New Animal Welfare Laws in California Address Puppy Sales

Brooke Knowles was eager to showcase her black puppy on Facebook, identifying herself as a homebreeder of Coton de Tulears. The puppy seemed personable.

She placed a non-refundable deposit and made the drive to Temecula to pick him up, shelling out about $2,000 and naming him Ted.

However, before Ted even arrived home, he became ill, vomiting on the grass and experiencing diarrhea. He was quite lethargic, and his chest was damp with drool.

A review of the seller’s documents uncovered troubling information. It turned out Ted hadn’t been raised in California; instead, he was imported from a kennel in Utah.

“I was under the impression I was acquiring a dog from his family,” Knowles remarked in interviews with The Times. “This poor puppy seemed really traumatized.”

Recently, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law several animal welfare bills aimed at regulating puppy sales and enhancing protections for buyers like Knowles. This legislation emerged from a Times investigation that revealed how designer dogs are transported from out-of-state commercial breeders to be resold by local businesses in California.

The three new laws include:

• Assembly Bill 519, authored by Rep. Mark Berman (D-Menlo Park), prohibits online sales of dogs by brokers. Brokers are defined as individuals or companies that profit from selling or transporting dogs bred by others. This law also pertains to cats and rabbits under a year old, with exceptions for police dogs, service animals, shelters, rescue operations, and 4-H clubs.
• AB 506, introduced by Rep. Steve Bennett (D-Ventura), voids pet purchase contracts that require non-refundable deposits from California buyers. It also holds pet sellers accountable for not revealing breeder information or medical history.
• Senate Bill 312, from state Sen. Tom Amberg (D-Orange), mandates pet sellers to provide health certifications to the California Department of Food and Agriculture for public access.

This set of bills has been backed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who emphasized their role in combatting misleading sales practices of puppy brokers.

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and we need to illuminate puppy mills,” Newsom stated. “Increased transparency in the pet buying process exposes abusive practices that exploit pets and hopeful pet owners alike. The law safeguards both animals and Californians by tackling fraud in pet breeding and sales.”

Lawmakers noted that the legislation fills a gap created after California prohibited the sale of commercially bred dogs, cats, and rabbits in pet stores back in 2019. The previous ban did not extend to online sales, which have surged amid the coronavirus pandemic.

A Times investigation revealed that following the retail ban, a network of resellers filled the void left by pet stores, often pretending to be local breeders while concealing the actual breeding locations. Some buyers found themselves dealing with sellers who used fake names or temporary phone numbers, especially after their pets fell ill or died.

The Times tracked the movement of over 71,000 dogs brought into California since 2019, each accompanied by a veterinary inspection certificate stating their origin and health status for travel.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture had previously received these health certificates mistakenly from other states but had been destroying them. After the Times brought this to light, state officials began preserving these records, albeit with heavy redactions.

In one instance, a name and address linked to a shipper of numerous puppies from Ohio were redacted. However, the Times managed to obtain unedited travel documents from the Ohio Department of Agriculture, revealing an address that led back to a hardware store in Milpitas. One of the numbers on these documents belonged to Randy Kadee Vo.

A previous Times report identified Vo as associated with the delivery of around 1,900 dogs imported into California since 2019. He disputed the numbers but did not clarify how many puppies he had actually brought in. Buyers reported being led to believe they were purchasing locally-bred dogs from him.

After inquiries about the imported puppies, the health certificates began including a Home Depot address and another name. Vo did not respond to attempts to reach him.

Investigative reporters from the Times found numerous records featuring other sellers who used false names and addresses linked to unrelated businesses and post offices.

The new laws have found support among animal rights advocates, though some expressed doubts about state enforcement, especially regarding out-of-state facilities selling puppies directly to California buyers.

“Now nonprofits like ours will have to monitor and report issues, hoping authorities will take action,” mentioned Mindy Callison, president of the Iowa-based anti-puppy mill group Bailout Benji.

Callison suggested that the next step should be to require California breeders to obtain licenses, similar to regulations in states like Iowa and Missouri. Currently, California lacks a statewide licensing system, relying on local governance, and while some areas do require licenses for breeders, consumers have limited resources to vet them.

She pointed out, “States without regulations are at a higher risk of dogs being kept in inhumane conditions.”

Opponents of the new laws warn that previous attempts to curb puppy mill supply by banning sales in pet stores only pushed the market underground and warned that similar legislation could empower middlemen.

Alyssa Miller Hurley from the Pet Advocacy Network, which represents breeders, retailers, and pet owners, wrote that eliminating intermediaries would not reduce pet demand but merely lead Californians toward a more dangerous, unregulated market.

For buyers like Knowles, the lack of transparency surrounding Ted’s purchase has proven costly. More than a year after bringing him home, Ted developed severe stomach issues that required emergency medical attention. Knowles grew concerned about his pedigree.

DNA tests confirmed her suspicions, revealing connections to other buyers from the same seller. One dog shared a significant portion of its DNA with a human sibling, indicating it was a hybrid.

“We jokingly call him the most expensive rescue dog we’ve ever had,” Knowles said about Ted, now on a restricted diet. “Our group even started referring to our dogs as ‘Fortons’ because they aren’t true Cotons.”

She attempted to sue the distributor, Tweed Fox, over the test results that showed Ted was not a purebred, though unsuccessfully.

“In the end, the real issue boils down to pretending to be something you’re not,” she said.

Fox responded to the Times, explaining he began sourcing puppies from Utah due to soaring demand during the pandemic, which exceeded his home breeding capacity.

He believed the Utah puppies were purebred, as they came with proper registration, though he later realized that wasn’t accurate. He asserted he hadn’t misled customers, considering himself a home breeder; he only advertised the out-of-state puppies as Coton de Tulear because that’s what he thought he was purchasing.

“You can only keep so many in a house,” he remarked. “At the time, I thought I was offering comparable quality, but apparently, that was not the case except for my own homebreeding.”

Fox has since relocated to Dallas, where he continues to breed and sell Coton de Tulears. With his new location, California brokerage laws no longer apply, but he affirms he will not resell other people’s puppies.

“I only sell what I breed,” he stated. “I’m not in the business of deceiving anyone.”