PetSmart retail chain sues PETA alleging spying
If you don't have a pet (or "animal companion," to be politically correct), you may never have entered a PetSmart store. But the Phoenix-based chain of big box pet stores, with over 1,600 locations, is enduring the same difficult times that other big-box brick-and-mortar retailers face, with declining per store sales.
Now PetSmart faces a P.R. offensive from PETA, an organization that doesn't think people should keep pets, and it is fighting back with a lawsuit. Brent Scher reports in The Free Beacon:
Pet superstore PetSmart has filed a lawsuit against PETA, claiming a former employee who illegally filmed internal operations was being paid by and acting with orders from the animal-rights group that aims to fully eradicate pet ownership.
PetSmart had already filed a lawsuit against the employee, Jenna Jordan, for lying on her job application and proceeding to transmit secretly recorded audio and video to PETA. The newly filed lawsuit, however, names both Jordan and PETA as the defendants.
The lawsuit alleges that Jordan was on the receiving end of both "funding and logistical support" from PETA while she was employed by PetSmart. It says Jordan lied on her job application by omitting her employment with PETA, as well as the fact that she had previously been fired by a zoo for secretly collecting information on its operations for PETA.
"When Jordan applied to work at PetSmart in March 2017, Jordan deliberately concealed from PetSmart that she was a PETA agent and operative with a clear and obvious conflict of interest preventing her from discharging her duties and honoring the common law and contractual duties that she owed to PetSmart as a PetSmart employee," the lawsuit says.
I have no idea about the legal merits of this lawsuit, filed under the laws of Florida. Presumably, PetSmart chose a jurisdiction whose laws are most favorable to its claims. But as a journalist, I prefer to see undercover videos allowed — for example, at Planned Parenthood, to choose a random case.
On the other hand, I love my puppy Fawn and react very, very badly to people who would deny me the right to her companionship and deprive her of the care and love that I enjoy lavishing upon her.
I don't know which side to root for here. I don't want animals harmed or neglected. But I do want animals to continue to be our best friends.

FOLLOW US ON
Recent Articles
- New York Greenlights Quarantine Camps
- Reality Check for Democrats
- A MAGA Siege of the Democrats’ Deep State
- Why Incel and 4B Culture Matter
- Defending Donald Trump: A Response to Jeffrey Goldberg and The Atlantic on the Signal Leak
- Are Judges Complicit in Lawfare?
- Deep Dive: The Signal Chat Leak
- Mark Steyn’s Reversal of Fortune
- Where We Need Musk’s Chainsaw the Most
- Trump Is Not Destroying the Constitution, but Restoring It
Blog Posts
- A Ph.D. in ‘Molecular and Cell Biology’ shows the difference between credentials and knowledge
- Nasty Venezuelan migrant who flashed taxpayer dollars and urged squatting, gets thrown out
- Watch white leftist women’s brains breaking—and repairing—in real-time
- The last, best hope ...
- In Pennsylvania, are Democrats stealing votes again?
- Knife control comes to the U.K.: Prime Minister Starmer bans Ninja swords
- This Tuesday, Wisconsonites must vote for Brad Schimel for the State Supreme Court
- Was Vietnam worth the cost?
- Democrats should get a clue from the Palestinians who are now marching against Hamas
- Trump takes on Fauxahontas's brainchild
- Consumer Sentiment Survey: This too shall pass
- If they only had knife control....
- Newsom and Walz struggle to appear normal
- Anti-Trump lawfare: yes, it's a conspiracy
- Criminal attack? You're on your own.