Federal judge dismisses fourth lawsuit against Zoetis over Librela in pet pain treatment case

A New Jersey federal court has dismissed the latest attempt by pet owners to sue Zoetis over its canine osteoarthritis treatment, citing failure to meet basic pleading standards amid broader scrutiny of the company’s veterinary products.

A New Jersey federal judge has thrown out, with prejudice, a fourth attempt by pet owners to sue Zoetis over Librela, the company’s injectable treatment for canine osteoarthritis pain, concluding that the case still failed on basic pleading requirements.

In Hartney v Zoetis, the court said the plaintiffs had not identified which statements they or their veterinarians actually saw, relied on or believed, nor had they pleaded the elements needed to support consumer fraud claims across several states. The judge also rejected attempts to stretch broad promotional language about helping dogs move and play into actionable misrepresentation, treating it as non-specific puffery.

Choice-of-law issues further narrowed the case. According to the court, most claims were governed by the plaintiffs’ home states rather than New Jersey, leaving only the New Jersey claimant to proceed under state product-liability law. Even there, the judge found the complaint defective: it did not properly allege a feasible alternative design, and the failure-to-warn theory was barred by the statutory presumption that an FDA-approved label is adequate.

The ruling lands amid broader scrutiny of Zoetis’ canine pain franchise. Investor law firms have separately launched securities litigation and investigations, alleging the company understated safety concerns and demand weakness. For now, though, the consumer case has ended where the judge said it began: without enough concrete facts to survive dismissal.