The BARK Act Shields Pet Food Donors from Lawsuits, Aiming to Boost Supplies for Animals in Need

The Bring Animals Relief and Kibble Act of 2025—the BARK Act—is a straightforward piece of legislation designed to encourage more pet food and supply donations by removing a major legal hurdle: the fear of being sued. Essentially, if you or your company donate pet food or supplies in good faith, this bill provides a liability shield that protects the donor, the receiving nonprofit, or the government agency from civil or criminal lawsuits over the item’s condition, age, or packaging. This protection applies to what the bill calls an "Apparently Fit Pet-Related Product," which is basically surplus stock that is still safe but might be slightly dinged up or past its optimal sell-by date (SEC. 2).

The Legal Leash: Who Gets Protected and When

Think of this as a Good Samaritan law for pet supplies. If a major pet supply retailer has a pallet of dog food that’s perfectly fine but has dented cans, they often hesitate to donate it because if a dog gets sick, the owner might sue the donor, even if the food wasn't the cause. The BARK Act steps in to eliminate that risk for "good faith" donations intended for "Qualified Animals" (pets, service animals, and emotional support animals). This is a huge win for shelters and food banks, as it should unlock a lot of usable inventory that currently goes to waste simply because of legal exposure.

However, the law isn't a free pass for bad behavior. If an animal or its owner is harmed due to the donor's gross negligence or intentional misconduct, the liability shield drops immediately (SEC. 2). This means you can’t knowingly donate spoiled food and then claim protection. For instance, if a warehouse manager sees a pallet of cat food covered in mold and still sends it to a shelter, they are not protected. This is the bill’s critical safety valve, ensuring that while we encourage charity, we don't excuse recklessness.

Dealing with Distressed Goods

The BARK Act also addresses trickier donations—items that might not meet every single quality or labeling standard. Say a batch of fish food has a misprinted label; a donor can still give it away, but only if they meet three specific conditions. First, they must clearly notify the receiving nonprofit or government agency that the items are defective. Second, the receiving organization must agree to fix or "recondition" the items to meet all safety standards before distribution. Crucially, the receiving organization must also demonstrate that they actually know how to properly recondition those specific items (SEC. 2).

This provision is smart because it allows for the salvage of usable products, but it also introduces a potential snag. The bill relies heavily on the recipient knowing how to "properly recondition" the goods. If a small, volunteer-run shelter gets overwhelmed and mismanages the reconditioning process—say, they just slap a new sticker on the mislabeled fish food without checking the contents—and an animal gets sick, the donor is likely still protected, but the shelter might face scrutiny. For the average pet owner relying on these donations, it means the safety of the product depends entirely on the expertise and diligence of the receiving organization. This is where the rubber meets the road: the law needs clear definitions of what "properly recondition" means in practice to ensure consistent safety across the board.