A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Beware of dog-sitting apps

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Your dog is not your child, but it sure doesn’t feel that way. For dog owners everywhere, that beloved pet is just like part of the family, and it is tragic for dog-owners when something happens to their dogs.

Dog-sitter found on app loses dog

Recently, as reported by NBC Los Angeles, a popular dog-sitting service lost a customer’s dog, and didn’t inform the dog-owners until hours after the dog was lost. Then, the dog-sitting service actually charged the customer with the ensuing veterinarian bill. What can you as a customer do if your dog gets lost by a dog-sitting service?

Who is responsible?

NBC Los Angeles discussed the issue of liability in this of case with attorney Todd M. Friedman.

See the video here.

Apps like Rover are simply third-party tools. They connect the pet owner with the pet sitters. Thus the app itself and the apps operators are not responsible for instances of lost, injured or killed dogs. That is the responsibility of the actual people who are watching the dogs.

However, you always have rights and there are options to obtain compensation for your losses. Further, there are usually legal nuances and possibilities that most people won’t see without legal training and experience. It is important to talk with an experienced lawyer who can help you understand your rights and options.

In the meantime, be extremely careful when hiring dog sitters. Online reviews can be helpful, but in most cases it is probably safer to hire someone you know and trust personally or to get a recommendation from a friend.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.