(Legal Newsline) – A class action lawsuit alleging pet-food containers are death traps for cats will move forward under the idea its manufacturer should have known of the danger.
Philadelphia federal judge Cynthia Rufe was asked to toss three claims from a nine-count lawsuit but is letting a negligent misrepresentation argument to proceed. In a ruling released Wednesday, she acknowledged social-media posts about fatal accidents.
“Reports on social media of these incidents alone would not be sufficient to state a claim that Iris knew or should have known of the alleged defect in the latching mechanism,” Rufe wrote. “However, Plaintiff also alleges that ‘Iris monitors posts about its products on social media and other forums and many of these consumers report having contacted Iris directly about the’ latching mechanism’s alleged defect.”
The lawsuit, filed in October against Iris USA, says the container features a swinging lid that allows animals to climb in but not out. They are marketed as airtight food, but Mallozzi’s kitten Ace last year was able to open a locked lid and climb in.
The lid dropped down and locked again, suffocating Ace. Cats are particularly able to open a downward-facing latch on the lid, the suit says. A strip of foam that prevents the lid from shutting on its own doesn’t always work, it adds.
Mallozzi cites stories from the Facebook group Prevent Pet Suffocation. A March 2025 report by the Center for Pet Safety says the design of the Iris container significantly increases the risk of pet suffocation.
Rufe found Mallozzi couldn’t state claims under the state Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and for fraud. The UTPCPL claim said Iris concealed the alleged defect from customers, but the complaint failed to reach the heightened pleading standards required.
A claim for negligent misrepresentation, however, didn’t have to be that specific. The containers were marketed as “safer” for pets, and one statement read “Keep Paws Out: Keep pets from sneaking a second or even third breakfast with the secure locking latch.”
“These statements are not mere puffery,” Rufe wrote, “and they qualify as misrepresentations based on the complaint.”
