Shenzhen Zhihuida Technology Co. and Gaosto Ltd. filed a federal lawsuit on January 16, 2026, in the Eastern District of Texas against PetPivot Inc. and multiple TikTok creators, alleging a coordinated campaign of false and misleading statements designed to damage the plaintiffs' business reputation and divert sales from their Meowant-branded cat litter box products.

The complaint identifies PetPivot as orchestrating a systematic disparagement effort through TikTok accounts @fluffyfinds1 and @coltomn, operated by Noah Wolfenson, Luc Blancato, and an unidentified defendant known only as Doe 1. According to the filing, these creators produced what the plaintiffs characterize as fake "review" videos containing false, misleading, and deceptive statements while including direct links to PetPivot's TikTok Shop storefront.

gov.uscourts.txed.243102.1.0
gov.uscourts.txed.243102.1.0.pdf
286 KB
download-circle

The lawsuit arrives as TikTok Shop transforms social commerce dynamics, with the platform integrating purchasing capabilities directly into its content discovery system. Meowant's TikTok store has sold more than 600,000 products as of the filing date. Both companies compete directly on TikTok Shop, selling automatic cat litter boxes through the platform's integrated e-commerce infrastructure.

The disputed content

The complaint details specific allegations about video content posted by the defendant creators. One video posted by @coltomn allegedly stated that "sadly my other two automatic litter cleaning boxes they didn't do the pre-cleaning cycle so it ended up smearing and I had to manually clean it with paper towel and it stunk pretty bad," referring to Meowant's products.

Plaintiffs characterize this statement as false because their products feature a pre-cleaning cycle prominently implemented within the application as a one-tap feature labeled "Shake Mode." The complaint asserts that defendants intentionally deactivated this function despite its availability, designing this deliberate omission to create a false impression that the pre-cleaning function either does not exist or is ineffective.

Another contested video from @fluffyfinds1 allegedly claimed "I got this thing for 300 dollar and yheah I don't scoop anymore, but it just ends up super disgusting. It doesn't even cover the litter and the grates are super big so a lot doesn't even get scooped up."

The plaintiffs allege this statement is false on two grounds. First, they claim they never listed Meowant-branded products at $300. Second, they assert defendants presented fabricated visuals falsely depicting their products as having poor cleaning capability and a heavily soiled interior. When properly used, the complaint states, Meowant products provide top-notch cleaning capacity among cat litter box products on the market.

According to the complaint, defendants "were aware that the statements they made regarding Plaintiffs' Meowant-branded cat litter box products were false, misleading, and/or deceptive" but made these statements "with the intent to deceive potential consumers, divert sales away from Plaintiffs' Meowant-branded products, and disparage Plaintiffs' business reputation."

The lawsuit invokes multiple legal theories including Lanham Act violations for unfair competition and false advertising, Texas common law unfair competition, trademark dilution under Texas Business and Commercial Code Section 16.29, defamation, and tortious interference.

Under the Lanham Act Section 43(a), codified at 15 U.S.C. Section 1125(a), the plaintiffs must demonstrate that defendants made false or misleading statements in commercial advertising that are material to purchasing decisions and likely to cause confusion or deception among consumers. The complaint asserts that these false statements have actually deceived, or have a tendency to deceive, a substantial segment of customers because the deception is likely to influence purchasing decisions.

The case emerges against a backdrop of increasing regulatory scrutiny of influencer marketing practices and paid endorsements. Attorney Rob Freund, writing on X (formerly Twitter) on January 18, emphasized critical compliance requirements for advertisers engaging creators to discuss competitor products. "If you're going to disparage a competitor in your advertising (directly or through an influencer/creator), those disparaging claims must be truthful and substantiated," Freund stated in his analysis of the case.

Freund highlighted a fundamental principle of endorsement law: "Endorsements must reflect the honest opinions or experiences of the endorser." This means brands cannot pay someone to discuss their experiences with a product or competitor's product unless the creator actually has experience with that product and conveys honest opinions, even if material connections are disclosed.

The Federal Trade Commission finalized rules on August 14, 2024, specifically prohibiting brands from paying for consumer reviews expressing certain sentiments, whether positive or negative. These regulations apply regardless of disclosure. The FTC's Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Rule explicitly forbids conditioning payment on positive reviews or negative reviews of competitors, making tactics like "leave us 5 stars and take 10% off" unlawful even with proper disclosure.

FTC Chair Lina M. Khan characterized fake reviews as wasting "people's time and money" while polluting "the marketplace and divert[ing] business away from honest competitors." The strengthened regulatory framework enables the FTC to seek civil penalties against violators, providing enhanced enforcement capabilities following limitations on monetary relief imposed by the Supreme Court's 2021 decision in AMG Capital Management v. FTC.

Platform dynamics and creator economy implications

The lawsuit highlights tensions inherent in social commerce platforms where content creators operate simultaneously as entertainers, reviewers, and advertising channels. TikTok has developed extensive infrastructure for creator partnerships and brand collaborations, with the platform's advertising ecosystem generating substantial revenue through creator-driven content.

Recent industry research demonstrates the financial stakes involved in creator relationships. Analysis indicates the global creator economy is projected to grow from $191 billion in 2025 to $528.39 billion by 2030, representing a 22.5% compound annual growth rate. This expansion creates both opportunities and compliance challenges as brands seek to leverage creator audiences across multiple platforms.

TikTok's platform characteristics complicate traditional advertising measurement frameworks. Research from Kochava announced September 23, 2025 found that marketing mix modeling revealed TikTok campaigns generated an average of 35% higher incremental impact compared to last-touch attribution reporting. The study analyzed major Android and iOS applications across North America during the first quarter of 2025, highlighting how measurement methodology influences perceived channel effectiveness.

These unique engagement patterns create attribution challenges when user interactions span multiple touchpoints. TikTok advertisements frequently initiate broader customer exploration journeys that traditional attribution models struggle to track comprehensively, making it difficult to isolate the impact of individual content pieces or creator endorsements.

The platform has implemented various disclosure tools and partnership features designed to enhance transparency. Instagram's "Paid partnership" label and similar mechanisms on TikTok aim to signal commercial relationships to users. However, IAB Croatia's November 3, 2025 guidelines noted that research indicates only 20 percent of consumers recognize influencer content as commercial messaging despite these disclosure requirements.

Discovery and evidence considerations

The complaint indicates plaintiffs will seek to prove defendants' coordination and intent through discovery. The filing states that "on information and belief" PetPivot engaged the TikTok creators to systematically disparage Meowant's business reputation, with creators receiving direction and instructions from PetPivot that they followed.

This allegation raises factual questions about the nature of relationships between brands and creators in social commerce environments. Direct evidence of coordination might include contracts, communications, payment records, or creative direction provided to influencers. The complaint's reliance on "information and belief" suggests plaintiffs may not yet possess definitive documentary evidence of the alleged conspiracy but plan to obtain such materials through litigation discovery processes.

Plaintiffs identify themselves as operating from different jurisdictional bases. Shenzhen Zhihuida Technology operates in the People's Republic of China and owns the federally registered trademark for Meowant. Gaosto Ltd. is a Delaware corporation that operates the Meowant TikTok store through licensing arrangements. PetPivot Inc. allegedly operates from Oregon with its principal place of business located at 1614 NW Riverscape Street in Portland.

The venue selection in the Eastern District of Texas, specifically the Sherman Division, reflects strategic litigation choices. This jurisdiction has emerged as a frequent forum for intellectual property and trademark disputes. The complaint asserts venue is proper because "a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this judicial district."

Personal jurisdiction over defendants rests on their business activities targeting Texas consumers through TikTok Shop, which the complaint characterizes as "a fully interactive and e-commerce website." The filing asserts defendants "have reached out to conduct business with Texas residents" and "purposefully caused the dissemination of false and misleading statements regarding Plaintiffs' products in Texas."

Damages and requested relief

The plaintiffs seek comprehensive remedies including immediate injunctive relief ordering defendants to terminate further dissemination of allegedly false, misleading, or deceptive statements. They request preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining defendants from disseminating the contested content, using the Meowant mark or its variations in commerce, unfairly competing with plaintiffs, and causing injury to plaintiffs' business reputation.

Monetary damages requested include actual damages, exemplary damages, statutory damages, profits gained by defendants through the alleged conduct, and costs and attorneys' fees. The complaint characterizes defendants' actions as willful and done with intention of causing confusion, mistake, or deception, supporting claims for enhanced remedies and fee recovery under the Lanham Act.

The complaint states that as a result of defendants' allegedly false, misleading, or deceptive statements, "Plaintiffs have experienced a noticeable decrease in sales." This claim of demonstrable harm will require substantiation through sales data, market analysis, or other evidence connecting the contested videos to quantifiable business impact.

Plaintiffs also seek an accounting of defendants' profits and advantages obtained through the alleged use of the Meowant brand in false and misleading statements. Such disgorgement remedies aim to prevent defendants from retaining financial benefits derived from unlawful conduct.

Broader implications for advertising practices

The case illustrates emerging legal risks in creator-driven social commerce environments. Brands engaging creators to discuss competing products face heightened scrutiny under both traditional advertising law and newer regulations specifically targeting fake reviews and testimonial manipulation.

Three levels of potential liability warrant consideration. First, brands may face direct liability for false advertising when they direct or substantially participate in creating misleading content about competitors. Second, brands potentially bear responsibility for creator statements made pursuant to commercial relationships even absent direct creative control, particularly when creators act as apparent agents or authorized spokespersons. Third, platforms hosting contested content may face pressure to implement more robust verification and moderation systems.

The FTC's position on conditional reviews extends beyond simple quid pro quo arrangements. The agency's Consumer Reviews and Testimonials Rule prohibits any conditioning of payment, discounts, or other incentives on review sentiment. This means brands cannot offer compensation specifically for negative competitor reviews, positive brand reviews, or reviews meeting certain rating thresholds regardless of disclosure completeness.

These principles apply across digital advertising channels including social media platforms, e-commerce marketplaces, and branded websites. The regulatory framework treats substantive compliance requirements as independent from disclosure obligations—truthful endorsements with proper disclosure remain required, but proper disclosure does not legitimize false or coerced endorsements.

Recent enforcement actions demonstrate regulatory agencies' willingness to pursue companies exploiting digital platforms for deceptive commercial practices. The FTC's settlement with Click Profit operators on August 25, 2025, involved multiple Business Opportunity Rule violations, Consumer Review Fairness Act violations through review suppression tactics, and Impersonation Rule violations through misrepresented business affiliations.

Market context and competitive dynamics

The automatic cat litter box market features multiple competitors selling through both traditional e-commerce channels and social commerce platforms. Product differentiation centers on cleaning mechanisms, odor control, noise levels, smartphone connectivity, and price points typically ranging from approximately $200 to $600 depending on features.

Meowant positions its products as offering "top-notch cleaning capacity among cat litter box products on the market" with features including automated cleaning cycles, smartphone app integration, quiet operation, and odor management systems. The complaint includes customer testimonials praising products for cleanliness, ease of setup, quiet operation, and effective odor control.

One testimonial states: "I decided to splurge on the fancy auto clean cat litter, and honestly, it's been a game changer for me and my cat." Another notes: "The biggest difference I've is how much cleaner the litter box stays, it really does a better job at keeping things tidy compared to what I've used before."

PetPivot entered the market later than Meowant according to the complaint, creating competitive dynamics where newer entrants might seek to differentiate through aggressive marketing or comparative claims. The lawsuit alleges PetPivot pursued an unlawful strategy of systematic disparagement rather than legitimate comparative advertising.

Both companies operate storefronts on TikTok Shop, selling directly to consumers through the platform's integrated purchasing infrastructure. This sales channel creates unique competitive dynamics where organic content, paid advertising, and creator partnerships blur together within users' content feeds. The platform's algorithm-driven content discovery means users encounter product recommendations, reviews, and advertisements in formats that may not clearly delineate commercial intent.

Procedural posture and next steps

The complaint, filed January 16, 2026, as Civil Action No. 26-cv-54, includes a jury trial demand, indicating plaintiffs intend to present their case to a jury rather than seek a bench trial before a judge alone. This strategic choice reflects confidence in the factual narrative's persuasiveness to lay jurors and potentially enables higher damage awards should plaintiffs prevail.

Defendants have not yet responded to the complaint as of the filing date. They will receive service of process and must file responsive pleadings within the timeframe specified by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, typically 21 days after service for domestic defendants.

Defense strategies might include challenging personal jurisdiction or venue, disputing the factual allegations about coordination or intent, asserting First Amendment protections for opinion or comparative advertising, demonstrating the truthfulness of contested statements, or raising procedural defenses such as statute of limitations.

The case may proceed through discovery where parties exchange documents, take depositions, and gather evidence supporting their positions. Key discovery battles might focus on communications between PetPivot and the creator defendants, payment records, creative direction materials, and data showing sales impacts on both companies following publication of the contested videos.

Settlement negotiations frequently occur in commercial disputes of this nature, particularly where ongoing market competition and brand reputation concerns create incentives for confidential resolution rather than prolonged public litigation. However, the complaint's characterization of defendants' conduct as willful and deceptive suggests significant animosity that may complicate settlement discussions.

Timeline

Summary

Who: Shenzhen Zhihuida Technology Co., Ltd. (trademark owner) and Gaosto Ltd. (Delaware corporation operating Meowant TikTok store) filed suit against PetPivot Inc. (Oregon-based competitor), TikTok creators Noah Wolfenson and Luc Blancato (operators of @fluffyfinds1), an unidentified defendant operating @coltomn, and additional unknown defendants. Attorney Rob Freund provided legal analysis of the case's implications for advertising compliance.

What: The plaintiffs allege defendants orchestrated a coordinated campaign of false and misleading statements about Meowant-branded automatic cat litter boxes through TikTok review videos that allegedly misrepresented product features, fabricated pricing information, and presented deceptive visuals while linking to PetPivot's competing TikTok Shop storefront. The complaint asserts violations of the Lanham Act, Texas unfair competition law, trademark dilution statutes, defamation law, and tortious interference principles.

When: The complaint was filed January 16, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division. The alleged conduct occurred through TikTok videos posted by the defendant creator accounts at unspecified times prior to the filing, resulting in what plaintiffs characterize as a noticeable decrease in sales. Rob Freund's legal analysis appeared January 18, 2026, highlighting regulatory requirements established by FTC rules finalized August 14, 2024.

Where: The lawsuit proceeds in the Eastern District of Texas despite defendants' geographic dispersion across Oregon (PetPivot's principal place of business), China (Shenzhen Zhihuida's operations), and Delaware (Gaosto's corporate organization). The contested content appeared on TikTok Shop, a global e-commerce platform integrated into TikTok's video application. Plaintiffs assert jurisdiction based on defendants targeting Texas consumers and purposefully causing false statement dissemination in Texas through the platform.

Why: The case illustrates fundamental tensions in creator-driven social commerce where competitive pressures, platform monetization incentives, and regulatory compliance requirements intersect. Plaintiffs seek to vindicate their business reputation and recover damages from allegedly coordinated disparagement they characterize as exceeding legitimate comparative advertising boundaries. The lawsuit raises broader questions about brand responsibility for creator-generated content, the adequacy of disclosure mechanisms on social commerce platforms, and enforcement of advertising truthfulness requirements in influencer marketing environments. Industry attention focuses on whether courts will impose liability on brands for creator statements about competitor products and how regulatory agencies will enforce restrictions on conditional review incentives and false endorsement practices.

Share this article
The link has been copied!