A federal judge in Ohio partially granted Kalmbach Feeds Inc. a preliminary injunction against Purina Animal Nutrition LLC for false and misleading health claims on Purina’s Farm to Flock poultry feed.
Judge Algenon Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ruled November 12 on the case in which Kalmbach sued under the Lanham Act and the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, alleging that Purina’s unsubstantiated disease-prevention claims on its poultry feed misled consumers and diverted sales. Purina’s marketing of the product implied the product offered a “built-in defense” or “immunity” against avian influenza.
The Lanham Act prohibits false or misleading representations of fact in commercial advertising that misrepresent a product’s nature, characteristics or qualities.
Kalmbach Feeds and Purina Animal Nutrition, a subsidiary of Land O’Lakes, are direct competitors and sell their products nationwide in retail stores and online. In early 2025, Purina launched a marketing campaign for its Farm to Flock product line, suggesting the feed could prevent or protect against avian influenza. Its packaging, website, and social media advertising used claims such as “Built-In Defense Against Bird Flu,” “Supports Immunity to Avian Influenza,” and “Strengthens Chickens’ Natural Defenses Against Disease.”
In May, regulators in Kansas and Minnesota raised concerns that Purina’s claims implied its FeedLock ingredient “may be used to treat or prevent disease.” Purina removed its claims at the end of May and beginning of June, and began monitoring and requesting that similar claims made by third parties be taken down. In early July, the United States Food and Drug Administration identified an additional statement that Purina needed to edit or remove.
Kalmbach filed its lawsuit on June 3, fearing that backyard consumers would purchase Purina’s feed over Kalmbach’s in the hopes that Farm to Flock would protect their birds from avian influenza. Kalmbach moved for a preliminary injunction the next day. On June 18, Purina, while denying liability, consented to an order prohibiting it from making any express or implied claims that its feed defends against avian influenza and agreed to remove the statements from its own platforms and notify distributors, retailers, and marketing affiliates to cease use. Kalmbach objected, calling this a “half remedy” and requested the court order Purina to issue a “retraction, advising of the false statements.”
Because Kalmbach’s initial briefing did not explicitly request a retraction, it amended its motion on June 23 formally requesting “a retraction notice in addition to an injunction against further false advertisements.” Purina opposed the amendment as an attempt to “move the goal posts.” On June 25, Purina filed its opposition to the preliminary injunction and a separate motion to dismiss, which Kalmbach opposed.
The court found that no scientific evidence supported Purina’s representations and that the challenged statements would likely lead reasonable consumers to believe the feed could prevent avian influenza, an attribute the product does not possess. Experts for both parties agreed that, at a minimum, feed is not recognized as a “transmission vector of bird flu.”
“If feed is not a known transmission vector — and Purina’s laboratory test does not show that it is — protecting the feed could have no impact on whether birds would get avian influenza,” the court’s opinion said.
The court declined to prohibit Purina’s entire advertising campaign, but it ordered a targeted retraction of the false claims and prohibited Purina from using any express or implied disease-prevention language unless and until it obtains reliable substantiation.
In an emailed statement to Feed Strategy, a Kalmbach spokesperson said: “We appreciate the court’s fair and thoughtful consideration of this important case seeking to protect consumers against false health claims. The health of backyard flocks is a top priority for our clients. We are proud to manufacture products that help them flourish, with results backed by robust research.”
Purina/Land O’Lakes has not responded to Feed Strategy’s request for comment.
The case is Kalmbach Feeds Inc. v. Purina Animal Nutrition LLC.
