11/12/2025
From my vantage point, this case has a notable outcome: the settlement signals serious commercial/legal risk tied to how aversive/“shock” collars (and similar containment / barrier devices) are marketed to consumers. Even though the case is not “closed with a finding of liability,” the fact that the company agreed to pay up means they found the risk of continuing too high.
In other words, trying to “prove” that their product was not harmful seems too risky (probably because they know it would be highly likely to turn out otherwise) and the payout for that would bankrupt the company and open up a bunch of liability for other companies that sell these devices. A total disruption to the industry as we know it.
Just a thought 🤔.
A recent U.S. class action (Hernandez v. Radio Systems Corporation) has resulted in compensation for consumers after claims that e-collars were misrepresented in sales and marketing as “safe” and “humane.” The complaint also outlined that such devices can cause both physical injury and psychological harm to dogs. Details are in the link below.
https://www.classaction.org/media/hernandez-v-radio-systems-corporation-complaint_1.pdf
At the UK Dog Behaviour & Training Charter, we uphold a strict no-shock collar and non-aversive policy. Training should build trust, promote wellbeing, and respect the dog’s experience, not rely on pain, fear, or coercion.
If you’re looking for humane, ethical training support that puts the emotional wellbeing of your pet first, you can find qualified professionals through our Charter member organisations and their members, who are all committed to kind, science-led methods.
Let’s keep bringing out the best in dogs through kindness, clarity, and care.
https://dogcharter.uk
