United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20‐2235 SCOTT WEAVER, Plaintiff‐Appellant, v. CHAMPION PETFOODS USA INC. and CHAMPION PETFOODS LP, Defendants‐Appellees. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. No. 18‐cv‐1996 — J. P. Stadtmueller, Judge. ____________________

ARGUED APRIL 1, 2021 — DECIDED JUNE 30, 2021 ____________________

Before MANION, ROVNER, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge. Defendants Champion Petfoods USA Inc. and Champion Petfoods LP (collectively, “Cham‐ pion”) produce dog food that they market as biologically ap‐ propriate, containing fresh regional ingredients, and never outsourced. Plaintiff Scott Weaver, a Wisconsin resident who purchased Champion’s food, alleged this marketing was de‐ ceptive and filed a putative class action. The district court 2 No. 20‐2235 granted summary judgment to Champion because it deter‐ mined that Weaver had failed to produce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could determine that any of the representations were false or misleading. We agree, and so we affirm. I. Factual Background Champion produces two different brands of dog food: Acana and Orijen. Before 2016, Champion manufactured its food at its NorthStar kitchen in Morinville, Canada. Starting in 2016, Champion moved most of its manufacturing to its newly opened DogStar kitchen in Auburn, Kentucky. Weaver lives in Wisconsin and purchased Champion dog food from 2008 until August 2017. He purchased two different varieties of the Orijen brand—Six Fish and Regional Red—for his golden retrievers Jack, Jill, and Prince Harry. Given the timeframe, he purchased food manufactured at both the NorthStar and DogStar kitchens. A. Champion’s Packaging Champion’s packaging of its Orijen Six Fish and Regional Red food contains various representations about its quality. Champion packages the food produced at the DogStar kitchen differently than the food produced at the NorthStar kitchen. Additionally, the Six Fish variety has different pack‐ aging than the Regional Red variety. Across all variations at issue here, however, the packaging describes the food as bio‐ logically appropriate, made with fresh regional ingredients, and never outsourced. Both the Six Fish and Regional Red packaging describe the food as “biologically appropriate.” The DogStar packaging for both varieties states that the food is “Biologically No. 20‐2235 3 Appropriate—Protein Rich, Carbohydrate Limited.” It fur‐ ther states that the food “mirrors the richness, freshness and variety of [Whole Prey] meats that dogs are evolved to eat.” The NorthStar packaging states that “[a]ll dogs are evolved as carnivores, designed by Mother Nature to thrive on Whole Prey such as fowl or fish, and possessing a biological need for a diet rich and varied in fresh whole meats supplemented with smaller amounts of fruits, vegetables and grasses.” The packaging also contains various statements about fresh regional ingredients. The DogStar packaging states: “Grown close to home—We focus on local ingredients that are ethically raised by people we know and trust, and delivered to our kitchens fresh or raw each day.” The DogStar Six Fish packaging specifies that “New England’s vast Atlantic wa‐ ters” is its “source of inspiration and fresh regional fish” and that it contains “fresh, raw or dehydrated fish ingredients.” The DogStar Regional Red packaging similarly states that “America’s vast and fertile lands” are its “source of inspira‐ tion and fresh regional ingredien