10.  Through its own website, through online third party retailers (such as Amazon),  and likely through some brick-and-mortar retailers, Slendertone markets and sells an over- the-counter medical device called the “Flex Belt,” an electronic muscle stimulating device,  approved by the FDA to rehabilitate muscles through electronic “pulsing” stimulation.   45.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations elsewhere in the Complaint  as if set forth in full herein.    46.   The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.”  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.   59.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations elsewhere in the Complaint  as if set forth in full herein.   60.  Under the FAL, “[i]t is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association,  or any employee thereof with intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal  property or to perform services” to disseminate any statement “which is untrue or misleading,  and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be  untrue or misleading.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500.   61.  As alleged herein, the advertisements, labeling, policies, acts, and practices of  Slendertone relating to the Flex Belt misled consumers acting reasonably that use of the Flex  Belt will result in weight loss, body contouring, fat loss, well-defined abdominal muscles (i.e.  visible “six pack” abs), and/or is a more or equally effective replacement for traditional  abdominal exercises.   62.  Plaintiff suffered injury in fact as a result of Slendertone’s actions as set forth  herein because plaintiff purchased the Flex Belt in reliance on Slendertone’s false and  misleading marketing claims.   63.  Slendertone’s business practices as alleged herein constitute unfair, deceptive,  untrue, and misleading advertising pursuant to the FAL because Slendertone has advertised  the Flex Belt in a manner that is untrue and misleading, which Slendertone knew or  reasonably should have known.   64.  Slendertone profited from its sales of the falsely and deceptively advertised the  Flex Belt to unwary consumers.   66.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations elsewhere in the Complaint  as if set forth in full herein.    67.  The CLRA prohibits deceptive practices in connection with the conduct of a  business that provides goods, property, or services primarily for personal, family, or  household purposes.   68.  Slendertone’s false and misleading labeling and other policies, acts, and  practices described herein were designed to, and did, induce the purchase and use of the Flex  Belt for personal, family, or household purposes by plaintiff and other Class Members, and  violated and continue to violate at least the following sections of the CLRA:  a.  § 1770(a)(5): representing that goods have characteristics, uses, or benefits  which they do not have;  b.  § 1770(a)(7): representing that goods are of a particular standard, quality, or  grade if they are of another;  c.  § 1770(a)(9): advertising goods with intent not to sell them as advertised; and  d.  § 1770(a)(16): representing the subject of a transaction has been supplied in  accordance with a previous representation when it has not.    69.  Slendertone profited from its sales of the falsely, deceptively, and unlawfully  advertised the Flex Belt to unwary consumers.   70.  Slendertone’s wrongful business practices regarding The Flex Belt constituted,  and constitute, a continuing course of conduct in violation of the CLRA.   73.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations elsewhere in the Complaint  as if set forth in full herein.    74.   Through the Flex Belt’s advertising, Slendertone made affirmations of fact or  promises, or description of goods, that the Flex Belt provides specific benefits which it does  not. These representations were “part of the basis of the bargain,” in that plaintiff and the  Class purchased the products in reasonable reliance on those statements. Cal. Com. Code §  2313(1).   75.  Slendertone breached its express warranties by selling products that do not  provide the benefits promised by the advertising claims.   76.  That breach actually and proximately caused injury in the form of the lost  purchase price that plaintiff and Class members paid for the Flex Belt.   77.  Plaintiff notified Slendertone of the breach prior to filing, but Slendertone failed  to rectify the breach.   78.  As a result, plaintiff seeks, on behalf of herself and other Class Members, actual  damages arising as a result of Slendertone’ breaches of express warranty.  Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability,  Cal. Com. Code § 2314    Breaches of Express Warranties,  Cal. Com. Code § 2313(1)   Violations of the False Advertising Law,  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq.    Violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,  Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq.    Violations of the Unfair Competition Law,  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.   