11.  Consumers’ Checkbook/Center for the Study of Services (“CSS”) is an  independent, nonprofit consumer organization based in Washington, D.C.  Its stated  purpose is “to provide consumers information to help them get high quality services and  products at the best possible prices.”   12.  Beginning in June 2014, and continuing through March 2015, CSS conducted  a survey of seven national retail chains and Amazon.com tracking prices weekly for six to  10 big-ticket items from each retailer.1  Most price checks were made online with spot  checking of in-store prices.   13.  The CSS survey discovered that for some of the stores, including Sears,  “some of the products for almost all of the weeks we checked were offered at sale prices.”   29.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly  situated Class members pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of  Civil Procedure and seeks certification of the following Class against Defendant:  All persons who purchased one or more items offered at a purported discount  from an “original” or “regular” any time between August 26, 2011 to the date  of certification (the “Class Period”).   30.  Plaintiff also brings this action individually and as a Class action pursuant to  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of all persons located within the state of  California (the “California Class”) and on behalf of all persons located within states with  similar consumer protection laws (collectively with the Nationwide and California  Classes, the “Classes”).   31.  Excluded from the Classes are Defendant, as well as its officers, employees,  agents or affiliates, and any judge who presides over this action, as well as all past and  present employees, officers and directors of Sears.   41.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in every preceding  paragraph as if fully set forth herein.   42.  The UCL defines unfair business competition to include any “unlawful,  unfair or fraudulent” act or practice, as well as any “unfair, deceptive, untrue or  misleading” advertising.  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.   43.  The UCL imposes strict liability.  Plaintiff need not prove that Defendant  intentionally or negligently engaged in unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices –  but only that such practices occurred.   44.  The harm to Plaintiff and California Class members outweighs the utility of  Defendant’s practices.  There were reasonably available alternatives to further  Defendant’s legitimate business interests, other than the misleading and deceptive conduct  described herein.   45.  A business act or practice is “fraudulent” under the UCL if it is likely to  deceive members of the consuming public.   50.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in every preceding  paragraph as if fully set forth herein.   51.  The UCL defines unfair business competition to include any “unlawful,  unfair or fraudulent” act or practice, as well as any “unfair, deceptive, untrue or  misleading” advertising.  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.   52.  A business act or practice is “unlawful” under the UCL if it violates any  other law or regulation.   59.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in every preceding  paragraph as if fully set forth herein.   76.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in every preceding  paragraph as if fully set forth herein.   77.  This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Consumers Legal Remedies  Act (“CLRA”), California Civil Code §1750, et seq., and similar laws in other states.   Plaintiff and each member of the proposed class are “consumers” as defined by California  Civil Code §1761(d).  Defendant’s sale of merchandise to Plaintiff and the California  Class were “transactions” within the meaning of California Civil Code §1761(e).  The  products purchased by Plaintiff and the California Class are “goods” within the meaning  of California Civil Code §1761(a).   78.  Defendant violated, and continues to violate, the CLRA by engaging in the  following practices proscribed by California Civil Code §1770(a) in transactions with  Plaintiff and the California Class which were intended to result in, and did result in, the  sale of merchandise:  a. representing that its merchandise has characteristics, uses, and/or benefits,  which they do not;  b. advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised;  c. making false or misleading statements of fact concerning reasons for,  existence of, or amounts of price reductions.   82.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in every preceding  paragraph as if fully set forth herein.   A.  Sears Regularly Engages in Deceptive Pricing   Unjust Enrichment on Behalf of the Classes,  or in the Alternative, on Behalf of the California Class   Violation of Unfair Competition Law – Unlawful Acts  Business and Professions Code §17200, et seq.  on Behalf of the California Class   Violation of Unfair Competition Law – Unfair Acts  Business and Professions Code §17200, et seq.  on Behalf of the California Class   Violations of the Consumer Protection Laws on Behalf  of Classes in the States with Similar Laws   Violation of the California False Advertising Law,  California Business & Professions Code §17500, et seq.  on Behalf of the California Class   Violation of Unfair Competition Law – Fraudulent Acts  Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq.  on Behalf of the California Class   Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”),  California Civil Code §1750, et seq.  on Behalf of the California Class  