DENVER (KDVR) The state of Colorado is suing pet superstore PetSmart for allegedly misleading prospective employees about supposedly free training and “trapping” dog groomers into contracts with the threat of paying thousands of dollars.

Attorney General Phil Weiser a week ago announced the suit, filed in Denver District Court, that alleges the misleading free advertising for the training program and the training repayment agreement provision contracts, what many call “TRAPs.”

According to a press release from Weiser’s office, a state investigation found PetSmart trapped dog groomers into illegal contracts requiring them to stay with the company over threat of the thousands of dollars in repayment for the so-called free training.

The lawsuit also alleges the training, valued at around $6,000 according to PetSmart’s website, was not good quality, and many groomers reported feeling like it was a waste.

“No worker should be put in the position of finding out they might owe thousands of dollars for training that was promised as free once they want to leave their job,” Weiser said in the press release. “I will continue to fight for workers and won’t hesitate to take companies to court if they break the law and deceive workers.”

Training not free as advertised, not quality, lawsuit states

PetSmart’s Grooming Academy offers training to entry-level employees to become dog groomers, which Weiser’s office states were advertised as “FREE,” “PAID,” and included “free tools.”

“These ads and internal promotional materials were misleading,” his office said.

The lawsuit alleges the company would wait until groomers were already enrolled in the training before having them sign the TRAPs, sometimes with managers asking while the groomers were on shift or even in the middle of grooming a dog.

PetSmart’s TRAP contracts were immoral, unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous in that PetSmart consistently advertised that training and tools would be provided for “free” until associates had been enrolled in Grooming Academy by their store leader and then associates were required to sign the TRAP contract without any opportunity to negotiate those contracts and at times, with
limited opportunity to review the contract.”

Excerpt from the lawsuit

State investigators also found many employees were not satisfied with the training and tools, and former employees reported inconsistencies, overcrowding and little one-on-one instruction.

Collections reported for groomers who left early

Weiser’s office said PetSmart sent dozens of former employees to collections after they left if it was before their second work anniversaries, which the TRAPs was when the company could file civil lawsuits against former workers.

Colorado amended the Restrictive Employment Agreements Act in 2022 to regulate these types of contracts, and the lawsuit alleges at least one PetSmart employee was enrolled in a TRAP contract that violated the new law.

What the lawsuit seeks

The lawsuit seeks to declare PetSmart violates the Colorado Consumer Protection Act and Restrictive Employment Agreements Act, bar the company from “deceptive” trade practices and from collecting on the contracts.

It also seeks to require PetSmart to pay civil penalties in an amount not to exceed $20,000 per violation or $50,000 per violation pursuant depending on the violated statute, to pay actual damages and a penalty of $5,000 per worker or prospective worker for violations, and to pay attorney and legal fees to the state.

affiliate KDVR reached out to PetSmart for comment but has not heard back as of Tuesday morning.