Few things prompt as visceral an outcry as the suspicion that a corporation—particularly one that wields enormous global influence—is placing profits above the well-being of families and their beloved companions. In a recent class action complaint against Zoetis, Inc., these concerns rise to a fever pitch. Zoetis, a multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical giant specializing in animal health, stands accused of failing to disclose disturbing risks associated with a leading pet medication called Librela. Librela, marketed for controlling osteoarthritis pain in dogs, allegedly triggered thousands of serious adverse events ranging from behavioral changes and urinary incontinence to organ damage and even death.

At the heart of this lawsuit is a tragic story involving a poodle mix named Jake, whose guardian believed she was doing the right thing by seeking relief for his osteoarthritis. Instead, she watched helplessly as her dog’s condition deteriorated rapidly, ultimately ending in euthanasia. The complaint alleges that what happened to Jake has also happened to scores of other pets across the country and around the world, despite Zoetis’s marketing claims that Librela is “safe and effective.” Even more damning are allegations that Zoetis received numerous reports of adverse reactions yet continued to promote the drug with optimistic advertising, all while downplaying or omitting known risks.

While these allegations are troubling in their own right, they are emblematic of broader, systemic issues under neoliberal capitalism—issues such as deregulation, lax enforcement, regulatory capture, and relentless profit-maximization. When entire regulatory frameworks seem ill-equipped or unwilling to prevent harm, observers are left wondering whether the misconduct is the product of a “bad seed” corporation or a symptom of a larger ecosystem that rewards corporate greed. This investigative piece delves into the complaint’s allegations and shows how the alleged misconduct fits into an alarming pattern of corporate ethics breaches, corporate corruption, and corporate pollution, driven by the logic of shareholder profits above all else. At stake: the well-being of not just people’s cherished pets but the health and future of our communities under a system that often values corporate earnings more than genuine corporate social responsibility.

---

CORPORATE INTENT EXPOSED

One of the lawsuit’s major revelations involves the timeline and manner in which Zoetis brought Librela (generic name bedinvetmab) to market. Librela operates by inhibiting Nerve Growth Factor (NGF), a protein involved in pain signaling. For dog owners desperate to ease chronic osteoarthritis pain, the promise of monthly injections that reduce or eliminate suffering can be irresistible. Zoetis’s marketing positioned Librela as exactly this kind of breakthrough—a compassionate, high-efficacy solution that offered once-a-month ease, implying minimal downsides.

Yet the complaint recounts a different perspective, alleging that Zoetis concealed or minimized serious health risks. It cites thousands of recorded adverse events filed with regulatory bodies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). According to the complaint, when these incidents were reported to Zoetis, they did not lead to robust new safety disclosures or even a pause in marketing claims. Instead, promotional materials continued to emphasize Librela’s efficacy and safety, allegedly omitting mention of potentially life-threatening complications, including neurological problems and acute organ damage.

For instance, the complaint states that Jake, a dog whose only known problem was osteoarthritis, developed severe symptoms—dramatically increased thirst, incontinence, inability to walk without pain, and rapid physical decline—soon after receiving Librela. Within days, the situation deteriorated so drastically that Jake’s caretaker had little choice but to have him euthanized. In the class action filing, Jake’s guardian says she never would have consented to the monthly injections if Zoetis had disclosed how dangerous Librela could be. She claims Zoetis’s extensive direct-to-consumer advertising described the drug as safe, allegedly backed by scientific research that she later discovered was flawed or incomplete.

While Zoetis publicly touted data from two corporate-sponsored studies, Corral (2021) and Krautmann (2021), these studies, the complaint notes, were conducted largely or entirely by Zoetis employees. Moreover, the suit points to a separate, more neutral analysis by a researcher at the University of Edinburgh that found methodological shortcomings in Zoetis’s claimed evidence base. These alleged flaws included incomplete blinding processes, potentially biased data collection, and small sample sizes that limited the detection of adverse events.

Additionally, the complaint highlights how the entire class of NGF inhibitors once faced significant scrutiny in human medicine. Indeed, the FDA at one point put holds on trials of NGF inhibitors for humans, pointing to “worsening joint damage” in participants. Major pharmaceutical companies either abandoned or severely limited their development of NGF inhibitor drugs. Yet Zoetis pressed forward with Librela, focusing on veterinary applications. The regulatory environment in animal health is comparatively weaker, setting the stage for what the lawsuit calls an “unreasonably dangerous” or “inadequately tested” product.

Taken together, these disclosures suggest that Zoetis might have been well aware of potential red flags around Librela’s safety profile. By continuing to market the product without robust warnings, Zoetis allegedly acted in ways that speak to corporate negligence—or, more pointedly, a willful choice to privilege speed-to-market and profit-making over thorough scientific validation. If true, it exposes a corporate intent not merely to sell a flawed product but to engage in a strategy that withholds the full picture from trusting consumers.

---

THE CORPORATIONS GET AWAY WITH IT

At a glance, it is fair to ask: how can such a situation persist if regulators such as the FDA and EMA exist precisely to prevent harmful products from entering the marketplace? The complaint alleges that Zoetis exploited an interplay between regulatory constraints and corporate lobbying, skillful marketing, and the general public’s limited recourse for challenging complex pharmaceutical science.

Several factors help explain how large corporations can “get away with it.” First, regulators are often under-resourced, especially at the intersection of the veterinary industry, where budgets for post-market surveillance are typically more constrained than in human medicine. Second, the phenomenon of regulatory capture can lead to a revolving door between industry and government. In such a climate, regulatory bodies may place more trust in the data or conclusions provided by corporate actors themselves. Third, for many animals and their owners, time is of the essence when a pet is in pain. Speedy approvals can become the priority, sometimes overshadowing thorough investigations of potential risks.

Also, in the United States at least, direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs is permissible under specific guidelines that mandate certain disclosures. The lawsuit contends, however, that Zoetis’s Librela marketing “omitted” or “downplayed” life-altering side effects, culminating in thousands of adverse event reports. The complaint calls attention to a late 2023 notice from the FDA’s Center of Veterinary Medicine warning Zoetis that its advertising made “false or misleading claims” about Librela’s efficacy. Yet the lawsuit states that Zoetis not only kept marketing the product but seemingly doubled down on its claims, raising the specter of an institutional failure. If a formal FDA warning is insufficient to halt or drastically adjust a corporation’s strategy, it reveals vulnerabilities in the system meant to protect public health and animal welfare.

This scenario shines a harsh light on a broader, well-established playbook many corporations employ to evade accountability. Generally, it involves burying negative data in obscure filings, settling out of court with some complainants, and launching PR offensives to emphasize the drug’s benefits for “suffering animals.” By selectively showcasing success stories and referencing corporate-funded studies, a company can distract from or cast doubt on any negative findings. Meanwhile, time passes, and profits accumulate, essentially offsetting the possibility of future legal payouts as “the cost of doing business.”

---

THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS

Financially, the stakes for Zoetis are enormous. According to the complaint, the company boasted annual revenues of approximately $8.54 billion in 2023, securing its standing as a global leader in animal pharmaceuticals. Librela taps into a massive and lucrative global pet medication market. Some estimates show the broader animal health industry approaching $40 billion worldwide—of which the United States claims roughly a third. The target market for a “miracle arthritis drug” that reduces pain in dogs is vast. Millions of households prioritize pet care and willingly pay premium prices for life-improving or life-extending treatments.

Within the complaint, one of the most heartbreaking forms of economic fallout is the out-of-pocket expenses owners face after a dog experiences severe adverse events. These include veterinary hospitalizations, expensive diagnostic tests, and procedures to address seizures, kidney failure, or neurological complications—if such measures are even possible. In Jake’s case, his guardian incurred medication fees, follow-up tests, and eventually euthanasia costs. The complaint argues that these financial burdens arose directly because Zoetis did not disclose Librela’s full risk profile.

It is also noteworthy that for an organization as large as Zoetis, even if a fraction of users experience severe complications, the company can still profit immensely from the majority who do not. This dynamic points toward an industry practice that cynically calculates “acceptable risks.” As long as a drug passes initial clinical thresholds, and as long as the majority of buyers fail to experience or notice extreme side effects, the product remains profitable. Should claims or lawsuits arise, the settlement expenses might pale in comparison to global revenue. This approach reflects a brutal cost-benefit calculation often embedded in neoliberal capitalism: corporations weigh the cost of potential liabilities against the robust returns offered by a continuously marketed—and heavily purchased—product.

Such profit-maximization strategies do more than dampen corporate social responsibility; they raise profound questions about corporate accountability. Are short-term gains valued more than fostering long-term trust and safety? If so, how can consumer advocacy or regulatory bodies reign in such disregard for potential harm? This is especially crucial in areas of “corporate pollution” that affect public health, or in this context, the hidden dangers to beloved companion animals’ health.

---

SYSTEMIC FAILURES

Behind these allegations lurks the shadow of a much larger issue: our systemic and arguably laissez-faire approach to regulation. Neoliberal capitalism, with its emphasis on deregulation and championing market forces, has produced an environment where government oversight is often stretched thin.

In the veterinary pharmaceutical sector, limited funding for post-market surveillance of new drugs can mean a hands-off relationship between corporations and regulators once preliminary approvals are granted. Indeed, the complaint infers that Zoetis’s initial greenlight for Librela—across both U.S. and European markets—appears to have come with minimal public scrutiny, despite precedent from the human medicine realm, where multiple NGF inhibitors were halted or heavily restricted.

Moreover, many pet owners may not even realize the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine accepts or monitors adverse event reports. The complaint describes how the FDA received upwards of 3,800 adverse event notices on Librela by the end of 2023, and the EMA accumulated more than 12,300 for the drug. Yet, these alarming numbers did not immediately trigger a recall or even a sweeping public-awareness campaign. Instead, Zoetis is reported to have continued collecting revenue while adjusting its marketing materials only marginally—if at all.

This situation underscores a hallmark of neoliberal capitalism: corporate influence looms large over the regulatory environment. Through an array of lobbying, public relations efforts, and the cultivation of strong relationships with major stakeholders, large firms can shape not only the laws but also the narratives that sustain public trust. Although the complaint stops short of alleging outright corruption in the corridors of power, it does suggest that enforcement and oversight are lacking—and that, in the meantime, consumers shoulder the fallout.

---

THIS PATTERN OF PREDATION IS A FEATURE, NOT A BUG

The lawsuit’s allegations fit all too neatly into a broader pattern: Under late-stage capitalism, repeated examples show corporations pushing the boundaries of what is ethical or lawful if it increases shareholder value. We have seen analogous scenarios unfold in the opioid crisis, in banking malfeasance, and in environmental contamination. Now, the lens shifts to veterinary medicine, but the underlying motivations appear similarly driven by corporate greed.

High-impact corporate misconduct rarely materializes in a vacuum. Instead, it is perpetuated by a confluence of incentives and a lack of deterrents. When the economic rewards for releasing a product—even one with partially understood or deliberately obscured side effects—exceed the costs of potential litigation or negative publicity, the corporate entity may keep forging ahead. This is precisely why that “predation” in the marketplace is less an aberration and more a structural feature: it is embedded in a system that confers extraordinary advantages to those who swiftly capture market share.

From a wealth disparity perspective, the animals of consumers—particularly those whose guardians might not have the resources to wage prolonged legal battles—bear the brunt of the damage. While Zoetis reaps billions in global sales, individuals must strain their finances to address unexpected medical bills when their pets suffer. The complaint frames this dynamic as heartbreakingly unfair, imposing a deeply personal cost—emotional, physical, and financial—on everyday families while insulating top executives from accountability.

Furthermore, the concept of “corporate corruption” here refers less to overt bribes and more to a moral betrayal: marketing drugs as “wonder drugs” without fully revealing what the company knows about their potential harm. If, as the complaint alleges, Zoetis intentionally obfuscated warnings to maintain a competitive edge, that is a fundamental breakdown in corporate ethics. The net effect is to perpetuate public ignorance and exploit the trust that pet owners naturally place in veterinary professionals, who themselves rely on the drug manufacturer’s disclosures.

---

THE PR PLAYBOOK OF DAMAGE CONTROL

When allegations of corporate wrongdoing surface, well-funded entities often deploy a precise, albeit predictable, public relations playbook. The complaint suggests Zoetis may be following a recognizable script:

1. Dispute the Causality
   Corporations typically question whether the product itself caused the reported harm. This can involve referencing pre-existing conditions in the affected dogs, or pointing to alternative explanations. The complaint mentions that Zoetis has maintained and publicly stated confidence in Librela’s safety, which effectively puts the onus on plaintiffs to prove the drug’s role in their pets’ suffering.
2. Highlight a Few High-Profile Success Stories
   The complaint notes that Zoetis frequently cites corporate-sponsored studies touting Librela’s efficacy. A typical PR strategy involves citing these studies in media briefings and at industry conferences, overshadowing or at least diluting negative anecdotes.
3. Omit or Downplay Early Warnings
   By the time the FDA flagged Zoetis for “misleading claims,” thousands of adverse events had reportedly already been filed. The lawsuit asserts that if these negative patterns had been made public earlier, many pet owners might have chosen different treatment paths.
4. Continue Selling While Litigating
   Large corporations often rely on their legal teams to handle lawsuits in the background while publicly maintaining that their product remains beneficial. Even if they lose cases or settle quietly, it can be cheaper than a wholesale recall.
5. Blame “Rare” Events and Position the Drug as the “Greater Good”
   By framing serious side effects as rare, Zoetis might argue that Librela solves a bigger crisis—canine osteoarthritis—than it creates. This approach can cast critics as alarmists or outliers.

By employing these strategies, an entity as influential as Zoetis can keep its brand relatively intact, at least for a time. The complaint also points out that once consumers’ trust is compromised and the story gains traction, the company’s public image may eventually suffer. The question remains whether that reputational dent will be enough to prompt real accountability—or whether it becomes part of the “cost of doing business,” offset by continuing sales of veterinary pharmaceuticals worldwide.

---

PROFITS OVER PEOPLE

The phrase “profits over people” resonates especially strongly in pet care, since the “people” in question include families whose emotional bonds with their pets run deep. The complaint illustrates how the pursuit of corporate profits can overshadow moral obligations, leading to direct harm for pet owners. For many, dogs are cherished companions, sources of emotional comfort, and even members of the family. When a medication that appears beneficial turns lethal, the emotional blow is matched by a profound sense of betrayal.

In economic terms, I would like to argue argue that this is reflective of late-stage capitalism, where corporations are incentivized to push product lines aggressively to maximize profits—even if that means marketing them to the edge of what is truthful or safe. In the context of corporate social responsibility, the alleged behavior is a giant deviation from the ideal of “do no harm.” Instead, it exemplifies a scenario in which product disclaimers might be minimized or buried, and negative data are suppressed to preserve market share.

The complaint underscores just how wide the gap between corporate messaging and lived experience can become. Families, trusting the Zoetis brand, purchase Librela to alleviate their dogs’ discomfort—only to end up devastated by severe side effects. Despite paying a premium for cutting-edge veterinary solutions, they are the ones bearing the burden of medical emergencies and the heartbreak of losing a pet. Meanwhile, Zoetis counts billions in annual revenue and has the legal and financial muscle to fend off adverse publicity. Whether the management or shareholders see any impetus to fundamentally reform is unclear.

---

THE HUMAN TOLL ON WORKERS AND COMMUNITIES

Although the allegations involve harm to animals, the fallout has broader human consequences. Veterinarians, for instance, may unwittingly become vectors for distributing a product that later brings tragedy to their clients. Repeated negative incidents could erode trust between vets and their communities, undermine professional credibility, and provoke emotional burnout among caring practitioners. No veterinarian relishes telling clients that a drug they prescribed may have contributed to their pet’s suffering.

Local communities that revolve around veterinary clinics, rescue organizations, and pet care services may also feel the ripple effects. Small veterinary practices don’t have the same resources as massive pharmaceutical companies to absorb legal risks, nor do they have the capacity to mount independent clinical studies on every new drug. If they rely on Zoetis’s marketing materials and official label instructions, they are effectively trusting the corporation’s statements of safety. This dynamic parallels how large corporations in other industries offload risk onto smaller players—echoing, in part, the broader critique that neoliberal capitalism centralizes power while decentralizing risk and damage.

Moreover, many dog owners place immense emotional investment in their relationships with their pets—particularly in times of health crises. The heartbreak of losing a pet under these circumstances can’t be easily quantified. Yet the complaint highlights precisely that intangible cost, calling for a response that encompasses not just economic restitution but also a broader moral reckoning.

Even from a workforce perspective, if allegations of corporate corruption or negligence gain traction, Zoetis employees themselves could feel the backlash. Morale might suffer, especially among those who genuinely entered the field of animal health to improve animal welfare. It’s a microcosm of how corporate ethics violations can have internal repercussions, breeding discontent within the rank-and-file who see the deep contrast between official mission statements and alleged real-world conduct.

---

GLOBAL TRENDS IN CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY

The Zoetis complaint also mirrors global trends in corporate accountability. Across industries—be it automotive, big tech, environmental regulation, or pharmaceuticals—multinational corporations face mounting pressure to adopt transparent practices. Yet they often find ways to maneuver around robust reform. That tension underscores a painful reality: While outrage and legal actions can yield settlements, product recalls, or stricter regulations, large corporations still frequently continue business as usual, adjusting only minimally to quell public criticism.

In many parts of the world, calls for corporate accountability are growing louder. Grassroots activists champion initiatives to punish corporate greed, especially when it jeopardizes public or environmental health. Legal frameworks are evolving as well, with certain regions adopting more stringent rules for transparency in clinical trials or demanding more rigorous disclosures from pharmaceutical companies. Even so, the complaint underscores how these steps can remain piecemeal, allowing companies to operate in jurisdictions with weaker enforcement.

The marketing of Librela outside the United States—especially in Europe, where it was approved earlier and faced thousands of reported adverse events—serves as a parallel narrative. European regulators, while sometimes lauded for being stricter, have nonetheless continued to allow Librela’s sale. This cross-border patchwork of regulations invites multinational corporations to exploit the least demanding legal environment, a hallmark tactic in the era of globalization. It’s a prime example of “race to the bottom” logic under neoliberal capitalism, in which competition among states fosters more lenient oversight to attract economic activity.

If the allegations are true, the question then becomes how to ensure that no matter where a corporation seeks approval, the baseline standards for consumer and animal safety remain high. The complaint against Zoetis thus resonates beyond U.S. shores. It is a clarion call in the global conversation about whether corporate ethics can be enforced effectively, or whether corporate greed and shareholder demands will continue overshadowing public health considerations—even, or especially, in areas where emotional stakes run so high as with beloved pets.

---

PATHWAYS FOR REFORM AND CONSUMER ADVOCACY

While the scope of these allegations is unsettling, it also offers a potential roadmap for change. Reform can take multiple forms, from legal interventions and policy shifts to consumer-driven activism and investor pressure. Below are some pathways the complaint suggests or that arise naturally from the issues at stake:

1. Strengthening Regulatory Oversight
   The FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine could benefit from expanded funding, more stringent post-market surveillance, and sharper penalties for misleading advertisements. An entity like Zoetis might re-evaluate the cost-benefit calculus if it faced rigorous oversight with real teeth—such as prompt, public “black box” warnings or immediate recall proceedings when adverse events escalate.
2. Enhanced Transparency in Clinical Research
   A repeated concern in the complaint is how Zoetis’s own studies formed the backbone of Librela’s safety claims. Independent, peer-reviewed research on bedinvetmab’s efficacy and safety should become a baseline requirement. Such transparency would also deter corporations from designing studies primarily to obtain favorable results.
3. Mandatory Reporting and Public Databases
   Systems like the FDA Adverse Event Reporting database are already in place but rarely publicized. Making adverse event data easy to access and interpret could push corporations toward more responsible behavior. This is particularly important in a specialized sector like veterinary medicine, where many busy practitioners rely on manufacturer-provided summaries.
4. Consumer Education and Activism
   Pet owners can learn to request clinical data from their veterinarians, ask about a drug’s track record, and stay abreast of recalls or FDA warnings. Public pressure can also come from grassroots movements, consumer advocates, or interest groups like humane societies, drawing attention to allegations of corporate misconduct.
5. Investor and Shareholder Pressure
   In an era of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investing, companies are increasingly accountable to shareholders who care about corporate ethics and social responsibility. If allegations of negligence or deception become widely known, institutional investors might demand changes in how Zoetis does business.
6. Legal Precedents and Class Actions
   A class action like the one in question can galvanize meaningful changes in how corporations approach risk disclosure. If plaintiffs are successful, the resulting settlements or verdicts may incentivize better disclosures and safer product development. Corporate boards might adopt more conservative legal strategies in the face of massive potential liabilities.
7. International Collaboration
   Given that Zoetis sells in more than 100 countries, stronger global networks for veterinary pharmaceutical surveillance could unify data collection, identify red flags early, and share best practices across regulatory bodies.

Ultimately, these changes could help shift the calculus from “the cost of doing business” to “the moral, financial, and legal imperative of protecting public welfare.” Even so, change requires more than just good intentions. It demands institutional fortitude, persistent vigilance from advocacy groups, and sustained public engagement. Consumers, veterinarians, regulators, and ethical-minded investors each have a role to play in this ecosystem.

At the heart of the complaint against Zoetis is the accusation that the company ignored or concealed crucial information, demonstrating how corporate accountability does not end with a drug’s initial approval. Rather, it continues throughout a product’s lifecycle and is shaped by whether the corporation adheres to genuine corporate social responsibility or prioritizes unchecked profit-maximization. Whether or not the allegations are fully substantiated in court, the case poses an important question: Are we willing to tolerate a corporate system where a tragic story like Jake’s is dismissed as “collateral damage” in the pursuit of billion-dollar profits, or is it time to demand a more ethical path forward?

---