Spicy
The owner shows the company's true colors. Yikes
Identity Pet Food suddenly charged me $85 on September 4, even though my last order was in February. My cats hated the food, so I canceled and never wanted it again. Now they are pretending I have a subscription and refusing to refund me. Their support person spent multiple emails arguing with me when it was plain to see that I did not want their food anymore. When I asked, “Okay, then how do I return this order?” she SAID NO RETURNS EVER. THAT TELLS YOU EVERYTHING. Filed with bbb , this company doesn't care abotu pets or pet parents. They claim I logged in on two dates that i certainly did not. Update, now the owner himself has repleid: At 3 a.m., instead of providing proof that I authorized the account hold, the owner sent me an unhinged, intimidating email. Emma had claimed I authorized the hold even though logging in required security codes I never provided, and no evidence was produced. After I challenged those claims on the company’s public LinkedIn page, he bizarrely characterized a public comment on the company’s own page as “unwanted contact,” declared a “cooling-off period,” and warned that the company might involve legal counsel or law enforcement. Escalating a public complaint about unsupported claims and poor service in that way was wildly disproportionate and unprofessional. I see that the reply claims reCharge just added a new access code feature. In fact this is a standard feature reCharge has included for years. The contents of the emails received are wild. I'm also not sure why the person replying is misgendering me also. Very creeped out overall. And at this point the reply below is entering libel territory. The owner does not have a private personal linkedin that I contacted, it states his company name and he posts about the company itself. I sent simple refund request and was blocked apparently.
Response from identitypet.comSep 4, 2026
We dispute several factual assertions in this review, but we also want to make clear at the outset that the customer has been fully refunded. Our records show that the customer voluntarily enrolled in our optional Auto-Ship & Save program on January 11, 2026. A one-time purchase is always available and is the default purchasing option; customers are never required to subscribe. The subscription record reflects subsequent customer account activity, including skipped and rescheduled renewals by the customer. Those actions changed upcoming shipment dates but did not cancel the underlying subscription. Our records do not show a cancellation before the September 4 renewal processed, and an advance renewal reminder was sent approximately three days before the scheduled charge. The customer was provided records that this email was sent. Once a scheduled renewal processes and creates an order, the resulting order enters our automated inventory and fulfillment system. Our policy therefore generally does not allow an already-processed subscription order to be cancelled retroactively. We also want to clarify the reference to returns. For food-safety and quality-control reasons, we do not accept returned pet food. That is separate from whether we may issue a refund or make an exception. In this case, after reviewing the circumstances, we issued the customer a full refund. The customer has raised additional questions regarding account-access and subscription audit records. We have preserved the relevant account documentation and will provide appropriate documentation through the BBB process. Because those records contain private customer-account information, we do not believe it is appropriate to publish or debate those details on Trustpilot. The customer also contacted the company through multiple channels during overnight hours. We asked that further account-specific communication be directed through Customer Care or the BBB process so that the matter could be reviewed and documented through the appropriate channels. That request was not intended to prevent the customer from posting criticism or expressing dissatisfaction publicly. We regret that the interaction became contentious. We disagree with several of the characterizations in this review, including the suggestion that Identity does not care about pets or pet parents. Nevertheless, we do not believe an extended public back-and-forth serves either party. The customer's requested monetary relief has been provided in full, and we consider the financial portion of this matter resolved.

