An Oregon man has secured a significant legal victory following the tragic death of his beloved cat, Kira, which he attributes to bird flu potentially contracted from a brand of raw chicken cat food. Tim Hanson’s year-long legal battle against Wild Coast Pet Foods concluded recently, with a jury awarding him $800,000 in damages despite his initial claim of just under $8,000.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(jpeg)/kira-bird-flu-052826-2-98ecd98c71314b5e8f8091fe6052fdaf.jpg)
Hanson filed a lawsuit against Wild Coast LLC after his four-year-old Siamese mix, Kira, fell seriously ill shortly after consuming their cat food, advertised as “USDA inspected” and compliant with high safety standards. The complaint asserted that the company failed to inform consumers about the risk of H5 bird flu associated with the raw chicken used in their product. Kira subsequently tested positive for the virus, leading to her euthanasia on February 9, 2025, after weeks of treatment, including multiple veterinary visits.
Court documents indicate that the chicken used in Wild Coast’s cat food was sourced from regions in California and Washington, where bird flu outbreaks had been reported. The lawsuit alleges that the company knowingly omitted critical information regarding the risks to cats from the virus, claiming Hanson would not have purchased the food had he been aware of these dangers.
According to statements made in court, Wild Coast’s founder, Tyler Duncan, acknowledged during a deposition that while their food may have caused illness in pets, he did not attribute Kira’s death directly to the product. He reportedly stated, “The owners then chose to euthanize a pet. Right? The food itself did not kill the animal.” The company defended its practices by claiming reliance on third-party testing to ensure their food was not contaminated with bird flu.
Hanson’s legal representation, Michael Fuller, emphasised the gravity of the case, asserting that their focus was on accountability and prevention to safeguard other pets from similar fates. “I feel justice has been served,” Hanson stated after the trial, highlighting his motivation to prevent other pet owners from experiencing the pain and loss he endured.
Initially seeking $7,951.51—which covered veterinary expenses and the cost of the cat food—Hanson’s unexpected jury award is prompting broader discussions about food safety within the pet food industry. This outcome reflects a growing concern among consumers regarding the transparency and safety measures implemented by pet food manufacturers.
Following the jury’s decision, Wild Coast posted an open letter on its website, where Duncan expressed regret over the pain caused by the avian flu situation and the company’s response. He acknowledged the deep emotional toll on families who experienced the loss of pets due to the outbreak. Furthermore, Duncan stated that the company is actively undertaking measures to enhance food safety protocols, including new ingredient sourcing reviews and bolstering their consultation with food safety experts.
In response to customer concerns, Wild Coast has vowed to improve its manufacturing and risk-reduction practices, promising greater transparency and commitment to the wellbeing of pets. Duncan’s letter concluded with an apology for the company’s handling of the crisis, expressing a sincere intention to restore trust with pet owners.
The case highlights the complex intersection of food safety, consumer rights, and accountability in the pet food industry. As more owners demand higher standards, this landmark win for Hanson may serve as a catalyst for change, prompting greater scrutiny of how pet food is regulated and marketed in the future.