1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Kazerouni Law Group, APC  21. FoodState, is a leading producer in the United States of health supplements  purported to be created from whole foods. Defendant sells One Daily  Multivitamin in varying quantities, including 30, 60, 90, and 180 count,  throughout the United States, including in California.   22. It has been recently believed that nutrients, vitamins, and minerals are  healthier, more natural and ultimately better for you if they are derived from  whole  foods  through  gentle  minimal  processing  and  heat-free  manufacturing. FoodState calls the process they developed and use the  “Slo-Food Process.”5 Defendant markets and promotes its products and  processes through many mediums but particularly through their website and  YouTube videos. At no time does Defendant mention the use of synthetic or  processed nutrients.   23. During the “Class Period” as defined in paragraph 125, Plaintiff was  exposed to and saw Defendant’s advertising, marketing, promotional and  packaging claims, purchased FoodState’s One Daily Multivitamin in  reliance on these claims, and suffered injury in fact and lost money as a  result of Defendant’s unfair, misleading and unlawful conduct described  herein.    24. Plaintiff is a generally health conscious person who often shops at health  foods stores and supplement shops. Purity, the natural state of health  supplements and accuracy of a product’s labeling is important to Plaintiff.   71. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the above  allegations as if set forth fully herein.   72. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of herself and on behalf of the  putative class.   73. The misrepresentations, acts and non-disclosures by Defendant of the  material facts detailed above constitute false and misleading advertising and  therefore violates Business & Professions Code §§ 17500 et seq.   74. At all times relevant, Defendant’s advertising and promotion regarding One  Daily Multivitamin was untrue, misleading and likely to deceive the public  and/or has deceived the Plaintiff and California consumers similarly  situated by representing that the product contained vitamins and minerals  source from only whole foods, not synthetic or processed nutrients and that  the product did not contain magnesium stearate when in fact defendant  knew and failed to disclose that the product contained synthetic or  processed vitamins. Furthermore, Defendant failed to disclosure the  presence of magnesium stearate on its labeling and as part of its advertising  and marketing.    82. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the above  allegations as  set forth fully herein.   83. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of herself and on behalf of the  putative class.   87. Plaintiff repeats, re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the above  allegations as if fully stated herein.   88. “Unfair competition” is defined in Business and Professions Code Section §  17200 as encompassing any one of the five types of business “wrongs,”  three of which are at issue here: (1) an “unlawful” business act or practice;  (2) an “unfair” business act or practice; and (3) a “fraudulent” business act  or practice. The definitions in § 17200 are disjunctive, meaning that each of  these five “wrongs” (Plaintiff alleges three of them here) operates  independently from the others.    89. Plaintiff and Defendant are both “person[s]” as defined by California  Business & Professions Code § 17201.  Section 17204 authorizes a private  right of action on both an individual and representative basis.   a.  “Unlawful” Prong   90. Because Defendant has violated California’s False Advertising Law,  Business & Professions Code §§ 17500 et seq., as well as California's  Health and Safety Code § 110660, Defendant has violated California’s  Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.,  which provides a cause of action for an “unlawful” business act or practice  perpetrated on members of the California public.    91. There were reasonably available alternatives to further Defendant’s  legitimate business interest, other than the conduct described herein.   CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 ET SEQ.  (California’s Unfair Competition Law)   CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17500 ET SEQ.  (California’s False Advertising Law)   CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 110660  (California’s Sherman Law)  