About

Important information

• Pending Government Action:

  Government Action: BBB reports on known government actions involving business’ marketplace conduct:

  State of Washington v Doxiedor LLC, d/b/a Puppyland; Doxiedor IV, LLC, d/b/a Pupplyland; DoxieDorx LLC; Justin Kerr and Kayla Kerr
  

  
  

  The
  following describes a pending government action that has been formally
  brought by a government agency but has not yet been resolved. We are
  providing a summary of the governments allegations, which have not yet
  been proven.

  
  

  On April 7, 2023, in the State of Washington King County Superior
  Court, the State of Washington filed a Complaint for Injunctive and
  Other Relief against Doxiedor LLC, d/b/a Puppyland; Doxiedor IV, LLC,
  d/b/a Pupplyland; DoxieDorx LLC; Justin Kerr and Kayla Kerr.

  
  

  
  The lawsuit against Puppyland and its owners alleges the company’s
  failure to honor advertised health guarantees and channeling customers
  into predatory loans with illegal terms restricting truthful reviews.
  The lawsuit asserts Puppyland misrepresented both the breeding standards
  of puppies it sold, and the health guarantees they offered, while
  unfairly maneuvering buyers into signing predatory loans with interest
  rates approaching 200% without adequate time to understand the terms.

  
  

   

  
  

  
  The lawsuit, filed in King County Superior Court,
  seeks penalties and restitution under the state Consumer Protection Act
  for Puppyland’s deceptive and unfair advertising and sales practices.

  
  

  
  The Attorney General’s Office believes that more than 7,000 individuals
  purchased puppies from Puppyland’s Washington stores since the company
  started operations in 2018. Consumers complained to the Attorney
  General’s Office that the puppies Puppyland sold them often became
  violently sick soon after purchase. Even worse, some animals died
  shortly after coming home with their new owners.  

  
  

  
  Puppyland has one store in Puyallup, and previously operated a store in
  Renton. The owners, Kayla and Justin Kerr, formerly owned Puppyworld in
  Olympia and have Puppyland-branded stores in Georgia, Idaho, and Texas. 

  
  

  
  Puppyland tried to prevent customers from speaking out about their
  experiences. Puppyland’s standard purchase paperwork included an illegal
  non-disclosure provision that attempted to prevent consumers from
  sharing truthful information about their experience. Individuals who
  signed the paperwork agreed not to “disparage, defame, sully or
  compromise the goodwill” of Puppyland, or face the threat of legal
  action. Further, Puppyland’s purchase agreement stated that it would
  void its health warranties if a consumer left a negative review on
  widely used online web sites. A Washingtonian who bought a Shiba Inu
  puppy that later died said she wanted to write a negative review but
  decided not to because she feared Puppyland would sue her, which would
  add attorney costs onto the financial hardships from her loan and
  veterinary bills.

  
  

  
  Puppyland’s misleading health guarantees. The Attorney General’s lawsuit
  alleges that Puppyland deceived consumers about the health and breeding
  of the puppies it sold them. Puppyland advertised industry-best
  breeding standards and health guarantees for its animals, telling
  prospective customers that its puppies met rigorous health and breeding
  standards and that the company stood behind these assurances with a
  money back guarantee. However, once a consumer purchased a puppy, these
  health guarantees turned out to be largely illusory. The fine print in
  Puppyland’s multi-page sales contract required customers to meet onerous
  preconditions before Puppyland would cover any veterinary bills and the
  agreement excluded many common ailments from coverage altogether. For
  example, Puppyland widely advertised a 15-day protection that would
  cover veterinary costs if puppies developed a viral illness like
  Parvovirus or Distemper in the first fifteen days after going to their
  new home. To qualify for coverage, however, Puppyland required new
  owners to have the puppy examined by a veterinarian within three days of
  purchase and to contact Puppyland immediately after a diagnosis.
  Failure to do so voided the health guarantee, resulting in the denial of
  a claim. If individuals asked for an extension of the three-day period,
  Puppyland’s policy was to deny the request.

  
  

  
  The lawsuit asserts that Puppyland knew many Washingtonians would be
  unable to see a veterinarian within three days of buying a new puppy and
  that it did not adequately disclose this precondition to customers.

  
  

  
  Consumers were not “always covered”. Puppyland misleadingly advertised
  its health guarantees as providing meaningful coverage for healthcare
  costs, assuring consumers that “YOU ARE ALWAYS COVERED.” The lawsuit
  asserts this specific claim was unfair and deceptive and violated the
  Consumer Protection Act. Puppyland offered a two-year guarantee for
  costs if a puppy developed a “life-altering congenital or hereditary
  condition.” When consumers alerted Puppyland that their puppies had
  become ill, however, the company was unresponsive, even when puppies
  developed severe health problems. Many consumers incurred thousands of
  dollars in veterinary bills before Puppyland would consider covering any
  costs. Separately, Puppyland offered a 10-year guarantee and provided a
  50% discount on the purchase of another puppy if a puppy died in that
  time. For some customers, Puppyland offered store credit or a
  replacement puppy after the death of their dog, but consumers still had
  to pay off their original loan. Puppyland’s failure to honor the
  guarantees they advertised further impacted consumers who were already
  struggling with the cost of caring for sick animals. Consumer complaints
  show the effects of Puppyland’s hollow health guarantees on
  Washingtonians. One woman wrote in a complaint that Puppyland sold her a
  puppy that became sick immediately. She spent thousands of dollars on
  veterinary care but despite that, the puppy died a week later. She felt
  Puppyland sales were a “scam.” Another woman complained to the Better
  Business Bureau regarding a French Bulldog puppy she purchased in June
  2022. On the second day she had the puppy, the puppy began to defecate
  blood. When she took the puppy to a veterinarian, she learned the puppy
  had giardia. After treatment, the puppy developed other illnesses for
  the following two and a half months. When she complained to Puppyland,
  the business gave her $36. The puppy’s health troubles continued, and
  the woman incurred thousands of dollars in medical expenses.

  
  

  
  During the Attorney General’s Office investigation, an investigator
  spoke with multiple customers. One woman told the investigator she
  bought a Shiba Inu puppy as an emotional support animal for her son,
  which they named Luna. Puppyland set up a $6,500 loan to cover the
  purchase price. Two weeks later, Luna began having seizures. A
  veterinarian prescribed medication and ordered tests to determine what
  caused the seizures. Puppyland would not cover any of the medical costs.
  The seizures continued and, before the tests could happen, Luna died in
  her son’s arms.

  
  

  
  Puppyland deceived buyers into predatory loans. The lawsuit also asserts
  that Puppyland designed its business to manipulate consumers into
  signing predatory loans without a meaningful opportunity to review the
  terms, an unfair practice in violation of the Consumer Protection Act.
  Puppyland’s widespread marketing did not disclose puppy prices.
  Puppyland employees were not allowed to provide any price estimates when
  consumers contacted them, and Puppyland did not display prices anywhere
  in their stores. Once a customer had committed to purchasing a puppy,
  employees would finally disclose the price, which ranged anywhere from
  $3,000 to $10,000 per dog. Employees were encouraged to pressure the
  buyer into financing the purchase if they could not afford to pay for
  the puppy outright. Puppyland’s chosen loan providers charged annual
  percentage rates as high as 198%. If someone could not qualify for a
  loan for the full price on their own, Puppyland would often lock them
  into two or more loans to cover the costs or urge them to use a family
  member or friend to apply with them to qualify. Consumers reported
  Puppyland employees inundated them with so much information in a short
  period of time that they often did not comprehend the terms of their
  loans or Puppyland’s purchase agreement until long after the sale was
  complete. Coupled with these high-pressure sales tactics, the consumer
  did not see a final loan agreement until after electronically signing
  the loan documents in rapid succession. Ferguson’s lawsuit asserts
  Puppyland designed these practices to pressure individuals into agreeing
  to predatory loans for Puppyland animals that exponentially increased
  the consumer’s payment obligations. Indeed, a February 2022 KIRO news story showed
  that one couple agreed to pay approximately $5,500 for a puppy. They
  received the in-store financing at a near 129% rate for one loan and
  another loan at 71%, which brought their total debt for the puppy to
  more than $10,000.

  
  

  
  Puppyland faces thousands of dollars in penalties per violation of the
  Consumer Protection Act. Further, the Attorney General’s Office
  anticipates seeking restitution for the many Washingtonians who financed
  puppies through the company.

  
  

  
  Assistant Attorneys General Aaron Fickes, Ashley Gomez and Michael Hall,
  Senior Investigator/Analyst Renee Shadel, Paralegal Emin Aliiasov and
  Legal Assistant Elliot Raven are handling the case for the Attorney
  General’s Office.

  
  

  
  For more information, please contact the Washington Attorney General’s Office at https://www.atg.wa.gov/ or 360-753-6200.

  
  

  Click here for details