harmed as a result of the purchase and use 

of the Seresto Collar, which could have been prevented had Defendants disclosed the existence 

of the serious safety risks associated with the Seresto Collars.

DEFENDANTS

18. Defendant Bayer Healthcare LLC is a Delaware limited liability company 

headquartered in Whippany, New Jersey. It initially developed the Seresto pet collar and 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 5 of 90
6

manufactured, advertised, labeled, and sold Seresto from 2013 until August 2020, when Bayer 

Healthcare LLC sold its Animal Health Division, including all rights to the Seresto product, to 

Elanco Animal Health LLC. Seresto Collars manufactured and labeled by Defendant Bayer are 

still sold today in May 2022.

19. Defendant Bayer Corporation is the parent of Defendant Bayer Healthcare LLC and 

is the creator and manufacturer of the Seresto collars at issue.

20. Defendant Elanco Animal Health Inc. is the world’s second-largest animal health 

company. It is headquartered in Greenfield, Indiana and incorporated in Indiana. In August 2020,

Elanco acquired Bayer’s animal health division, including Seresto, for $7.6 billion. Elanco 

continues today to own, manufacture, advertise, and sell the Seresto pet collar. The company touts 

itself as a “global animal health leader” that “rigorously innovate[s] to improve the health of 

animals”, and asserts it adheres to three core values: “Integrity: Do the right thing in the right way”, 

“Respect: Respect for people, our customers and the animals in their care”, and “Excellence: Be 

accountable. Continuously improve. Deliver with discipline.”

 TOLLING OF STATUTES OF LIMITATION

21. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference each of the preceding allegations as 

though fully set forth herein.

22. Because the defects in the Collars could not be detected until after they 

manifested, and, additionally, because Defendants have denied and purposefully concealed the 

defect in the Seresto Collars and the dangers of its pesticides, Plaintiffs and the members of the 

proposed classes were not reasonably able to discover the problem, despite their exercise of due 

diligence.

23. Defendants knew, or should have known, about the defects from the outset after 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 6 of 90
7

appropriate reasonable safety studies had been conducted, or after they received adverse incident 

reports through the EPA, or after product complaints were submitted to retailers/distributors. 

Yet, Defendants have concealed or failed to disclose the dangerous safety defects associated with 

the Seresto Collars. Plaintiffs and others similarly situated could not have known about the safety 

issues prior to recent reports in March 2021, or even thereafter as Defendants have continued to 

deny any safety issues with the Collars, specifically representing that the Seresto Collars are 

safe.6

24. Defendants did not inform Plaintiffs about the defect inherent in the Products 

even though Defendants knew about the defect at the time of purchase.

25. Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed classes had no realistic ability to 

discern that the Collars were defective and dangerous and could cause their pets harm. Under the 

discovery rule, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the time at which a reasonable 

individual could have discovered the defect. That rule is applicable to the claims asserted by 

Plaintiffs and the members of the proposed classes.

26. Any applicable statute of limitation is tolled by Defendants’ knowledge, active 

concealment, and denial of the facts alleged herein. Defendants are further estopped from relying 

on any statute of limitation because of their concealment of the defects in the Seresto Collars.

27. Defendants are estopped from relying upon any statutes of limitations or statutes 

of repose by reason of their fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, suppression, and 

concealment of material facts, and any applicable statutes of limitations and/or repose are tolled 

by such conduct.

28. As a result of Defendants’ omissions and misrepresentations, Plaintiffs and the

6 www.petbasics.com/campaign/seresto-safety/ (last visited August 26, 2022)

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 7 of 90
8

other members of the proposed classes did not know about the Defect inherent in the Products.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Factual Allegations Relevant to Each Plaintiff

29. At the time of purchase, Plaintiffs reasonably believed the Seresto Collars were 

safe and did not present a risk to their pets’ health to use, based on a review of the Seresto Collar’s

packaging. 

30. On the front of each package, in bold and capitalized font, where it annot be missed 

by consuemrs, the Seresto Collars promise to provide “8 MONTH PROTECTION.” for one’s pet. 

Yet despite Defendants’ representations, The Seresto Collars posed a significant risk to pets for 

the reasons described herein. 

31. Nowhere on the Product packaging or labeling were there warnings or other 

representations indicating that the Seresto Collar may harm or kill pets, or that the Seresto Collars 

could cause any adverse side effects at all. For this reason, Plaintiffs never viewed or read any 

such warnings. 

32. Had Defendants disclosed the existence of the serious safety risks associated with 

use of the Seresto Collars, and made Plaintiffs aware of such risks, Plaintiffs either would not 

have purchased or used the Seresto Collars, or else would have paid significantly less for them. 

Consequently, Plaintiffs did not receive the benefit of their bargain.

33. Furthermore, Plaintiffs suffered economic harm because they spent more money 

on the Seresto Collars than Plaintiffs would have had paid had they known that Seresto fails to 

perform as represented and poses a serious risk to animals and humans. Due to Defendants’ 

misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiffs did not receive the product they intended to 

purchase—that is, a flea and tick collar which was fit for its ordinary purpose, the safe 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 8 of 90
9

administration of flea and tick prevention to her dog. Thus, Plaintiffs did not receive the benefit 

of their bargain.

34. If the Seresto Collars functioned as advertised—and did not pose any serious risk 

to their pets, to themselves, or to others, associated with the Seresto Collar’s use—Plaintiffs likely 

would, or at least would consider, purchasing additional Seresto Collars again in the future. 

Alternatively, if the Court were to issue an injunction ordering Defendants to comply with 

advertising and warranty laws, and to remediate the serious and ongoing safety risks associated 

with Seresto Collars, Plaintiffs likely would, or at least would consider, purchasing additional 

Seresto Collars again in the future. However, as currently labeled and advertised, Plaintiffs are

unable to rely on the current labeling and advertising of the Seresto Collars when considering 

whether, in the future, to purchase the Seresto Collars again.

Defendants Created, Manufactured, Advertised, and Sold the Seresto Collars

35. In or around March 2012, Bayer began importing, distributing, marketing, and 

selling Seresto Collars across the United States. Around the time of the launch, Bayer issued a 

Press Release announcing the product and describing its supposed benefits. The Press Release 

described Seresto Collars as pet collars that offered eight months of tick and flea prevention for 

dogs and cats. Bayer represented that Seresto Collars “offer[] pet owners the performance they 

expect from their monthly topicals, but deliver[] the active ingredients in an easy-to-use, 

convenient collar.” Further, Bayer promoted that the collar would provide “effective protection 

against fleas and ticks” for “eight months”, meaning pet owners would no longer suffer the 

“hassle of remembering to apply monthly treatments.” Bayer bragged that “no other flea and tick 

preventative on the market provides eight months of effective flea and tick protection with only 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 9 of 90
10

one single application[.]”7

36. Since 2012, Defendants have sold 25 million Seresto collars in the USA. 

37. Seresto Collars are currently sold for prices significantly higher than comparable 

products. For instance, consumers may pay as much as $60 for one collar or as much as $110 for 

a two-collar package. In comparison, Sentry flea and tick collars sell for $6.96.8

38. The Collars are available in three sizes: Small Dogs, Large Dogs, and Cats. 

7 https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bayer-healthcare-introduces-seresto-offering-easyto-use-flea-and-tick-control-for-dogs-or-cats-that-lasts-eight-months-187650591.html

8 https://www.petco.com/shop/en/petcostore/product/sentry-dual-action-flea-and-tick-collar-fordogs

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 10 of 90
11

Image 1. Pictures of the front and back labels on the Seresto pet collar packaging.

39. Seresto Collars have been extremely lucrative for Defendants. For example, in 

2019, Bayer reported revenues exceeding $300 million for just its Seresto Collars. Bayer’s 2018 

annual report indicates Bayer was “focusing on maximizing the continued growth of the 

innovative Seresto collar,” noting it was one of Bayer’s “best-selling animal health products” 

with 28.5% growth in sales. In 2016, Bayer reported 55.4% growth in Seresto sales. Similarly, 

in the fourth quarter of 2020 alone, Elanco earned $64 million from the sale of this product. 

Elanco claims that Seresto is the “#1 selling non-prescription flea and tick brand.” 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 11 of 90
12

40. In marketing the Seresto Collars, Defendants conveyed to Plaintiffs and the other

class members that they could be safely used on their pets. The packaging itself represents “8 

MONTH PROTECTION.” Additionally, Defendant claim the Collars can be used without 

consultation with a veterinarian, for example, by advertising: “no prescription required,”9“vetrecommended,”10 and marketing videos featuring veterinarians promoting Seresto Collars. 

41. Seresto products are intentionally marketed directly to consumers. For example, 

Elanco’s website states that pet owners who lack professional veterinary knowledge can obtain 

“the information you need about this product” from Elanco’s website, claiming Seresto was

subject to a 2014 “in-clinic experience trial” by which veterinarians recommended the Seresto 

Collars: 

Image 2. A picture of Seresto’s purported 2014 trial results.11

42. However, the “study” touted on Elanco’s website was not a genuine trial of 

clinical significance as Defendants merely assessed “satisfaction” over an 8-month period. And 

those veterinarians and participants were compensated for participating in the “study.” 

9 www.petbasics.com/our-products/ seresto/

10 www.petbasics.com/our-products/seresto/#additional-resources

11 Available at: www.elancodvm.com/our-products/seresto/seresto-dogs#section-Concerns

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 12 of 90
13

43. Defendants’ marketing also misleadingly conveys that the Seresto Collars 

function without entering a pet’s body, stating that the “active ingredients spread from the site 

of direct contact over the skin surface,”12 or implying that Seresto provides “nonsystematic 

protection,” unlike oral products that enter a pet’s bloodstream:

Image 3. Defendants’ representation of Seresto’s pesticides spreading over 

pets’ bodies.13

44. Defendants also emphasized the importance of the “Bayer Polymer Matrix.” 

This is part of Defendants’ patented “continuous release technology,” which they claim “ensures 

that both active ingredients [i.e. the pesticides] are slowly and continuously released in low 

concentrations from the collar towards the animal.” 

45. Defendants knew or should have known that their statements and conduct caused 

the public and consumers to believe that the design of the Seresto Collars made pesticide 

overdosage and/or overexposure unlikely, demonstrated for instance, by the following 

exchanges involving Defendants’ distributor Chewy, who sold Seresto Collars:

12www.petbasics.com/our-products/seresto/#additional-resources (emphasis added) 

13 www.petbasics.com/our-products/seresto/

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 13 of 90
14

 * * *

 * * *

Image 4. Customer comments about Seresto on Chewy.com.

46. Elanco also owns or otherwise operates the PetBasics website and YouTube 

Channel. One PetBasics video claims Seresto is the “#1 selling non-prescription flea and tick 

brand,” and links to an article on Petbasics.com states “Seresto for Dogs offers the performance 

you expect form a monthly flea and tick treatment like topicals or pills, with the convenience of 

an easy-to-use 8-month collar. You read that right. One effective, odorless, non-greasy collar = 8 

months of protection.” It additionally claims Seresto uses an “innovative Sustained Release 

Technology” that “kills and peals fleas and tick of 8 continuous months.” 

The Seresto Collars Use a Dangerous Combination of Pesticides

47. Defendants advertised that it uses a combination of two pesticides, imidacloprid 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 14 of 90
15

and flumethrin with a unique, synergistic product. The labeling and package insert for Seresto 

states the two “active ingredients” (i.e. pesticides): imidacloprid (10%) and flumethrin (4.5%). 

Imidacloprid is a member of the neonicotinoid class of insecticides, targeting fleas. Flumethrin 

is a synthetic pyrethroid insecticide, targeting ticks. 

48. In marketing the Seresto Collars, Defendants claim that “[f]lumethrin works 

together with imidacloprid to provide dual action against fleas and ticks. No other product has 

this combination of ingredients” and that “[s]tudies show that fleas and ticks are highly 

susceptible to the combination of imidacloprid and flumethrin found in Seresto.”14 

49. The Seresto Collars’ “unique pharmacological synergism” that Defendants tout 

results in increased toxicity. Defendants knew or should have known of the increased toxicity 

since the collars’ introduction in 2012 and, in fact, studies have long shown the toxicity of both 

pesticides alone and of their dangerous effects when combined.

50. Imidacloprid is a neonicotinoid pesticide that produces neuronal toxicities in 

insects. However, studies have shown that even small doses of imidacloprid can negatively affect 

animals.15 Household use of imidacloprid has also cause a range of side effects in humans, 

including skin rash, muscle tremor, difficulty breathing, vomiting wheezing lock jaw, memory 

loss, and renal failure.16The EPA has found that in mammals, including humans, cats, and dogs, 

“[t]he nervous systems is the primary target organ of imidacloprid.”17 In studies of the effect of 

imidacloprid on rats and mice, often surrogates for humans, dietary exposure to imidacloprid 

included decreased movement and body weights, tremors, thyroid effects, retinal atrophy, and 

14 www.petbasics.com/our-products/seresto/#additional-resources (emphasis added).

15 See Petition to Cancel Registration of PNR1427 (Brand Name Seresto), Ctr. for Biological Diversity at 

5–6 (Apr. 8, 2021), https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/pesticides_reduction/pdfs/2021-4-8-

Petition-to-Cancel_SerestoCollarwExhs.pdf

16 Id. at 6.

17 Id. 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 15 of 90
16

brain effects.18 Worse, the EPA found that dogs were more sensitive to imidacloprid than the 

standard test animals (i.e. rats and mice), including at doses seven times lower than the levels lower 

than the level of toxicity for mice and rats.19 Dogs exposed to imidacloprid suffered from severe 

tremors and trembling at medium to high doses.20

51. In addition to the EPA’s findings, the California Environmental Protection Agency 

assessed imidacloprid. Its investigation found that acute oral exposure of imidacloprid to rats and 

mice caused tremors, decreased coordination and mobility, spasms, respiratory difficulties, and 

lethargy.21

52. An independent study by Murray State University found that one of the pesticides 

in Seresto, imidacloprid, can cross the skin barrier and enter the blood of treated pets.22 

53. Finally, a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature on the health effects of 

neonicotinoids, like imidacloprid, on humans found imidacloprid caused malformations of the 

developing heart and brain, including memory loss and finger tremors.23 

54. Significantly, during the relevant time period, the Seresto Collars are the only 

end-use product in the nation that uses flumethrin, according to the EPA. The Bayer Group’s 

CropScience Division developed flumethrin in the 1980s, and intended to use it with livestock, 

such as cattle (e.g., Bayticol, Bayvarol). However, in or about 2003, Bayer sought to expand the 

18 Id.

19 Id. at 6-7.

20 Id. at 7.

21 Id. 

22 Written Statement of Karen McCormack, Retired EPA Employee; U.S. House of 

Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Economic and 

Consumer Policy Hearing on Seresto Flea and Tick Collars: Examining Why a Product Linked to 

More than 2,500 Pet Deaths Remains on the Market, June 15, 2022 available at 

https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/McCormack%20Testimony

.pdf

23 Id. at 8.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 16 of 90
17

market for its flumethrin, and began developing applications for dogs (e.g., the Kiltix collar). 

55. The Kiltix collar only used 2.25% flumethrin (in combination with propoxur); by 

contrast, the Seresto collar uses approximately double the amount of flumethrin (4.5%).

Although the Kiltix collar contains less fulmethrin than a Seresto collar, it carries a warning in 

some countries, like Australia, that it may cause paralysis and weakness.24

56. Intoxication of flumethrin can affect the nervous and muscular systems. Recent 

studies have shown that mammalian exposure to pyrethroids caused learning deficiencies and 

physiological effects associated with neurodegeneration, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s 

disease, among others.25 The EPA’s 2012 human health risk assessment of flumethrin in pet collars 

indicated it has similar toxic effects to other pyrethroids. These included pawing, burrowing, 

writhing, salivation, coarse tremors, decreased body weights, and impaired motor activity.26

57. Defendants have represented that they “thoroughly test[ed] Seresto, including its 

active ingredients and collar components, as part of its development for registration in the 

U.S. and approval globally” and also that defendants “closely monitor Seresto continuously to 

ensure its performance.”27 Defendants have conveniently hidden the tens of thousands of safety 

incident reports from consumers.

58. Bayer, in fact, was well aware and previously acknowledged the risk of 

flumethrin outside of the context of its pet collars. According to the registration statement filed 

by Bayer’s Animal Health Division with the EPA concerning flumethrin, Bayer warned of 

“Hazards to Humans and Domestic Animals,” including that it “may be fatal if swallowed or 

24 See Kiltix Tick Collar, Vetshop Australia.com (last visited May 2, 2022) (listing “Side Effects” 

including vomiting, diarrhoea, salivation, lethargy, and neurologic signs (weakness, paralysis)).

25 Petition to Cancel Registration, supra note 12, at 8–9.

26 Id. at 9.

27 www.petbasics.com/our-products/seresto/

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 17 of 90
18

absorbed through the skin” that it is also “[h]armful if inhaled” and that one should “[a]void 

breathing [its] dust.” Specifically, the warning states28: 

59. Despite recognizing flumethrin’s dangers, Defendants seemingly never engaged 

in any independent unbiased testing of the collars, but rather employed company-controlled 

studies (for example, through former-Bayer employee and current-Elanco employee, Dorothee 

Stanneck, DVM). Further, the publicly available studies of the Seresto Collars make no effort to 

consider long-term use. 

60. As Defendants admitted, these two pesticides are dangerous alone and are even 

worse when combined due to their “synergistic” effect.29 It is that effect that is harming, and 

sometimes killing, the pets that wear Seresto Collars. One former EPA employee, for example, 

opined that the cause of Seresto’s high adverse side effects is likely due to a reaction caused by 

the use of imidacloprid and flumethrin in combinations.30 As Nathan Donley, a scientist at the 

28 Flumethrin Technical, Bayer Healthcare LLC, at 3 (Feb. 13, 2013), 

https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/011556-00154-20130314.pdf 

29 Petition to Cancel Registration, supra note 12, at 10–11. 

30 https://investigatemidwest.org/2021/03/02/popular-flea-collar-linked-to-almost-1700-petdeaths-the-epa-has-issued-no-warning/

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 18 of 90
19

Center for Biological Diversity, explained when discussing the number of complaints, “[y]ou don’t 

even see these kinds of numbers with many agricultural chemicals.”31

61. Indeed, although all flea and tick collars rely on some type of pesticides, no other 

flea and tick product has garnered as many complaints or resulted in as many complications as 

Seresto Collars. For instance, other flea and tick collars using different pesticides have had 

significantly fewer complaints than the Seresto brand. From 1992 to 2008, the EPA received about 

4,600 incident reports regarding pet collars that use a different pesticide, tetrachlorvinphos, 

including 363 reported deaths. That is 30 times fewer incidents and 10 times fewer deaths than 

Seresto Collars have caused in just half the time (only eight years). The National Resources 

Defense Council in 2009, before Seresto Collars were on the market, found tetrachlorvinphos was 

one of the most dangerous pesticides at that time. The far higher number of complaints from 

Seresto Collars and the severity of the adverse effects suggest that the pesticides in Seresto Collars 

as the most dangerous flea and tick pesticides on the market. 

62. Defendants were also on notice of the dangers that flea and tick collars pose when 

they release too much of the product too quickly. For instance, a study done by the Natural 

Resources Defense Council in 2009, three years before Bayer first released Seresto, found that the 

chemicals in flea and tick collars “are highly hazardous to animals and humans, and can damage 

the brain and nervous system, and cause cancers.”32 That study determined that “high levels of 

pesticide residue can remain on dog’s and cat’s fur for weeks after a flea collar is put on an animal” 

and that “[r]esidue levels produced by some flea collars are so high that they pose a risk of cancer 

31 https://investigatemidwest.org/2021/03/02/popular-flea-collar-linked-to-almost-1700-petdeaths-the-epa-has-issued-no-warning/

32 Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, et al., Issue Paper: Toxic Chemicals in Flea and Tick Collars, Natural 

Resource Def. Council (2009).

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 19 of 90
20

and damage to the neurological system of children up to 1,000 times higher than the EPA’s 

acceptable levels.”33 

63. Notably, Defendants advertise that the Seresto Collars’ pesticides or “active 

ingredients” spread on the pet’s body, from “head to toe” and do so “continuously” over eight 

months. 

64. Moreover, the Seresto Collars contain a third, undisclosed ingredient that may be 

toxic in high doses. Seresto Collars have a third, unspecified “Tradesecret” ingredient. This 

secret ingredient is toxic at the following rates: with respect to dermal toxicity, the mystery 

ingredient indicates for LD50 rabbit: > 5,000 mg/kg; with respect to oral toxicity, it indicates for 

LD50 rat: 4,640 mg/kg, and with respect to acute toxicity, the “Tradesecret” ingredient indicates 

LD50 intravenous mouse: 23 mg/kg. Furthermore, this “Tradesecret” chemical can enhance the 

toxic effects of flumethrin.34

65. Moreover, the Collars’ design exposes pets to high, dangerous levels of pesticides 

over an eight-month span (since the Collars are meant to be worn continuously for 8 months). That 

is not the case with most flea and tick preventatives. 

66. Defendants, by contrast, advertised the Seresto Collar as a set-it and forget-it 

product that packed eight months’ worth of product into a single collar. Supposedly, Seresto 

Collars are designed to prevent pesticides from being released in high doses. However, Defendants 

acknowledged that Seresto Collars release the pesticides “continuously” and that the pesticides 

spread throughout the pets’ skin, and that the pesticides become effective within just six hours of 

application. The quick effectiveness of Seresto Collars’ pesticides suggests that the pesticides are 

33 Id. 

34 https://datasheets.scbt.com/sc-395480.pdf

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 20 of 90
21

in reality spreading quickly in high doses—an unsafe dosage of this pesticide combination –

instead of in small, steady doses over 8 months as indicated on the front of the packaging. 

67. Others have raised the same concern. For example, the California Department of 

Pesticide Regulation rejected certain studies when evaluating Seresto Collars, finding that “the 

multiple collar tests evidently greatly under-estimate exposures” and thus, the Department “did 

not accept th[ose] adult dog and cat studies[.]”35

68. Because Seresto Collars’ “Sustained Release Technology” may be defective, high 

pesticide exposure can result in numerous and often dangerous side effects to consumers’ pets. 

69. Whether the dangers stem from the combination of two pesticides (which no other 

product uses), the third secret ingredient that is toxic, the amount of pesticide in the collar, or a 

defective pesticide release technology, Seresto Collars cause significant harm. Given the many 

complaints issued to Defendants, to government agencies like the EPA, or made publicly online, 

Defendants knew or should have known Seresto Collars were dangerous to pet health. But

Defendants failed to warn the public and, instead, represented that Seresto Collars were safe and 

effective.

Numerous Consumer Complaints Put Defendants on Notice of Seresto’s 

Harmful Effects.

70. Separate and apart from the EPA data, there are numerous non-EPA reports of 

serious adverse incidents involving the Seresto Collars, of which defendants knew or should 

have known. For example, users of the Seresto Collars reported to Defendants, directly or via its 

retailers and distributors, that the Seresto Collars caused pets to suffer seizures, liver failure, an 

inability to walk, disorientation and aggression, cancerous tumors, severe skin damage, brain 

35 https://investigatemidwest.org/2021/03/02/popular-flea-collar-linked-to-almost-1700-petdeaths-the-epa-has-issued-no-warning/

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 21 of 90
22

damage, severe vomiting, bloody bowel movement, pain and death, including these examples

from online reviews:

* * *

* * *

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 22 of 90
23

* * *

* * *

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 23 of 90
24

* * *

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 24 of 90
25

* * *

* * *

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 25 of 90
26

* * *

* * *

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 26 of 90
27

* * *

 

* * *

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 27 of 90
28

* * *

* * *

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 28 of 90
29

* * *

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 29 of 90
30

* * *

* * *

* * *

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 30 of 90
31

* * *

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 31 of 90
32

* * *

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 32 of 90
33

* * *

* **

71. The above consumer comments and reviews also demonstrate that consumers 

have incurred significant veterinarian costs as a direct result of harm caused to pets by the Seresto 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 33 of 90
34

Collars.

72. In fact, a former-EPA section chief, Karen McCormack, stated that the Seresto 

Collars have the most incidents of any pesticide pet product that she observed during her lengthy 

career at the EPA, with climbing incidences.

36

 

73. Defendants’ labeling and warning for the Seresto Collars misleadingly downplay 

any risk of the Seresto collar (including its ingredients and components), stating that “Individual 

sensitivities, while rare, may occur after using ANY pesticide product for pets” and that “As 

with any pesticide product, do not allow small children to play with the collar or reflectors, or to 

put them into their mouths.” These generic warnings fall far short of adequate, especially where 

Defendants’ marketing of the Seresto Collars is targeted at laypersons lacking specialized 

veterinarian knowledge or training. 

74. Defendants did not adequately warn and disclose that the Seresto Collars are 

unique in that they were, and are, the only end-use pet product using flumethrin (a Bayer-created 

pesticide), nor did Defendants warn of the associated risks. As Bayer admitted in the 2014 

Materials Safety Data Sheet for Seresto (“MSDS”), under the category of “Acute Dermal 

Toxicity,” flumethrin is “Harmful in contact with skin.” Indeed, an EPA memorandum from 

September 2019 indicated that over a two-and-half-year period (January 2016 to August 2019), 

the self-reported incidents of the flumethrin injuring a human (i.e., pets’ owners) totaled almost 

1,000 injuries.37 

36 Popular Flea Collar Linked to Almost 1,700 Pet Deaths, USA Today (Mar. 2, 2020), available at, 

www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2021/03/02/seresto-dog-cat-collars-found-harm-petshumans-epa-records-show/4574753001/. 

37 EPA Memo re Flumethrin, at pg. 4 (9/17/19). For instance, a twelve-year-old boy who slept in bed 

with a dog wearing the collar was hospitalized due to seizures and vomiting; Popular Flea Collar Linked 

to Almost 1,700 Pet Deaths, USA Today (Mar. 2, 2021). 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 34 of 90
35

75. The actual number is certainly higher as not all exposures and injuries would have 

been reported to the EPA. 

76. The Seresto Collars’ labeling and warning are also misleading as the only adverse 

effects expressly addressed are “site reactions” (e.g., dermatitis, inflammation, eczema, or 

lesions). No other risks are disclosed, nor are any other warnings provided to consumers, 

including the risk of death, organ failure, loss of bodily function, seizures, and other major health 

incidents, such as those described supra. This serious omission is even more concerning 

considering the adverse incidents documented by the EPA. 

77. In contrast with the information that Defendants provided to consumers with the 

Seresto Collars, a June 2016 document indicates that Defendants were aware, or should have 

been aware, that the Seresto Collars could cause neurological symptoms (e.g., ataxia, 

convulsions and tremor), and the product should not be used if neurological symptoms manifest 

after using the Seresto Collars38.

38 https://investigatemidwest.org/2021/08/13/the-epa-internally-raised-concerns-about-serestoflea-collar-for-years-new-records-reveal/.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 35 of 90
36

78. On March 17, 2021, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight 

and Reform Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy requested that Elanco 

“immediately institute a temporary recall of all Seresto flea and tick collars ... following reports 

that the collars may have killed thousands of pets and may have caused injuries to many more 

pets as well as humans,” citing EPA documents that indicated “Seresto collars were associated 

with almost 1,700 pet deaths, over 75,000 incidents involving harm to pets, and nearly 1,000 

incidents involving human harm.”39 The Subcommittee noted that the “packaging for Seresto 

collars contains no disclaimer warning that the risks of toxicity may be so great that they could 

possibly be responsible for thousands of pet deaths.”40

79. The Subcommittee then conducted an in-depth investigation of Defendants and 

the Seresto collar, including review of documents not made available to the public. After its 

extensive investigation, the Subcommittee issued a formal report in June of 2022, 

whichconcluded that the Seresto Collars on the market should be recalled and that future sale of 

Seresto Collars should be banned in the United States.41

80. Indeed, the Subcomittee recommendation is in line with countries such as Canada 

that have already banned sale of Seresto Collars within its borders due to the risk to the health 

of pets and humans that the Seresto collars pose. Specifically, in 2016, Canada Pest Management 

Regulatory Agency (“PMRA”) – based on a review of incident and toxicology studies –

concluded that the collar posed too great a risk to pets and their owners to be sold in Canada.

81. In short, Defendants have entirely omitted the dangerous safety concerns 

39 https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2021-03-

17.RK%20to%20Simmons-Elanco%20re%20Pet%20Collars.pdf

40 Id.

41 Available at https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/

2022.06.15%20ECP%20Seresto%20Staff%20Report%20FINAL.pdf

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 36 of 90
37

associated with the Seresto Collars—omitting key information from consumers and 

misrepresenting the safety and efficacy of the product. 

82. Defendants still deny any issues with the Seresto Collars. In March 25, 2021, 

Elanco claimed, “[t]here is no evidence in the scientific evaluation conducted for registration or 

the regularly reviewed pharmacovigilance data to suggest a recall of Seresto is warranted, nor 

has one been requested, or even suggested by any regulatory agency. As a result, Elanco 

continues to stand behind the safety profile of Seresto. It remains available to consumers as an 

effective way to protect pets against fleas and ticks that can transmit disease and can impact their 

quality of life.”42 This misleading message of safety was repeated by Jeffrey Simmons, the Chief 

Executive Office of Elanco, before Congress on June 15, 2022 when he testified that: “Seresto 

[is] a proven solution that is not only effective at protecting dogs and cats from disease-carrying 

fleas and ticks, but also has a strong safety profile.” 

83. Accordingly, Defendants are not only omitting safety information from the 

Collars but are also actively misleading consumers into believing the Collars are effective and 

safe.

CLASS DEFINITION AND ALLEGATIONS

84. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3) and 23(c)(4), 

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the following proposed Nationwide Class:

During the fullest period allowed by law, all persons in the 

United States who purchased a Seresto Collar for use on a 

pet and not for resale.

85. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3) and 23(c)(4), 

Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the following proposed Florida Class:

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 37 of 90
38

During the fullest period allowed by law, all persons in the 

state of Florida who purchased a Seresto Collar for use on a 

pet and not for resale.

86. Excluded from the Classes are: (i) Defendants, any entity in which any Defendant 

has a controlling interest or which has a controlling interest in any Defendant, and Defendants’ 

legal representatives, predecessors, successors and assigns; (ii) governmental entities; (iii) 

Defendants’ employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives and their family members; 

(iv) all persons who make a timely election to be excluded from the class; and (v) judges and staff 

to whom this case is assigned, and any member of and judge’s immediate family.

87. Certification of Plaintiffs’ claims for class-wide treatment is appropriate because 

Plaintiffs can prove the elements of their claims on a class-wide basis using the same evidence as 

would be used to prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same claims.

88. Numerosity – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1). Members of the 

proposed Classes are so numerous that the individual joinder of all absent Class members is 

impracticable. Class members have purchased hundreds of thousands of the Seresto Collars during 

the Class Period. Further information regarding the number of Class Members is ascertainable by 

appropriate discovery. Plaintiffs are informed and so believe, based upon the nature of the trade 

and commerce involved, that the proposed Classes include many thousands of Class members who 

are geographically diverse so that joinder of all Class members is impracticable.

89. Typicality – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3). Plaintiffs’ claims are 

typical of the claims of putative class members in that each purchased a Seresto Collar for use on 

a pet. Plaintiffs and the Class Members were comparably injured through Defendant’s uniform 

course of misconduct described herein. Plaintiffs and Class members all suffered the same harm 

as a result of Defendants’ common, false, deceptive, and misleading acts and practices in the sale 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 38 of 90
39

of the Seresto Collars. By advancing their claims, Plaintiffs will also advance the claims of all 

Class members because Defendants’ unlawful conduct caused and continues to cause all Class 

members to suffer similar harm.

90. Adequacy – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4). Plaintiffs will fairly and 

adequately protect the interests of the Class Members. Plaintiffs’ interests and the interests of all 

other members of each respective class are identical, and Plaintiffs are cognizant of their respective 

duties and responsibilities to the Class Members. Further, the interests of the Class Members are 

not conflicting or divergent but, rather, are common. Accordingly, Plaintiffs can fairly and 

adequately represent the interests of both classes. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ counsel are competent and 

experienced in litigating class actions, including litigation of this kind. Plaintiffs and their counsel 

intend to vigorously prosecute this case and will fairly and adequately protect the Class Members’ 

interests.

91. Commonality and Predominance – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) 

and 23(b)(3). This action involves common questions of law and fact, which predominate over 

any questions affecting individual Class members. Among the questions of law or fact common to

the proposed Classes are:

a. whether Seresto Collars pose safety risks to Class Members’ pets, as 

described herein,

b. whether Defendants knew or should have known that Seresto Collars pose 

safety risks to Class Members’ pets, described herein,

c. whether Defendants failed to warn consumers regarding the safety risks the 

Seresto Collars pose to Class Members’ pets, as described herein,

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 39 of 90
40

d. whether Defendants failed to disclose material information concerning the 

safety risks posed by the Seresto Collars to Class Members’ pets,

e. whether Defendants representations and omissions concerning the Seresto 

Collars involved representations and omissions of material fact;

f. whether Defendants concealed the safety risks posed by Seresto Collars to 

Class Members’ pets, as described herein,

g. whether Defendants breached warranties with purchasers when they 

marketed and sold Seresto Collars as safe for pets, which posed risks known 

to Defendants but unknown and undisclosed to consumers, as described 

herein,

h. whether Defendants engaged in unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive trade 

practices by selling and/or marketing the Seresto Collars that pose safety 

risks pets, as described herein,

i. whether Defendants conduct violates the consumer protection statutes at 

issue in this litigation,

j. whether Defendants breached express warranties to Class Members,

k. whether Defendants breached implied warranties of merchantability to 

Class Members,

l. whether Defendants were negligent in selling the Seresto Collars,

m. whether Defendants’ conduct was unjust and in violation of principles of 

justice, equity and good conscience,

n. whether Plaintiffs and Class Members conferred financial benefits on 

Defendants by purchasing the Seresto Collars,

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 40 of 90
41

o. whether it is unjust for Defendants to retain the benefits conferred by 

Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ overpayments for the Seresto Collars,

p. whether Plaintiffs and the class members are entitled to damages, including 

compensatory, exemplary, and statutory damages, and the amount of such 

damages and the amount thereof, and 

q. whether Plaintiffs and Class Members are entitled to equitable relief, 

including but not limited to a preliminary and/or permanent injunction.

92. Superiority - Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). A class action is superior 

to any other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, and no 

unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action. The 

quintessential purpose of the class action mechanism is to permit litigation against wrongdoers 

even when damages to an individual plaintiff may not be sufficient to justify individual litigation. 

Here, the damages suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class are relatively small compared to the burden 

and expense required to individually litigate their claims against Defendants, and thus, individual 

litigation to redress Defendants’ wrongful conduct would be impracticable. Individual litigation 

by each Class member would also strain the court system, create the potential for inconsistent or 

contradictory judgments, and increase the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. 

By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the 

benefits of a single adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single 

court.

93. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). 

Class certification is also appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted and 

refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class as a whole, such that final injunctive 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 41 of 90
42

relief is appropriate with respect to the class as a whole. Plaintiffs assert claims for injunctive relief 

and restitution arising from Defendants’ false, misleading, and deceptive advertising and 

Defendants’ failure to disclose the material risks of use of the Seresto Collars on pets

94. This action is also properly maintainable under Rule 23(c)(4) in that particular 

issues common to the class, as described above in part, are most appropriately and efficiently 

resolved via class action, and would advance the disposition of this matter and the parties’ interests 

therein.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

VIOLATION OF THE INDIANA DECEPTIVE 

CONSUMER SALES ACT (“IDCSA”)

Ind. Code § 23-5, et seq.

(By Plaintiff Individually and on Behalf of 

the Nationwide Class against All Defendants)

95. Plaintiff reasserts the allegations set forth in the factual allegations paragraphs 

above and incorporate such allegations by reference herein.

96. The Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act (“IDCSA”) was enacted to “simplify, 

clarify, and modernize the law governing deceptive and unconscionable consumer sales 

practices[,]” “protect consumers from suppliers who commit deceptive and unconscionable sales 

acts[,]” and “encourage the development of fair consumer sales practices.” Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-

1(b). The act is intended to be “liberally construed and applied to promote its purposes.” Id. § 24-

0.5-5-1(a).

97. The IDCSA prohibits “deceptive representations as to the subject matter of a 

consumer transaction,” including: “[t]hat such a subject of a consumer transaction is of a particular 

standard, quality, grade, style, or model, if it is not and if the supplier knows or should reasonably 

know that it is not” and that “[t]he consumer will be able to purchase the subject of the consumer 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 42 of 90
43

transaction as advertised by the supplier, if the supplier does not intend to sell it.” Id. § 24-5- 0.5-

3(a)(1), (11).

98. Under the IDCSA, a “consumer transaction” means “a sale, lease, assignment, 

award by chance or other disposition of an item of personal property, real property, [or] a service 

. . . to a person for purposes that are primarily personal, familial, charitable, agricultural, or 

household, or a solicitation to supply any of these things.” Id. § 24-5-0.5-2(a)(1).

99. A person relying on an “uncured or incurable deceptive act may bring an action for 

damages actually suffered as a consumer as a result of the deceptive act or five hundred dollars 

($500), whichever is greater.” Id. § 24-5-0.5-4.

100. An “uncured deceptive act” means a deceptive act where a consumer who has been 

damaged by such act has given notice to the supplier and either (1) no offer to cure has been made 

to such consumer within 30 days or (2) the action has not been cured as to such consumer within 

a reasonable time after the consumer’s acceptance of the offer to cure.

101. An “incurable deceptive act” means a deceptive act done by a supplier as part of a 

scheme, artifice, or device with the intent to defraud or mislead.

102. Defendants represented in the Seresto Collar packaging, labeling, marketing, 

advertising, and promotion that the Seresto Collars provide a safe means of flea and tick prevention 

for consumers’ pets. Defendants have continued to tout the safety of the Seresto Collars even 

though the Seresto Collars have been linked to almost 1,700 pet deaths, over 75,000 incidents 

involving pet harm.

103. Contrary to these representations, the Seresto Collars pose an unreasonable safety 

risk to pets.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 43 of 90
44

104. Defendants omitted, concealed, and failed to disclose to consumers that the Seresto 

Collars pose serious safety risks to pets, including that the Seresto Collars were inherently 

defective; unreasonably dangerous; not fit to be used for their intended purpose; contained unsafe 

levels of imidacloprid and flumethrin; and/or caused serious health problems. Rather than disclose 

this information, Defendants marketed the Seresto Collars as safe for their intended purpose.

105. Defendants have committed an “incurable deceptive act” within the meaning of the 

IDCSA, as follows:

a. Defendants manufactured, distributed, marketed, advertised and sold the 

Seresto Collars, which posed serious safety risks to pets (as evidenced by 

the thousands of injuries and deaths), and which serious safety risks existed 

when the Seresto Collars left Defendants’ control and at the point of sale;

b. Defendants knew, or otherwise should have known, that the Seresto Collars 

posed serious safety risks to pets, but omitted and failed to disclose or 

concealed these risks from consumers;

c. Defendants knew the serious safety risks posed by the Seresto Collars were 

unknown to consumers, and would not be easily discovered by Plaintiff and 

Class Members, and would defeat their ordinary, foreseeable and 

reasonable expectations concerning the performance of the Seresto Collars;

d. Defendants warranted that the Seresto Collars are part of a pet’s regular 

health regimen and provide a safe means of flea and tick prevention, when, 

in fact, the Collars pose serious safety risks to pets; and

e. Defendants represented to consumers, including Plaintiffs and Class 

Members, that the Seresto Collars are safe and fit for the use for which they 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 44 of 90
45

were intended, despite the fact that Defendants knew, or otherwise should 

have known, that the Seresto Collars were unsafe and unfit as part of a pet’s 

health regimen, posing serious safety risks to consumers’ pets.

106. Contrary to Defendants’ warranties and representations that the Seresto Collars 

were safe and suitable for their intended use, the Seresto Collars, which are marketed as being part 

of a pet’s regular health regimen, are unsafe as designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold. The 

Seresto Collars posed serious and continuous safety risks to pets.

107. Defendants had exclusive knowledge of material facts concerning the serious safety 

risks posed by the Seresto Collars to pets.

108. Defendants knew, or otherwise should have known, that the Seresto Collars posed 

serious safety risks to pets, including Plaintiff and the other Class Members, and their pets based 

upon: (1) their own internal testing, data, and surveys; (2) numerous consumer complaints lodged 

directly with Defendants; (3) numerous consumer complaints lodged to retailers; (4) numerous 

consumer complaints and reports lodged with the EPA; and (5) numerous consumer complaints 

on online fora.

109. Despite Defendants’ knowledge of material facts concerning the existence of the 

serious safety risks posed by Seresto Collars, Defendants actively concealed the serious safety 

risks from consumers by failing to disclose the serious safety risks to consumers.

110. Despite Defendants’ knowledge of material facts concerning the existence of the 

serious safety risks posed by Seresto Collars, Defendants denied the existence of the serious safety 

risks to pets.

111. Defendants’ misrepresentations were material to Plaintiff’s and the other Class 

members’ decision to purchase the Seresto Collars.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 45 of 90
46

112. Defendants’ deceptive acts and practices, including their representations and 

omissions, were material, in part, because they concerned an essential aspect of the Seresto Collars, 

including the intended use and safety. Such facts would naturally affect the conduct of purchasers 

and a reasonable person would have considered those facts to be important in deciding whether to 

purchase the Seresto Collars. Rather than disclose this information, Defendants marketed and 

labeled the Seresto Collars as a safe means of flea and tick prevention for pets.

113. Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions regarding the inherently defective 

and unreasonably dangerous nature of Seresto Collars were and are directed at consumers in a 

uniform manner.

114. Defendants’ practices described herein were likely to deceive, and did deceive, 

consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances. Consumers, including Plaintiff and the 

other Class Members, would not have purchased the Seresto Collars on the same terms if the true 

facts concerning the risks associated with use of the Seresto Collars had been known had they 

known that the Seresto Collars posed serious safety risks to them and their pets.

115. Plaintiff has provided notice to Defendants in accordance with the IDSCA. 

Defendants failed to respond or fail to address Plaintiff’s’ demands, accordingly, Plaintiff also

alleges here that Defendants also committed an “uncured deceptive act.”

116. Plaintiff and the other Class Members seek all damages and remedies, including 

equitable relief, allowable under the IDCSA.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

VIOLATION OF THE KANSAS CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (“KCPA”)

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-623, et seq.

(By Plaintiff Individually and on Behalf of 

the Nationwide Class against All Defendants)

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 46 of 90
47

117. Plaintiff reasserts the allegations set forth in the factual allegations paragraphs 

above and incorporate such allegations by reference herein.

118. The Kansas Consumer Protection Act (“KCPA”) provides, “[n]o supplier shall 

engage in any deceptive act or practice in connection with a transaction.” K.S.A. § 50-626(a).

119. The KCPA also provides, “[n]o supplier shall engage in any unconscionable act or 

practice in connection with a consumer transaction.” K.S.A. § 50-627(a).

120. The KCPA defines deceptive acts and practices to include, “the willful failure to 

state a material fact, or the willful concealment, suppression or omission of a material fact.” KCPA 

§ 50-626(b)(3).

121. The KCPA provides, “[a]n unconscionable act or practice violates this act whether 

it occurs before, during or after the transaction.” K.S.A. § 50-627(a). “In determining whether an 

act or practice is unconscionable, the court shall consider circumstances of which the supplier 

knew or had reason to know, such as, but not limited to . . . [whether] (1) [t]he supplier took 

advantage of the consumer’s interests because of the consumer’s . . . ignorance; . . . (6) the supplier 

made a misleading statement of opinion on which the consumer was likely to rely to the 

consumer’s detriment. . .” K.S.A. § 50-627(b).

122. The KCPA shall be “liberally construed” to “protect consumers from suppliers who 

commit deceptive and unconscionable practices.” K.S.A. § 50-623(b).

123. Under the KCPA, the term “consumer” is broadly defined to include any person or 

persons who “seeks or acquires property or services for personal, family, household, business or 

agricultural purposes.” K.S.A. § 50-624(b). Plaintiff and the Class are “consumer[s]” under the 

KCPA.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 47 of 90
48

124. Under the KCPA, the term “property” includes “real estate, goods, and intangible 

personal property.” K.S.A. § 50-624(j). The Seresto Collars are “property” within the scope of the 

KCPA.

125. Under the KCPA, the term “supplier” is defined as, “a manufacturer, distributor, 

seller, lessor, assignor, or a person who, in the ordinary course of business, solicits, engages in or 

enforces consumer transactions, whether or not dealing directly with the consumer.” K.S.A. § 50-

624(l). Defendants are “suppliers” under the KCPA.

126. Under the KCPA, the term “consumer transaction” is defined as a “sale, lease, 

assignment or other disposition for value of property or services within this state . . .”. K.S.A. § 

50-624(c). A consumer transaction occurred between Plaintiff and the other Class Members, and 

Defendants in the sale of the Seresto Collars.

127. Plaintiff purchased the Seresto Collars for personal use.

128. The KCPA authorizes private causes of action and class actions. K.S.A. § 50-

634(d). Plaintiff and the other members of the proposed class are individuals entitled to bring suit 

and recover under the KCPA.

129. Defendants engaged in unlawful and deceptive acts and practices concerning the 

sale of the Seresto Collars in violation of federal law and the KCPA.

130. Defendants engaged in unconscionable acts and practices concerning the sale of the 

Seresto Collars violation of federal law and the KCPA.

131. Defendants engaged in the following unconscionable, unfair, deceptive, and 

unconscionable practices in violation of the KCPA:

a. Defendants manufactured, distributed, marketed, advertised and sold the 

Seresto Collars, which posed serious safety risks to pets (as evidenced by 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 48 of 90
49

the thousands of injuries and deaths), and which serious safety risks existed 

when the Seresto Collars left Defendants’ control and at the point of sale;

b. Defendants knew, or otherwise should have known, that the Seresto Collars 

posed serious safety risks to pets, but omitted and failed to disclose or 

concealed these risks from consumers;

c. Defendants knew the serious safety risks posed by the Seresto Collars were 

unknown to consumers, and would not be easily discovered by Plaintiff and

the other Class Members, and would defeat their ordinary, foreseeable and 

reasonable expectations concerning the performance of the Seresto Collars;

d. Defendants warranted that the Seresto Collars are part of a pet’s regular 

health regimen and provide a safe means of flea and tick prevention, when, 

in fact, the Seresto Collars pose serious safety risks to pets; and

e. Defendants represented to consumers, including Plaintiff and the other

Class Members, that the Seresto Collars are safe and fit for the use for which 

they were intended, despite the fact that Defendants knew, or otherwise 

should have known, that the Seresto Collars were unsafe and unfit as part 

of a pet’s health regimen, posing serious safety risks to consumers’ pets.

132. Contrary to Defendants’ warranties and representations that the Seresto Collars 

were safe and suitable for their intended use, the Seresto Collars, which are marketed as being part 

of a pet’s regular health regimen, are unsafe as designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold. The 

Seresto Collars posed serious and continuous safety risks to pets.

133. Defendants had exclusive knowledge of material facts concerning the serious safety 

risks posed by the Seresto Collars to pets.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 49 of 90
50

134. Defendants knew, or otherwise should have known, that the Seresto Collars posed 

serious safety risks to pets, including Plaintiff and the other Class Members, and their pets based 

upon: (1) their own internal testing, data, and surveys; (2) numerous consumer complaints lodged 

directly with Defendants; (3) numerous consumer complaints lodged to retailers; (4) numerous 

consumer complaints and reports lodged with the EPA; and (5) numerous consumer complaints 

on online fora.

135. Despite Defendants’ knowledge of material facts concerning the existence of the 

serious safety risks posed by Seresto Collars, Defendants actively concealed the serious safety 

risks from consumers by failing to disclose the serious safety risks to consumers.

136. Despite Defendants’ knowledge of material facts concerning the existence of the 

serious safety risks posed by Seresto Collars, Defendants denied the existence of the serious safety 

risks to pets.

137. Defendants’ misrepresentations were material to Plaintiff’s and the other Class 

Members’ decision to purchase the Seresto Collars.

138. Defendants’ deceptive acts and practices, including their representations and 

omissions, were material, in part, because they concerned an essential aspect of the Seresto Collars, 

including the intended use and safety. Such facts would naturally affect the conduct of purchasers 

and a reasonable person would have considered those facts to be important in deciding whether to 

purchase the Seresto Collars. Rather than disclose this information, Defendants marketed and 

labeled the Seresto Collars as a safe means of flea and tick prevention for pets.

139. Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions regarding the inherently defective 

and unreasonably dangerous nature of Seresto Collars were and are directed at consumers in a 

uniform manner.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 50 of 90
51

140. Defendants’ violations described herein present a continuing risk to Plaintiff and 

the general public. Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the public 

interest.

141. Defendants’ intended Plaintiff and other Class Members to rely on the concealment 

of the risks posed by the Seresto Collars in an effort to encourage sales of Seresto collars.

142. Defendants’ actions were negligent, knowing and willful, and/or wanton or reckless 

with respect to the rights of Plaintiff and other Class Members.

143. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful practices, Plaintiff and

other Class Members suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property.

144. Defendants’ practices described herein were likely to deceive, and did deceive, 

consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances. Consumers, including Plaintiff and other

Class Members, would not have purchased the Seresto Collars on the same terms if the true facts 

concerning the risks associated with use of the Collars had been known had they known that the 

Collars posed serious safety risks to them and their pets.

145. Plaintiff and the other Class Members seek relief under the KCPA, including but 

not limited to, injunctive relief, damages, restitution, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND 

UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT (“FDUTPA”)

Fla. Stat. Ann. § 501.201, et seq.

(By Plaintiff

Individually and on Behalf of the Florida Class against All Defendants)

146. Plaintiff reasserts the allegations set forth in the factual allegations paragraphs 

above and incorporate such allegations by reference herein.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 51 of 90
52

147. Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of the Florida Class against Defendants for 

violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 501.201, et 

seq. (“FDUTPA”).

148. The stated purpose of FDUTPA is to “protect the consuming public . . . from those 

who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or 

practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Fla. Stat. § 501.202(2).

149. FDUTPA declares unlawful “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts 

or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” 

Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1).

150. Plaintiff and the other Class Members are “consumers,” and the transactions at issue 

in this Complaint constitute “trade or commerce,” as those terms are defined in Fla. Stat. § 

501.203(7)-(8).

151. Defendants manufacture, distribute, market, advertise and sell the Seresto Collars, 

which are “goods” within the meaning of FDUTPA.

152. Defendants violated and continue to violate FDUTPA by engaging in the conduct 

described herein, which are unconscionable, deceptive, unfair acts or practices proscribed by 

FDUTPA. Defendants’ acts and practices, including their omissions, were likely to, and did, in 

fact, deceive and mislead members of the public, including consumers acting reasonably under the 

circumstances, to their detriment.

153. Defendants represented in the Seresto Collar packaging, labeling, marketing, 

advertising, and promotion that the Seresto Collars provide a safe means of flea and tick prevention 

for consumers’ pets. Defendants have continued to tout the safety of the Seresto Collars even 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 52 of 90
53

though the Collars have been linked to almost 1,700 pet deaths, over 75,000 incidents involving 

pet harm.

154. Contrary to these representations, the Seresto Collars pose an unreasonable safety 

risk to pets.

155. Defendants omitted, concealed, and failed to disclose to consumers that the Seresto 

Collars pose serious safety risks to pets, including that the Seresto Collars were inherently 

defective; unreasonably dangerous; not fit to be used for their intended purpose; contained unsafe 

levels of imidacloprid and flumethrin; and/or caused serious health problems. Rather than disclose 

this information, Defendants marketed the Seresto Collars as safe for their intended purpose.

156. Defendants engaged in the following unconscionable, unfair, deceptive, and 

unconscionable practices:

a. Defendants manufactured, distributed, marketed, advertised and sold the 

Seresto Collars, which posed serious safety risks to pets (as evidenced by 

the thousands of injuries and deaths), and which serious safety risks existed 

when the Seresto Collars left Defendants’ control and at the point of sale;

b. Defendants knew, or otherwise should have known, that the Seresto Collars 

posed serious safety risks to pets, but omitted and failed to disclose or 

concealed these risks from consumers.

c. Defendants knew the serious safety risks posed by the Seresto Collars were 

unknown to consumers, and would not be easily discovered by Plaintiffs

and Class Members, and would defeat their ordinary, foreseeable and 

reasonable expectations concerning the performance of the Seresto Collars;

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 53 of 90
54

d. Defendants warranted that the Collars are part of a pet’s regular health 

regimen and provide a safe means of flea and tick prevention, when, in fact, 

the Seresto Collars pose serious safety risks to pets; and

e. Defendants represented to consumers, including Plaintiffs and Class 

Members, that the Collars are safe and fit for the use for which they were 

intended, despite the fact that Defendants knew, or otherwise should have 

known, that the Seresto Collars were unsafe and unfit as part of a pet’s 

health regimen, posing serious safety risks to consumers’ pets.

157. Contrary to Defendants’ warranties and representations that the Seresto Collars 

were safe and suitable for their intended use, the Seresto Collars, which are marketed as being part 

of a pet’s regular health regimen, are unsafe as designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold. The 

Seresto Collars posed serious and continuous safety risks to pets.

158. Defendants had exclusive knowledge of material facts concerning the serious safety 

risks posed by the Seresto Collars to pets.

159. Defendants knew, or otherwise should have known, that the Seresto Collars posed 

serious safety risks to pets, including Plaintiff and the other Class Members, and their pets based 

upon: (1) their own internal testing, data, and surveys; (2) numerous consumer complaints lodged 

directly with Defendants; (3) numerous consumer complaints lodged to retailers; (4) numerous 

consumer complaints and reports lodged with the EPA; and (5) numerous consumer complaints 

on online fora.

160. Despite Defendants’ knowledge of material facts concerning the existence of the 

serious safety risks posed by Seresto Collars, Defendants actively concealed the serious safety 

risks from consumers by failing to disclose the serious safety risks to consumers.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 54 of 90
55

161. Despite Defendants’ knowledge of material facts concerning the existence of the 

serious safety risks posed by Seresto Collars, Defendants denied the existence of the serious safety 

risks to pets.

162. Defendants’ deceptive acts and practices, including their representations and 

omissions, were material, in part, because they concerned an essential aspect of the Seresto Collars, 

including the intended use and safety. Such facts would naturally affect the conduct of purchasers 

and a reasonable person would have considered those facts to be important in deciding whether to 

purchase the Seresto Collars. Rather than disclose this information, Defendants marketed and 

labeled the Seresto Collars as a safe means of flea and tick prevention for pets.

163. Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions regarding the inherently defective 

and unreasonably dangerous nature of Seresto Collars were and are directed at consumers in a 

uniform manner.

164. Defendants’ practices described herein were likely to deceive, and did deceive, 

consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances. Consumers, including Plaintiff and the 

other Class Members, would not have purchased the Seresto Collars on the same terms if the true 

facts concerning the risks associated with use of the Seresto Collars had been known had they 

known that the Collars posed serious safety risks to them and their pets.

165. Defendants’ violations described herein present a continuing risk to Plaintiff and 

the general public. Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the public 

interest.

166. Defendants’ unconscionable, deceptive and/or unfair practices have caused actual 

damages to Plaintiff and the other Class members who were unaware that the Seresto Collars posed 

a serious health risk to their pets.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 55 of 90
56

167. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts or practices, 

Plaintiff and the other Class Members have been damaged, and are entitled to recover actual 

damages to the extent permitted by law in an amount to be proven at trial.

168. Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining Defendants’ unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive 

practices, and seek attorneys’ fees and any other just and proper relief available under FDUTPA 

and applicable law.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY UNDER INDIANA LAW

(By Plaintiff Individually and on Behalf of 

the Nationwide Class against All Defendants)

169. Plaintiff reasserts the allegations set forth in the factual allegations paragraphs 

above and incorporate such allegations by reference herein.

170. Defendants marketed, sold, and/or distributed the Seresto Collars, and Plaintiff and

the other Class Members purchased the Seresto Collars.

171. As fully pleaded above, Defendants had knowledge of the safety risks posed by the 

Seresto Collars to consumers’ pets.

172. Defendants expressly and affirmatively represented and described in their 

marketing, advertising, and promotion that the Seresto Collars provided a safe means of flea and 

tick prevention for consumers’ pets. However, Defendants failed, or otherwise refused, to disclose 

that the Products posed serious safety risks to pets.

173. The Seresto Collars did not conform to Defendants’ representations, descriptions, 

and warranties that the Seresto Collars provided a safe means of flea and tick prevention for 

consumers’ pets, because at all relevant times the Seresto Collars posed serious, continuous safety 

risks to pets. This constitutes a breach of the Seresto Collars’ express warranties that the Seresto 

Collars were safe.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 56 of 90
57

174. The Seresto Collars purchased by Plaintiff and the other Class Members did not 

conform to Defendants’ promises and descriptions because: 

a. The Seresto Collars use a dangerous combination of two pesticides, 

imidacloprid and flumethrin with a unique, synergistic product. In 

marketing the Seresto Collars, Defendants claim that “[f]lumethrin works 

together with imidacloprid to provide dual action against fleas and ticks. 

No other product has this combination of ingredients” and that “[s]tudies 

show that fleas and ticks are highly susceptible to the combination of 

imidacloprid and flumethrin found in Seresto.”43 The Seresto Collars’ 

“unique pharmacological synergism” results in increased toxicity. 

Defendants knew or should have known of the increased toxicity.

b. The Seresto Collars release too much of the product too quickly, and 

Defendants were on notice of this danger.

c. The Seresto Collars contain a third, undisclosed “tradesecret” ingredient 

that may be toxic in high doses. This “Tradesecret” chemical can enhance 

the toxic effects of flumethrin. 

175. Whether the dangers stem from the combination of two pesticides (which no other 

product uses), the amount of pesticide in the collar, or a defective pesticide release technology, 

Seresto Collars cause significant harm. Given the many complaints issued to Defendants, to 

government agencies like the EPA, or made publicly online, Defendants knew or should have 

known Seresto Collars were dangerous to pet health. But Defendants failed to warn the public 

and, instead, represented that Seresto Collars were safe and effective.

43 www.petbasics.com/our-products/seresto/#additional-resources.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 57 of 90
58

176. These express warranties were necessarily material to Plaintiff and the other Class 

Members who would have chosen to purchase a different product if they had possessed knowledge 

that the Seresto Collars posed safety risks to consumers and their pets. 

177. Defendants’ express warranties were made to induce Plaintiff and the other Class 

Members to purchase the Seresto Collars, which did in fact induce Plaintiff and Class Members to 

purchase the Seresto Collars.

178. Plaintiff and the other Class Members have had sufficient direct dealings with either 

Defendants or their agents (including distributors, dealers, and authorized sellers) to establish 

privity of contract between Defendants and Plaintiff and the other Class Members.

179. Defendants’ representations and omissions that the Seresto Collars provided a safe 

means of flea and tick prevention for consumers’ pets, while refusing to disclose the serious safety 

risks posed by the Products to consumers and their pets, became part of the basis of the bargain 

between Defendants on the one hand, and Plaintiff and Class Members on the other.

180. At the time that Defendants made these express warranties, it knew the use for 

which the Seresto Collars were intended, and Defendants expressly warranted that they were fit 

and safe for their intended purpose.

181. Defendants have received sufficient and timely notice of the breaches of express 

warranty alleged herein. Despite this notice, and Defendants’ knowledge of the breaches and of 

the true nature of and defect in the Seresto Collars, Defendants have refused to honor their express 

warranty.

182. Rather than acknowledge their breaches of warranty as described herein, 

Defendants continue to deny that the Seresto Collars can and have caused serious health risks for 

pets and continue to represent and describe the Products as a safe means of flea and tick prevention.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 58 of 90
59

183. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breaches of their express warranties 

and their failure to conform to the Seresto Collars’ representations and descriptions, Plaintiff and

the other Class Members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. Plaintiff and the 

other Class Members have suffered damages in that they did not receive the safe product for which 

they paid and which Defendants warranted it to be. Plaintiff and the other Class Members would 

not have purchased the Seresto Collars on the same terms if the true facts concerning the risks 

associated with the use of the Collars had been disclosed.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY UNDER KANSAS LAW

(By Plaintiff Individually and on Behalf of 

the Nationwide Class against All Defendants)

184. Plaintiff reasserts the allegations set forth in the factual allegations paragraphs 

above and incorporate such allegations by reference herein.

185. Defendants marketed, sold, and/or distributed the Seresto Collars, and Plaintiff and

the other Class Members purchased the Seresto Collars.

186. As fully pleaded above, Defendants had knowledge of the safety risks posed by the 

Seresto Collars to consumers’ pets.

187. Defendants expressly represented and described in their marketing, advertising, and 

promotion that the Seresto Collars provided a safe means of flea and tick prevention for 

consumers’ pets. However, Defendants failed, or otherwise refused, to disclose that the Products 

posed serious safety risks to pets.

188. The Seresto Collars did not conform to Defendants’ representations, descriptions, 

and warranties that the Seresto Collars provided a safe means of flea and tick prevention for 

consumers’ pets, because at all relevant times the Seresto Collars posed serious, continuous safety 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 59 of 90
60

risks to pets. This constitutes a breach of the Seresto Collars’ express warranties that the Seresto 

Collars were safe.

189. The Seresto Collars purchased by Plaintiff and the other Class members did not 

conform to Defendants’ promises and descriptions because: 

a. The Seresto Collars use a dangerous combination of two pesticides, 

imidacloprid and flumethrin with a unique, synergistic product. In 

marketing the Seresto Collars, Defendants claim that “[f]lumethrin works 

together with imidacloprid to provide dual action against fleas and ticks. 

No other product has this combination of ingredients” and that “[s]tudies 

show that fleas and ticks are highly susceptible to the combination of 

imidacloprid and flumethrin found in Seresto.”44 The Seresto Collars’ 

“unique pharmacological synergism” results in increased toxicity. 

Defendants knew or should have known of the increased toxicity.

b. The Seresto Collars release too much of the product too quickly, and 

Defendants were on notice of this danger.

c. The Seresto Collars contain a third, undisclosed “tradesecret” ingredient 

that may be toxic in high doses. This “Tradesecret” chemical can enhance 

the toxic effects of flumethrin. 

190. Whether the dangers stem from the combination of two pesticides (which no other 

product uses), the amount of pesticide in the collar, or a defective pesticide release technology, 

Seresto Collars cause significant harm. Given the many complaints issued to Defendants, to 

government agencies like the EPA, or made publicly online, Defendants knew or should have 

44 www.petbasics.com/our-products/seresto/#additional-resources.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 60 of 90
61

known Seresto Collars were dangerous to pet health. But Defendants failed to warn the public and, 

instead, represented that Seresto Collars were safe and effective.

191. These express warranties were necessarily material to Plaintiff and the other Class 

Members who would have chosen to purchase a different product if they had possessed knowledge 

that the Seresto Collars posed safety risks to consumers and their pets. 

192. Defendants’ express warranties were made to induce Plaintiff and the other Class 

Members to purchase the Seresto Collars, which did in fact induce Plaintiff and the other Class 

Members to purchase the Seresto Collars.

193. Plaintiff and the other Class Members have had sufficient direct dealings with either 

Defendants or their agents (including distributors, dealers, and authorized sellers) to establish 

privity of contract between Defendants and Plaintiff and the other Class Members.

194. Defendants’ representations and omissions that the Seresto Collars provided a safe 

means of flea and tick prevention for consumers’ pets, while refusing to disclose the serious safety 

risks posed by the Products to consumers and their pets, became part of the basis of the bargain 

between Defendants on the one hand, and Plaintiff and the other Class Members on the other.

195. At the time that Defendants made these express warranties, it knew the use for 

which the Seresto Collars were intended, and Defendants expressly warranted that they were fit 

and safe for their intended purpose.

196. Defendants have received sufficient and timely notice of the breaches of express 

warranty alleged herein. Despite this notice, and Defendants’ knowledge of the breaches and of 

the true nature of and defect in the Seresto Collars, Defendants have refused to honor their express 

warranty.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 61 of 90
62

197. Rather than acknowledge their breaches of warranty as described herein, 

Defendants continue to deny that the Seresto Collars can and have caused serious health risks for 

pets and continue to represent and describe the Products as a safe means of flea and tick prevention.

198. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breaches of their express warranties 

and their failure to conform to the Seresto Collars’ representations and descriptions, Plaintiff and 

the other Class Members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. Plaintiff and the 

other Class Members have suffered damages in that they did not receive the safe product for which 

they paid and which Defendants warranted it to be. Plaintiff and the other Class Members would 

not have purchased the Seresto Collars on the same terms if the true facts concerning the risks 

associated with the use of the Collars had been disclosed.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

(By Plaintiff Individually and on 

Behalf of the Proposed Florida State Class against All Defendants)

199. Plaintiff reasserts the allegations set forth in the factual allegations paragraphs 

above and incorporate such allegations by reference herein.

200. Florida has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code, including U.C.C. § 2-313, 

which covers express warranties. See Fla. Stat. § 672.313. That section provides that “any 

affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and 

becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform 

to the affirmation or promise.” U.C.C. § 2-313(1)(a). Further, “[a]ny description of the goods 

which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the good shall 

conform to the description.” Id. § 2-313(1)(b).

201. Defendants marketed, sold, and/or distributed the Seresto Collars, and Plaintiffs 

and Class Members purchased the Seresto Collars.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 62 of 90
63

202. Defendants represented and described in their marketing, advertising, and 

promotion of the Seresto Collars that their Products provided a safe means of flea and tick 

prevention for consumers’ pets. However, Defendants failed, or otherwise refused, to disclose that 

the Products posed serious safety risks to consumers and their pets.

203. Defendants made these representations to induce Plaintiff and the other Class 

Members to purchase the Seresto Collars, which did in fact induce Plaintiff and the other Class 

Members to purchase these Products.

204. Accordingly, Defendants’ representations and omissions that the Seresto Collars 

provided a safe means of flea and tick prevention for consumers’ pets, while refusing to disclose 

the serious safety risks posed by the Products to consumers and their pets, became part of the basis 

of the bargain between Defendants on the one hand, and Plaintiff and the other Class Members on 

the other.

205. The Seresto Collars did not conform to Defendants’ representations, descriptions, 

and warranties that the Products provided a safe means of flea and tick prevention for consumers’ 

pets, because at all relevant times the Seresto Collars posed serious, continuous safety risks to pets. 

This constitutes a breach of the Products’ express warranties.

206. Defendants have received sufficient and timely notice of the breaches of express 

warranty alleged herein. Despite this notice, and Defendants’ knowledge of the breaches and of 

the true nature of and defect in the Seresto Collars, Defendants have refused to honor their express 

warranty.

207. Rather than acknowledge their breaches of warranty as described herein, 

Defendants continue to deny that the Seresto Collars can and have caused serious health risks for

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 63 of 90
64

pets, and continue to represent and describe the Products as a safe means of flea and tick 

prevention.

208. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breaches of their express warranties 

and their failure to conform to the Seresto Collars’ representations and descriptions, Plaintiff and

the other Class Members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. Plaintiff and the 

other Class Members have suffered damages in that they did not receive the safe product for which 

they paid and which Defendants warranted it to be. Plaintiff and the other Class Members would 

not have purchased the Seresto Collars on the same terms if the true facts concerning the risks 

associated with the use of the Collars had been disclosed.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY

(By Plaintiff Individually and on 

Behalf of the Proposed Florida Class against All Defendants)

209. Plaintiff reasserts the allegations set forth in the factual allegations paragraphs 

above and incorporate such allegations by reference herein.

210. Florida has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code, including U.C.C. § 2-314, 

which covers the implied warranty of merchantability. See Fla. Stat. § 672.314. That section 

provides that “a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their 

sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind.” U.C.C. § 2-314(1).

211. At all relevant times, Defendants were merchants with respect to Seresto Collars, 

which were sold to Plaintiff and the other Class Members, and Defendants were in the business of 

selling such products.

212. Each Seresto Collar sold by Defendants came with an implied warranty that it 

would be merchantable and fit for the ordinary purpose for which such a product would be used, 

including impliedly warrantying on the labels for their Seresto Collars that the Products were 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 64 of 90
65

merchantable and fit for the ordinary purposes for which they were sold—namely, as a safe means 

of flea and tick prevention for consumers’ pets.

213. Defendants marketed, sold, and/or distributed the Seresto Collars, and Plaintiff and 

the other Class Members purchased the Seresto Collars.

214. Defendants breached their implied warranty of merchantability pursuant to U.C.C. 

§ 2-314 because the Seresto Collars were not safe and posed serious safety risks to pets, thereby 

failing of their ordinary and intended purpose.

215. When Defendants sold the Seresto Collars, the products were unsafe, were not 

merchantable, did not pass without objection in the trade as a safe flea and tick preventative for 

pets, were not of adequate quality within that description, were not fit for the ordinary purposes 

for which such goods are used, were not adequately labeled, and did not conform to the promises 

or affirmations of fact made on the container or label. See U.C.C. § 2-314(2).

216. Florida has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code, including U.C.C. § 2-315, 

which covers the implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose. See Fla. Stat. § 672.315. That 

section provides that “where the seller . . . has reason to know any particular purpose for which 

the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to select or 

furnish suitable goods, there is . . . an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose” 

U.C.C. § 2-315.

217. Each Seresto Collar sold by Defendants came with an implied warranty that it 

would be suitable and appropriate for a particular purpose: to provide a safe flea and tick 

prevention for consumers’ pets. Defendants marketed, sold, and/or distributed the Seresto Collars 

for this particular purpose.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 65 of 90
66

218. Plaintiff and the other Class Members purchased the Seresto Collars for a particular 

purpose: to prevent flea and tick infestations of their pets and to provide such protection in a safe 

manner.

219. At all relevant times, Defendants had advanced skills and judgment relating to 

Seresto Collars based on their knowledge and experience gained through years of designing, 

developing, and testing Seresto Collars and similar products intended for use on and by pets. At 

all relevant times, Defendants were in a better position of skill, judgment, knowledge, and 

experience as sellers of Seresto Collars than of those consumers who would consider purchasing, 

or would purchase the Seresto Collars.

220. Plaintiff and the other Class Members relied on Defendants’ skill, judgment, 

knowledge, and experience relating to Seresto Collars in selecting the Products for purchase. 

Likewise, Plaintiff and the other Class Members relied on Defendants to use their skill, judgment, 

knowledge, and experience in furnishing the Seresto Collars to consumers for purchase and use.

221. Defendants had reason to know that Plaintiff and the other Class Members were 

likely to purchase and would purchase, the Seresto Collars for this particular purpose—to provide 

a safe means of flea and tick prevention for their pets. Further, Defendants had reason to know that 

Plaintiff and the other Class Members were likely to rely on their advanced skill, judgment, 

knowledge, and experience relating to Seresto Collars in selecting the products for sale and 

furnishing safe products for purchase by consumers and for use on and by pets.

222. When Defendants sold the Seresto Collars, the products were unsafe and were not 

fit for the particular purchase for which they were purchased—namely, as a safe means of flea and 

tick prevention for consumers’ pets.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 66 of 90
67

223. Defendants breached their implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose 

pursuant to U.C.C. § 2-315 because the Seresto Collars were not safe and posed serious safety risk 

to pets, thereby failing the particular purpose for which they were sold and purchased.

224. The Seresto Collars are not fit for their intended use—or any use—because they 

have dangerous propensities when used as intended and pose serious safety risks to pets.

225. Plaintiff and the other Class Members have had sufficient direct dealings with either 

Defendants or their agents (including distributors, dealers, and authorized sellers) to establish 

privity of contract between Defendants and Plaintiff and the other Class Members.

226. Further, Plaintiff and the Other Class Members were intended third-party 

beneficiaries of the implied warranty of merchantability made by Defendants to purchasers of 

Seresto Collars.

227. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breaches of (1) the implied 

warranties of merchantability and (2) the implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose, 

Plaintiff and the other Class Members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. 

Plaintiff and the other Class Members have suffered damages in that they did not receive (1) the 

merchantable product that was fit for its ordinary purpose for which they paid and which 

Defendants warranted it to be, and (2) a product that was fit for the particular purpose for which 

they paid and which Defendants warranted it to be. Plaintiff and the other Class Members would 

not have purchased the Seresto Collars on the same terms if the true facts concerning the risks 

associated with the use of the Seresto Collars had been disclosed.

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

VIOLATION OF THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT

15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq.

(By Plaintiff Individually and on 

Behalf of the Nationwide Class against All Defendants)

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 67 of 90
68

228. Plaintiff reasserts the allegations set forth in the factual allegations paragraphs 

above and incorporate such allegations by reference herein.

229. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”) provides a cause of action for any 

consumer who is damaged by the failure of a warrantor to comply with a written or implied 

warranty. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1).

230. The amount in controversy of Plaintiff’s individual claims meets or exceeds the 

sum of value of $25.00. Further, the amount in controversy, computed on the basis of all claims to 

be determined in this Action, meets or exceeds the sum or value of $50.000.00. See 15 U.S.C. § 

2310(d)(3).

231. The Seresto Collars are “consumer products” because they are “tangible personal 

property which is distributed in commerce” and are “normally used for personal, family, or 

household purposes,”—namely, as a safe means of flea and tick prevention for consumers’ pets. 

15 U.S.C. § 1301(1).

232. Plaintiff and the other Class Members are “consumers” because they bought the 

Seresto Collars for use with their pets. 15 U.S.C. § 1301(3). Plaintiff and the other Class Members 

are “consumers” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1301(3).

233. Defendants are “suppliers” because they “engaged in the business of making a 

consumer product directly or indirectly available to consumers” through their marketing and 

selling of the Seresto Collars to consumers, including Plaintiff and the other Class Members. 15 

U.S.C. § 2301(4).

234. Defendants are “warrantors” because they “[gave] . . . a written warranty” and were 

otherwise “obligated under an implied warranty” to consumers, including Plaintiff and the other

Class Members, who purchased the Seresto Collars. 15 U.S.C. § 2301(5).

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 68 of 90
69

235. Defendants provided an express warranty for each Seresto Collar sold. This express 

warranty constitutes a “written warranty” because it is a “written affirmation of fact or written 

promise made in connection with the sale of [the Seresto Collar] by a supplier to a buyer” relating 

to the nature of the Product, affirming that the Seresto Collar is “defect free” and “will meet a 

specified level of performance over a specified period of time”—namely, that the Seresto Collars 

were a safe means of flea and tick prevention for consumers’ pets for the stated duration. 15 U.S.C. 

§ 2301(6)(A). The express warranty became a part of the basis of the bargain between Defendants 

and Plaintiff and the other Class Members upon purchase, because the representations and 

descriptions of the Products were intended to induce, and did in fact induce, Plaintiff and the other

Class Members to purchase the Seresto Collars. Id. § 2301(6).

236. Defendants represented and described in their marketing, advertising, and 

promotion of the Seresto Collars that their Products provided a safe means of flea and tick 

prevention for consumers’ pets. However, Defendants failed, or otherwise refused, to disclose that 

the Products posed serious safety risks to consumers and their pets.

237. The Seresto Collars did not conform to Defendants’ representations, descriptions, 

and warranties that the Products provided a safe means of flea and tick prevention for consumers’ 

pets, because at all relevant times the Seresto Collars posed serious, continuous safety risks to pets. 

This constitutes a breach of the Products’ express warranties.

238. Further, Defendants provided the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness 

for a particular purpose for each Seresto Collar sold. 15 U.S.C. § 2301(7).

239. Each Seresto Collar sold by Defendants came with an implied warranty that it 

would be merchantable and fit for the ordinary purpose for which such a product would be used, 

including impliedly warrantying on the labels for their Seresto Collars that the Products were 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 69 of 90
70

merchantable and fit for the ordinary purposes for which they were sold—namely, as a safe means 

of flea and tick prevention for consumers’ pets.

240. Defendants breached their implied warranty of merchantability because the Seresto 

Collars were not safe and posed serious safety risks to pets, thereby failing their ordinary and 

intended purpose.

241. Each Seresto Collar sold by Defendants came with an implied warranty that it 

would be suitable and appropriate for a particular purpose: to provide a safe flea and tick 

prevention for consumers’ pets. Defendants marketed, sold, and/or distributed the Seresto Collars 

for this particular purpose, and Plaintiff and the other Class Members purchased the Seresto Collars 

for this particular purpose.

242. Defendants breached their implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose 

because the Seresto Collars were not safe and posed serious safety risk to pets, thereby failing the 

particular purpose for which they were sold and purchased.

243. The Seresto Collars are not fit for their intended use—or any use—because they 

have dangerous propensities when used as intended and pose serious safety risks to pets.

244. Defendants have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to cure their breaches of 

these warranties but have refused to do so. Despite these warranties, Defendants have not replaced 

the Seresto Collars with non-defective, safe alternatives and have refused to reimburse Plaintiff 

and the other Class Members. In fact, Defendants have continuously denied that the Seresto Collars 

are unsafe, dangerous, or defective.

245. Further, Plaintiff and the other Class Members have provided sufficient notice to 

Defendants. Plaintiffs have already provided Defendants with an MMWA notice letter. This notice 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 70 of 90
71

provided Defendants further opportunity to cure their breaches of these warranties, but Defendants 

have refused to do so.

246. Plaintiff and the other Class Members have had sufficient direct dealings with either 

Defendants or their agents (including distributors, dealers, and authorized sellers) to establish 

privity of contract between Defendants and Plaintiff and the other Class Members.

247. Further, Plaintiffs were intended third-party beneficiaries of the implied warranty 

of merchantability made by Defendants to purchasers of Seresto Collars.

248. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breaches of (1) the express 

warranty, (2) the implied warranties of merchantability, and (3) the implied warranties of fitness 

for a particular purpose, Plaintiff and the other Class Members have been damaged in an amount 

to be proven at trial. Plaintiff and the other Class Members have suffered damages in that they did 

not receive (1) the safe product for which they paid and which Defendants warranted it to be, (2) 

the merchantable product that was fit for its ordinary purpose for which they paid and which 

Defendants warranted it to be, and (3) a product that was fit for the particular purpose for which 

they paid and which Defendants warranted it to be. Plaintiff and the other Class Members would 

not have purchased the Seresto Collars on the same terms if the true facts concerning the risks 

associated with the use of the Seresto Collars had been disclosed. Defendants’ breaches of these 

warranties have deprived Plaintiff and the other Class Members of the benefit of their bargain.

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

STRICT LIABILITY – DESIGN DEFECT

(By Plaintiff Individually and on 

Behalf of the Florida State Class against All Defendants)

249. Plaintiff reasserts the allegations set forth in the factual allegations paragraphs 

above and incorporate such allegations by reference herein.

250. Plaintiff brings this strict liability claim against Defendants for defective design.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 71 of 90
72

251. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and the other Class Members under a product 

liability theory for marketing a defectively-designed product, as well as for failing to adequately 

warn of the risk of severe neurological injury caused by the chronic exposure to Seresto.

252. The Seresto Collars, which Defendants designed, tested, manufactured, distributed,

and sold, did not perform safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected them to perform 

when used in the intended or a reasonably foreseeable manner, in that:

253. As designed, manufactured, formulated, and packaged, the chemicals in the Seresto 

Collars were likely to be inhaled, ingested, and absorbed into the bodies of the pets who used it, 

and/or released in too large or too quick a dosage; and

a. When inhaled, ingested, or absorbed, it was likely to cause neurological 

damage and injury that was both permanent and cumulative, and repeated 

exposure were likely to cause neurological events, including seizures.

254. At all times relevant to this litigation, Defendants engaged in the business of testing, 

developing, manufacturing, selling, distributing, marketing, packaging design, and promoting of 

the Seresto Collars, which are defective and unreasonably dangerous to consumers, including 

Plaintiff and the other Class Members, thereby placing the Seresto Collars into the stream of 

commerce, including Plaintiff’s home state. These actions were under the ultimate control and 

supervision of Defendants.

255. At all times relevant, Defendants designed, researched, developed, manufactured, 

produced, tested, assembled, labeled, advertised, promoted, marketed, sold, and distributed the 

Seresto Collars used by Plaintiff and the other Class Members, as described above.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 72 of 90
73

256. At all times relevant, the Seresto Collars were manufactured, designed, and labeled 

in an unsafe, defective, and inherently dangerous manner that was dangerous for use by or 

exposure to the public, and, in particular, Plaintiff and the other Class Members.

257. At all times relevant to this litigation, the Seresto Collars reached the intended 

consumers, handlers, and users or other persons coming into contact with these products in

Plaintiff’s home state and throughout the United States, including Plaintiff and the other Class 

Members, without substantial change in their condition as designed, manufactured, sold, 

distributed, labeled, and marketed by Defendants.

258. The Seresto Collars, as researched, tested, developed, designed, licensed, 

manufactured, packaged, labeled, distributed, sold, and marketed by Defendants were defective in 

design and formulation in that when they left the hands of the manufacturers and/or suppliers, they 

were unreasonably dangerous and dangerous to an extent beyond that which an ordinary consumer 

would contemplate.

259. The Seresto Collars, as researched, tested, developed, designed, licensed, 

manufactured, packaged, labeled, distributed, sold, and marketed by Defendants were defective in 

design and formulation in that when they left the hands of the manufacturers and/or suppliers, the 

foreseeable risks exceeded the alleged benefits associated with their design and formulation.

260. At all times relevant, Defendants knew or had reason to know that the Seresto 

Collars were defective and were inherently dangerous and unsafe when used in the manner 

instructed and provided by Defendants.

261. Defendants knew, or otherwise should have known, that the Seresto Collars posed 

serious safety risks to pets, including Plaintiff’s and other Class Members’ pets, based upon: (1) 

their own internal testing, data and surveys, (2) numerous consumer complaints lodged directly 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 73 of 90
74

with Defendants, (3) numerous consumer complaints lodged to retailers, (4) numerous consumer 

complaints and reports lodged with the EPA, and (5) numerous consumer complaints on online 

fora.

262. Defendants omitted, concealed, and failed to disclose to consumers that the Seresto 

Collars pose serious safety risks to pets, including that the Seresto Collars were inherently 

defective; unreasonably dangerous; not fit to be used for their intended purpose; contained unsafe 

levels of imidacloprid and flumethrin; and/or caused serious health problems. Rather than disclose 

this information, Defendants marketed the Seresto Collars as safe for their intended purpose.

263. Defendants products were defectively designed in that the risk of danger inherent 

in the synergistic effect of imidacloprid + flumethrin, as described herein, outweighed the benefits 

of the design, considering, among other relevant factors, the gravity of the danger posed by the 

challenged design, the likelihood that such danger would occur, the mechanical feasibility of a 

safer alternative design, the financial cost of an improved design, and the adverse consequences to 

the product and to the consumer that would result from the alternative design.

264. Therefore, at all times relevant, the Seresto Collars, as researched, tested, 

developed, designed, licensed, manufactured, packaged, labeled, distributed, sold, and marketed 

by Defendants were defective in design and formulation in one or more of the following ways:

a. When placed in the stream of commerce, the Seresto Collars products were 

defective in design and formulation and, consequently, dangerous to an 

extent beyond that which an ordinary consumer would contemplate;

b. When placed in the stream of commerce, the Seresto Collars were 

unreasonably dangerous in that they were hazardous and posed a grave risk 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 74 of 90
75

of central nervous system injuries and other serious illnesses, as described 

herein, when used in a reasonably anticipated manner;

c. When placed in the stream of commerce, the Seresto Collars contained 

unreasonably dangerous design defects and were not reasonably safe when 

used in a reasonably anticipated or intended manner;

d. Defendants did not sufficiently test, investigate, or study the Seresto Collars 

and, specifically, the active ingredients imidacloprid and flumethrin;

e. Exposure to Seresto Collars presents a risk of harmful side effects that 

outweigh any potential utility stemming from the use of the pesticide;

f. At the time of marketing their Seresto Collars, the Seresto Collars were 

defective in that exposure to and/or use of the Seresto Collars, as described 

herin, could result increase risk of central nervous system injury and other 

severe illnesses and injuries to pets;

g. Defendants did not conduct adequate post-marketing surveillance of their 

the Seresto Collars; and

h. Defendants could have employed safer alternative designs and 

formulations.

265. Plaintiff’s and the other Class Members’ pets were exposed to the Seresto Collars, 

as described above, without knowledge of their dangerous characteristics.

266. At all times relevant, Plaintiff’s and the other Class Members’ pets were exposed 

to the use of the Seresto Collars in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner without 

knowledge of their dangerous characteristics.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 75 of 90
76

267. Plaintiff and the other Class Members could not have reasonably discovered the 

defects and risks associated with the Seresto Collars before or at the time of exposure.

268. The harm caused by the Seresto Collars far outweighed their benefit, rendering 

these products dangerous to an extent beyond that which an ordinary consumer would contemplate. 

The Seresto Collars were and are more dangerous than alternative products and Defendants could 

have designed the Seresto Collars (including their packaging and sales aids) to make them less 

dangerous. Indeed, when Defendants designed the Seresto Collars, the state of the industry’s 

scientific knowledge was such that a less risky design or formulation was attainable.

269. At the time the Seresto Collars left Defendant’s control, there was a practical, 

technically feasible, and safer alternative design that would have prevented the harm without 

substantially impairing the reasonably anticipated or intended function of those pesticides.

270. Defendant’s defective design of the Seresto Collars was willful, wanton, fraudulent, 

malicious, and conducted with reckless disregard for the health and safety of users of the Seresto 

Collars, including Plaintiff and the other Class Members.

271. Therefore, as a result of the unreasonably dangerous condition of the Seresto 

Collars, Defendants are strictly liable to Plaintiff and the other Class Members.

272. The defects in the Seresto Collars caused or contributed to cause injuries and 

damages to Plaintiff’s and the other Class Members’ pets, and, but for Defendants’ misconduct 

and omissions, Plaintiff’s and the other Class Members’ pets would not have sustained their 

injuries.

273. Defendants’ conduct, as described above, was reckless. Defendants risked the lives 

of pets using these products, including Plaintiff’s and the other Class Members’ pets, with 

knowledge of the safety problems associated with the Seresto Collars and the toxic combination 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 76 of 90
77

of imidacloprid and flumethrin present. Defendants suppressed this knowledge from the general 

public. Defendants made conscious decisions not to redesign, warn, or inform the unsuspecting 

public. Defendants’ reckless conduct warrants an award of punitive damages.

274. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ placing defective Seresto Collars 

into the stream of commerce, Plaintiff’s and the other Class Members’ pets have suffered and 

continue to suffer grave injuries and have endured physical pain and discomfort, as well as 

economic hardship, including considerable financial expenses for medical care, and treatment.

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

STRICT LIABILITY – FAILURE TO WARN

(By Plaintiffs Individually and on 

Behalf of the Florida State Class against All Defendants)

275. Plaintiff reasserts the allegations set forth in in the factual allegations paragraphs 

above incorporate such allegations by reference herein. 

276. Plaintiff brings this strict liability claim against Defendants for failure to warn.

277. At all times relevant, Defendants engaged in the business of testing, developing, 

designing, manufacturing, marketing, selling, distributing, and promoting the Seresto Collars, 

which are defective and unreasonably dangerous to consumers’ pets, including Plaintiff and the 

other Class Members’ pets, because they do not contain adequate warnings or instructions 

concerning the dangerous characteristics of the Seresto Collars and specifically, the synergistic 

effects of the active ingredients imidacloprid and flumethrin. These actions were under the ultimate 

control and supervision of Defendants.

278. Defendants researched, developed, designed, tested, manufactured, inspected, 

labeled, distributed, marketed, promoted, sold, and otherwise released into the stream of commerce 

the Seresto Collars, and in the course of same, directly advertised or marketed the products to 

consumers and end users, including the Plaintiff and the other Class Members, and therefore had 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 77 of 90
78

a duty to warn of the risks associated with the use of the Seresto Collars and the synergistic effects

of imidacloprid and flumethrin.

279. At all times relevant to this litigation, Defendants had a duty to properly test, 

develop, design, manufacture, inspect, package, label, market, promote, sell, distribute, maintain 

supply, provide proper warnings, and take such steps as necessary to ensure that the Seresto Collars 

did not cause users and consumers to suffer from unreasonable and dangerous risks. Defendants 

had a continuing duty to warn Plaintiff and the other Class Members of the dangers associated 

with the Seresto Collars’ use and exposure. Defendants, as manufacturer, seller, promoter, 

marketer, or distributor of pesticides are held to the knowledge of an expert in the field.

280. At the time of manufacture, Defendants could have provided the warnings or 

instructions regarding the full and complete risks of the Seresto Collars and

imidacloprid/flumethrin-containing products because they knew, or otherwise should have known,

of the unreasonable risks of harm associated with the use of and/or exposure to such products.

281. At all times relevant to this litigation, Defendants failed to investigate, study, test, 

or promote the safety or to minimize the dangers to users and consumers of its product and to those 

who would foreseeably use or be harmed by these pesticides, including Plaintiff and the other 

Class Members.

282. Defendants knew, or otherwise should have known, that the Seresto Collars posed 

serious safety risks to pets, including Plaintiff and Class Members, and their pets based upon: (1) 

their own internal testing, data, and surveys; (2) numerous consumer complaints lodged directly 

with Defendants; (3) numerous consumer complaints lodged to retailers; (4) numerous consumer 

complaints and reports lodged with the EPA; and (5) numerous consumer complaints on online 

fora.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 78 of 90
79

283. Defendants omitted, concealed, and failed to disclose to consumers that the Seresto 

Collars pose serious safety risks to pets, including that the Seresto Collars were inherently 

defective; unreasonably dangerous; not fit to be used for their intended purpose; contained unsafe 

levels of imidacloprid and flumethrin; and/or caused serious health problems. Rather than disclose 

this information, Defendants marketed the Seresto Collars as safe for their intended purpose.

284. Even though Defendants knew or should have known that the Seresto Collars posed 

a grave risk of harm, they failed to exercise reasonable care to warn of the dangerous risks 

associated with their use and exposure. The dangerous propensities of these products and the toxic 

characteristics of the synergistic effects of their ingredients, as described above, were known to 

Defendants, or scientifically knowable to Defendants through appropriate research and testing by 

known methods, at the time they distributed, marketed, promoted, supplied or sold the products, 

and not known to end users and consumers, such as Plaintiffs and Class Members.

285. These products created significant risks of serious harm to consumers’ pets, as 

alleged herein, and Defendants failed to adequately warn consumers and reasonably foreseeable 

users of the risks of exposure to its products by their pets. Defendants have wrongfully concealed 

information concerning the dangerous nature of the Seresto Collars and its active ingredients 

imidacloprid and flumethrin, and further made false and/or misleading statements concerning the 

safety of the Seresto Collars and imidacloprid combined with flumethrin.

286. At all times relevant, the Seresto Collars reached the intended consumers, handlers, 

and users or other persons coming into contact with these products in Plaintiffs’ home states and 

throughout the United States, including Plaintiffs, without substantial change in their condition as 

designed, manufactured, sold, distributed, labeled, promoted, and marketed by Defendants.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 79 of 90
80

287. Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ pets were exposed to the Seresto Collars in the 

course of their use for flea and tick protection, without Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ knowledge 

of their dangerous characteristics to their pets.

288. At all times relevant, Plaintiffs’ and the other Class Members’ pets used and/or 

were exposed to the Seresto Collars in their intended or reasonably foreseeable manner without 

Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ knowledge of their dangerous characteristics to their pets.

289. Plaintiffs and the other Class Members could not have reasonably discovered the 

defects and risks associated with the Seresto Collars or imidacloprid/flumethrin-containing 

products prior to or at the time of Plaintiff’s and the other Class Members’ pets’ exposure. Plaintiff

and the other Class Members relied upon the skill, superior knowledge, and judgment of 

Defendants.

290. The Seresto Collars are defective because the minimal warnings disseminated with 

the Seresto Collars were inadequate; they failed to communicate adequate information on the 

dangers and safe use/exposure; and they failed to communicate warnings and instructions that were

appropriate and adequate to render the products safe for their ordinary, intended, and reasonably 

foreseeable uses, including preventing flea and ticks on pets.

291. The information that Defendants did provide or communicate failed to contain 

relevant warnings, hazards, and precautions that would have enabled consumers, including

Plaintiff and the other Class Members, to utilize the products safely and with adequate protection. 

Instead, Defendants disseminated information that was inaccurate, false, and misleading and which 

failed to communicate accurately or adequately the comparative severity, duration, and extent of 

the risk of injuries with use of and/or exposure to the Seresto Collars; continued to aggressively 

promote the efficacy of their products, even after they knew, or otherwise should have known, of 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 80 of 90
81

the unreasonable risks from use of or exposure to the Seresto Collars; and concealed, downplayed, 

or otherwise suppressed, through aggressive marketing and promotion, any information or research 

about the risks and dangers of exposure to the Seresto Collars.

292. To this day, Defendants have failed to adequately and accurately warn of the true 

risks of Plaintiff’s and the other Class Members’ injuries associated with the use of and exposure 

to the Seresto Collars and its active ingredients imidacloprid and flumethrin, a probable central 

nervous system toxin. In fact, Defendants continue to actively deny that the Seresto Collars pose 

any risk to consumers’ pets.

293. As a result of their inadequate warnings, the Seresto Collars were defective and 

unreasonably dangerous when they left the possession and/or control of Defendants, were 

distributed, marketed, and promoted by Defendants, and used by Plaintiff and the other Class 

Members on their pets.

294. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and the other Class Members for injuries suffered 

by their pets caused by Defendants’ negligent or willful failure, as described above, to provide 

adequate warnings or other clinically relevant information and data regarding the appropriate use 

of these products and the risks associated with the use of or exposure to the Seresto Collars.

295. The defects in the Seresto Collars caused or contributed to cause Plaintiff’s and 

Class members’ pets’ injuries and damages, and, but for this misconduct and omissions, Plaintiff’s

and Class Members’ pets would not have sustained their injuries and damages.

296. Had Defendants provided adequate warnings and instructions and properly 

disclosed and disseminated the risks associated with the Seresto Collars, Plaintiffs could have 

avoided the risk of developing injuries as alleged herein.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 81 of 90
82

297. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants placing defective Seresto Collars 

into the stream of commerce, Plaintiff’s and the other Class Members’ pets have suffered severe 

injuries and have endured physical pain and discomfort, and Plaintiff and the other Class Members 

have experienced financial hardship, including considerable financial expenses for veterinary care 

and treatment of their pets.

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

NEGLIGENCE

(By Plaintiff Individually and on 

Behalf of the Nationwide Class and Florida State Class against All Defendants)

298. Plaintiff reasserts the allegations set forth in the factual allegation paragraphs above

and incorporate such allegations by reference herein. 

299. Defendants, directly or indirectly, caused the Seresto Collars to be sold, distributed, 

packaged, labeled, marketed, promoted, and/or used by Plaintiff and the other Class Members.

300. At all times relevant, Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the 

design, testing, research, manufacture, marketing, advertisement, supply, promotion, packaging, 

sale, and distribution of the Seresto Collars, including the duty to take all reasonable steps 

necessary to manufacture, promote, and/or sell a product that was not unreasonably dangerous to 

consumers and users of the product.

301. At all times relevant, Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the 

marketing, advertisement, and sale of the Seresto Collars. Defendant’s duty of care owed to 

consumers and the general public included providing accurate, true, and correct information 

concerning the risks of using the Seresto Collars and appropriate, complete, and accurate warnings 

concerning the potential adverse effects of exposure to the Seresto Collars, and, in particular, its 

active ingredients imidacloprid and flumethrin.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 82 of 90
83

302. At all times relevant, Defendants knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should 

have known of the hazards and dangers the Seresto Collars and, specifically, the neurotoxic 

properties of the chemicals imidacloprid and flumethrin.

303. Defendants knew, or otherwise should have known, that the Seresto Collars posed 

serious safety risks to pets, including Plaintiff and the other Class Members, and their pets based 

upon: (1) their own internal testing, data, and surveys; (2) numerous consumer complaints lodged 

directly with Defendants; (3) numerous consumer complaints lodged to retailers; (4) numerous 

consumer complaints and reports lodged with the EPA; and (5) numerous consumer complaints 

on online fora.

304. Accordingly, at all times relevant, Defendants knew or, in the exercise of 

reasonable care, should have known that use of or exposure to the Seresto Collars could cause or 

be associated with Plaintiff’s and the other Class Members’ pets’ injuries and thus created a 

dangerous and unreasonable risk of injury to the users of these products, including Plaintiff’s and

the other Class Members’ pets.

305. Defendants also knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known 

that users and consumers of the Seresto Collars were unaware of the risks and the magnitude of 

the risks associated with use of and/or exposure to the Seresto Collars and imidacloprid and

flumethrin-containing products.

306. Defendants omitted, concealed, and failed to disclose to consumers that the Seresto 

Collars pose serious safety risks to pets, including that the Seresto Collars were inherently 

defective; unreasonably dangerous; not fit to be used for their intended purpose; contained unsafe 

levels of imidacloprid and flumethrin; and/or caused serious health problems. Rather than disclose 

this information, Defendants marketed the Seresto Collars as safe for their intended purpose.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 83 of 90
84

307. As such, Defendants breached the duty of reasonable care and failed to exercise 

ordinary care in the design, research, development, manufacture, testing, marketing, supply, 

promotion, advertisement, packaging, sale, and distribution of the Seresto Collars, in that 

Defendants manufactured, marketed, promoted, and sold defective pesticides based collars 

containing the chemicals imidacloprid and flumethrin, knew or had reason to know of the defects 

inherent in these products, knew or had reason to know that a user’s or consumer’s pet’s exposure 

to the products created a significant risk of harm and unreasonably dangerous side effects to the 

pet, and failed to prevent or adequately warn of these risks and injuries.

308. In breach of their duties, Defendants negligently:

a. Failed to design, manufacturer, formulate, and package the Seresto Collars 

to make them unlikely to be inhaled and absorbed into the bodies of the 

animals who used them, and their owners;

b. Designed, manufactured, and formulated the Seresto Collars such that it was 

likely to cause neurological damage that was both permanent and 

cumulative injury to Class Members’ pets, and repeated exposures were 

likely to cause clinically significant neurological injury;

c. Failed to conduct adequate research and testing to determine the extent to 

which exposure to the Seresto Collars was likely to occur through 

inhalation, ingestion, and absorption into the bodies of animals who used it;

d. Failure to conduct adequate research and testing to determine the extent to 

which the Seresto Collars were likely to cause or contribute to causing latent 

neurological damage that was both permanent and cumulative and the 

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 84 of 90
85

extent to which repeated exposures were likely to cause or contribute to 

cause clinically significant neurological injuries; and

e. Failed to warn that the Seresto Collars could have caused injuries to pets. 

causing neurologic injury that was both permanent and cumulative.

309. Despite an ability and means to investigate, study, and test the Seresto Collars and 

to provide adequate warnings, Defendants have failed to do so. Indeed, Defendants have 

wrongfully concealed information and have further made false and/or misleading statements 

concerning the safety and/or exposure to the Seresto Collars and imidacloprid and flumethrin.

310. Defendants were negligent in the following respects:

a. Manufacturing, producing, promoting, formulating, creating, developing, 

designing, selling, and/or distributing the Seresto Collars without thorough 

and adequate pre-and post-market testing;

b. Manufacturing, producing, promoting, formulating, creating, developing, 

designing, selling, and/or distributing the Seresto Collars while negligently 

and/or intentionally concealing and failing to disclose the results of trials, 

tests, and studies of exposure to imidacloprid combined with flumethrin, 

and, consequently, the risk of serious harm associated with use of and 

exposure to the Seresto Collars;

c. Failing to undertake sufficient studies and conduct necessary testing and 

adverse event analysis to determine whether the Seresto Collars and 

imidacloprid and flumethrin-containing products were safe for their 

intended use in flea and tick control on dogs and cats;

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 85 of 90
86

d. Failing to use reasonable and prudent care in the design, research, 

manufacture, and development of the Seresto Collars to avoid the risk of 

serious harm associated with the prevalent use of the Seresto Collars as a 

pesticide;

e. Failing to design, test, and manufacture the Seresto Collars to ensure they 

were at least as safe and effective as other pesticides on the market;

f. Failing to provide adequate instructions, guidelines, and safety precautions 

to those consumers and their pets who Defendants could reasonably foresee 

would use and be exposed to the Seresto Collars;

g. Failing to disclose to Plaintiffs, Class Members, users/consumers, and the 

general public that use of and exposure to the Seresto Collars presented 

severe risks of central nervous system injury and other grave illnesses;

h. Failing to warn Plaintiff and Class Members, consumers, and the general 

public that the Seresto Collars’ risk of harm was unreasonable and that there 

were safer and effective alternative pesticides available to Plaintiffs and 

other consumers;

i. Systematically suppressing or downplaying contrary evidence about the 

risks, incidence, and prevalence of the side effects of the Seresto Collars 

and imidacloprid + flumethrin;

j. Representing that their Seresto Collars were safe for their intended use 

when, in fact, Defendants knew or should have known that the products 

were not safe for their intended purpose;

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 86 of 90
87

k. Failing to make and/or submit any changes to the Seresto Collars’ labeling 

or other promotional materials that would alert the consumers and the 

general public of the risks of the Seresto Collars and imidacloprid combined 

with flumethrin;

l. Advertising, marketing, and recommending the use of the Seresto Collars 

while concealing and failing to disclose or warn of the dangers known by 

Defendants to be associated with or caused by the use of or exposure to the 

Seresto Collars and imidacloprid and flumethrin;

m. Continuing to disseminate information to its consumers, which indicates or 

implies that Defendants’ Seresto Collars are safe for use on dogs and cats; 

and

n. Continuing the manufacture and sale of its products with the knowledge that 

the Seresto Collars were unreasonably unsafe and dangerous.

311. Defendants knew, or otherwise should have known, that it was foreseeable that 

consumers’ pets, including Plaintiff’s and the other Class Members’ pets, would suffer injuries as 

a result of Defendants’ failure to exercise ordinary care in the manufacturing, marketing, 

promotion, labeling, distribution, and sale of the Seresto Collars.

312. Plaintiff and the other Class Members did not know the nature and extent of the 

injuries that could result from the intended use of and/or exposure to the Seresto Collars and 

imidacloprid combined with flumethrin.

313. Defendants’ negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries, harm, and 

economic losses that Plaintiff and the other Class Members suffered, as described herein, including 

the injuries suffered by Plaintiff’s and the other Class Members’ pets.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 87 of 90
88

314. Defendants’ conduct, as described above, was reckless. Defendants regularly risked 

the lives of consumers and users of their products, including Plaintiff and the other Class Members 

and their pets, with full knowledge of the dangers of the Seresto Collars. Defendants made 

conscious decisions not to redesign, re-label, warn, or inform the unsuspecting public, including 

Plaintiff and the other Class Members. Defendants’ reckless conduct therefore warrants an award 

of aggravated or punitive damages.

315. As a proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions in placing the 

defective Seresto Collars into the stream of commerce without adequate warnings of the hazardous 

and neurotoxic nature of imidacloprid + flumethrin, Plaintiff’s and the other Class Members’ pets 

have suffered severe, permanent physical injuries. Plaintiff and the other class Class Members 

have endured pain and suffering and have suffered economic losses (including significant expenses 

for medical care and treatment of their pets) in an amount to be determined.

LIMITATION ON ALLEGATIONS

316. The allegations in this pleading are made pursuant to the state laws of the Florida, 

Kansas and Indiana. To the extent state law imposes a duty or obligation on the Defendants that 

exceeds those required by federal law, Plaintiff does not assert such claims. All claims asserted 

herein run parallel to federal law—i.e., the Defendants’ violations of state law were also violations 

of federal law. Had Defendants honestly complied with state law, they would also have complied 

with federal law.

317. Additionally, Plaintiff’s claims do not seek to enforce federal law (other than the 

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”). Other than the MMWA, these claims are brought 

under State law, notwithstanding the fact that such claims run parallel to federal law.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 88 of 90
89

318. As alleged in this pleading, Defendants violated U.S.C. § 136j and 40 C.F.R. § 

10(a)(5) by distributing the Seresto Collars, which were misbranded pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 

136(g). Federal law specifically prohibits the distribution of misbranded pesticide products.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the members of each of the Classes 

described in this Complaint, respectfully request the Court to enter an Order:

A. certifying the proposed Classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), 

and (b)(3), and, in the alternative, (c)(4) as set forth above;

B. declaring that Defendants are financially responsible for notifying the Class 

members of the pendency of this suit;

C. declaring that Defendants have committed the violations of law alleged herein;

D. providing for any and all injunctive relief the Court deems appropriate;

E. awarding statutory damages in the maximum amount for which the law provides;

F. awarding monetary damages, including but not limited to any compensatory, 

incidental, or consequential damages in an amount that the Court or jury will determine, in

accordance with applicable law;

G. providing for any and all equitable monetary relief the Court deems appropriate;

H. awarding punitive or exemplary damages in accordance with proof and in an 

amount consistent with applicable precedent;

I. awarding Plaintiff and the other Class Memberss their reasonable costs and 

expenses of suit, including attorneys’ fees;

J. awarding pre-and post-judgment interest to the extent the law allows; and

K. providing such further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 89 of 90
90

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby demands a 

trial by jury on all claims so triable.

Dated: September 13, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Rachel Soffin

Rachel Soffin (Bar No. 18054)

MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON

 PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC

3833 Central Ave.

St. Petersburg, Florida 33713

Tel: (865) 247-0080

Fax: (865) 522-0049

rsoffin@milberg.com

Michael Reese 

REESE LLP

100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor

New York, New York 10025

Tel: (212) 643-0500

Fax: (212) 253-4272

mreese@reesellp.com

Michael Williams

WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC

1100 Main Street, Suite 2600

Kansas City, Missouri 64105

Tel: (816) 945-7110

Fax: (816) 945-7118

mwilliams@williamsdirks.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed 

Classes

Case 1:22-cv-22904-JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2022 Page 90 of 90