Dog sitter used a client’s dog in an ad, pocketed $9,000 and told no one. The judge’s first question turned his own story against him

Leaving your pet with someone requires a huge amount of trust. Sadly, one man's faith in his dog sitter (Mr. Brown) was broken after he found out Brown had been using "Rex" to earn extra money. The two men took the issue to court, and Brown countersued the plaintiff (Rex's owner) for terminating his contract early. Judge Marilyn Milian listened intently to both sides of the story, then asked Brown one straightforward question that crumbled his case. The video was shared on Verdict Flix on September 6, 2026, and it has had 3.4 million views, over 93,000 likes, and 2,918 comments.

The face for 'Royal Chow'

It all began with a bandana. The plaintiff noticed Rex wore a bandana he did not buy and assumed Brown put it on him. A week later, he saw an ad for dog food, in which the dog looked exactly like Rex, and it had the same bandana on. He got suspicious and voiced his concerns to Brown, but what pushed the plaintiff to go to court was when he saw a bag of "Royal Chow" dog food in his house with Rex's face on it.

Brown explained that he was walking Rex when he met Robert at a dog-friendly café. Robert worked with Royal Chow, and he asked Brown if he was willing to bring Rex for a three-day photoshoot. He would pay him $3,000 per day. Judge Milian asked, "What did he [plaintiff] say when you called him with the good news?" Apparently, Brown did not mention anything to Rex's owner because he "didn't want to promise him anything." She followed with, "When you got the $9,000, what did you do with it?" Brown said that he kept it "because this was past the point that I had already told him."

He confronted me first

Judge Milian asked how long after the gig he was confronted by the plaintiff. Brown said that it was somewhere between three and four weeks. "I planned to split this money with him," he said. But Judge Milian was not convinced. "When were you planning on splitting it? You didn't ask for consent, and you didn't offer to split it until you got caught," she asked him. She believed he was going to keep the money, then asked why he felt entitled to the $9,000. Brown shamelessly answered, "Because he wouldn't have gotten the money had I not walked him...He makes more than I do as a nurse."

Brown counterclaimed that his contract was supposed to be six months, but it was terminated early. Judge Jilian butted in, "Unless you do something crazy like use his dog in a commercial without telling him about it until it's all over." Brown was still convinced he deserved the money and asked, "Then where's the line drawn, Your Honor?" She quickly said, "I'm going to show you where the line is drawn...It's drawn right there on you, using his private property in order to make money and not asking for his consent and telling him about it. So, my verdict in this case is $9,000 for him and zero for you on the counterclaim."

No permission

The strong reaction to Brown using Rex without his owner’s permission makes more sense considering how Americans view their pets. According to a Pew Research Center survey of 5,073 U.S. adults, including 2,963 pet owners, 97% of U.S. pet owners consider their animals part of the family, while 51% say their pets are as much a family member as a person. Among dog-only owners, that figure rises to 53%.

'What if it was a baby?'

Netizens were obviously on the plaintiff's side, and they believed that Brown wasn't planning on sharing the $9,000. @LisaSmith-u6g8w wrote, "Spilt? No sir, you owe him $9000 period!" @fatmanslim4592 pointed out, "Total disrespect. Imagine if this was a child or baby instead."

More on Scoop Upworthy

A 5th-grade girl gave a boy set of rules to follow at school and accidentally taught adults consent

Mom uses a clever tea analogy to teach her teen about consent

Ear-piercing experience at American Girl store becomes a powerful lesson in consent for a 6-year-old