14.  GoPro claims that it is “maker of the world’s most versatile and durable  cameras” and that the Hero3 “makes it possible to capture and share your life like never before.”   15.  Notwithstanding such claims, the Hero3 does not work properly or as advertised,  and it is not suitable for the ordinary purposes for which it is used.   16.  Among other problems, the Hero3 does not have a properly functioning “looping  mode.”  a. In advertised specifications for the Hero3, as posted on the GoPro website  and elsewhere, the “advanced features” of the Hero3 include “Looping Record (Video).”  b. The user manuals for the Hero3 state, “Looping Video mode allows you to  record a continuously looping video that overwrites itself[.]”  c. After it is placed into looping mode and the memory card is full, the Hero3  does not reliably continue recording.  Instead of overwriting the oldest video data on its  memory card, the Hero3 indicates “Not Enough SD Card Space” and ceases recording.  Case3:14-cv-02320   Document1   Filed05/19/14   Page4 of 20 52.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in this  Class Action Complaint.   53.  GoPro is a “person” within the meaning of CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17506.   54.  By representing to the general public, including Plaintiff and the putative Class  Members, that the Hero3 has fully functioning power button, looping mode, date retention,  uninterrupted recording, and battery charging features, Defendant engaged in false and  misleading practices prohibited by the California False Advertising Law (CFAL).  Case3:14-cv-02320   Document1   Filed05/19/14   Page11 of 20 61.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in this  Class Action Complaint.   62.  Plaintiff purchased a Hero3 in reliance on GoPro’s false and misleading  advertisements and representations about the product. Plaintiff would not have purchased  GoPro’s products had he known that the Hero3 was unreliable and did not possess the features  that GoPro’s advertisements claimed it has.  Case3:14-cv-02320   Document1   Filed05/19/14   Page12 of 20 72.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in this  Class Action Complaint.   73.  GoPro made material representations and omissions to the general public,  including Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, about the Hero3 that were false and  misleading.   74.  GoPro knew that its representations about the Hero3 were untrue, or it did not  have sufficient knowledge to warrant belief that the representations were true. GoPro made  these false representations with intent to induce Plaintiff and the putative Class Members to act  in reliance thereon.   75.  GoPro willfully deceived Plaintiff and the putative Class Members by concealing  the true facts concerning the Hero3. GoPro knew in advance of Plaintiff and the Class  Members’ intended use of the Hero3 and of unreliability of the power button, looping mode,  date retention, uninterrupted recording, and battery charging features.    76.  Plaintiff and the putative Class Members reasonably believed that GoPro’s  representations about the Hero3 were true, and in reliance on those representations, Plaintiff and  the putative Class Members purchased Hero3s from Defendant.  Case3:14-cv-02320   Document1   Filed05/19/14   Page14 of 20 79.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the factual allegations set forth above.   80.  GoPro expressly warranted that the Hero3 had specific functional characteristics,  including fully functioning power button, looping mode, date retention, uninterrupted recording,  and battery charging features. Through these warranties, GoPro intended to induce consumers to  purchase the Hero3.  When consumers purchased the Hero3, these warranties became part of the  basis for the bargain.   81.  GoPro expressly warranted that it would repair or replace manufacturing defects  in the Hero3.  This warranty encompasses the functionality of the Hero3, including the power  button, looping mode, date retention, uninterrupted recording, and battery charging features.   82.  GoPro communicated these warranties to ultimate consumers including Plaintiff  and Class members.   83.  GoPro breached these warranties because, among other defects, the Hero3 does  not properly operate in power button, looping mode, does not reliably mark the date and time of  video recordings, further unpredictably turns off during recording, and does not reliably charge  its batteries when attached to a BacPac.   84.  GoPro is unwilling or unable to repair or replace the Hero3 such that it reliably  records video without defect or interruption.  As a result, to the extent GoPro limits its  Case3:14-cv-02320   Document1   Filed05/19/14   Page15 of 20 88.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in this  Class Action Complaint.   89.  GoPro developed, designed, tested, manufactured, inspected, labeled, distributed,  marketed, promoted, sold, and otherwise released into the stream of commerce the Hero3 and,  in the course of same conduct, directly advertised or marketed the Hero3 to consumers.   90.  GoPro impliedly warranted that its Hero3s were of merchantable quality and fit  for the ordinary, common, and intended uses for which the product was sold. Specifically,  GoPro falsely impliedly warranted that the Hero3s had fully functioning power button, looping  mode, date retention, uninterrupted recording, and battery charging features.   91.  GoPro knew, or had reason to know that consumers, including Plaintiff and the  putative Class Members, purchased the Hero3s for purposes described above.   92.  GoPro knew, or had reason to know, that consumers, including Plaintiff and the  putative Class Members, were relying on its skill and judgment to select or furnish a product  that was suitable for the particular purposes.  Case3:14-cv-02320   Document1   Filed05/19/14   Page16 of 20 95.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in this  Class Action Complaint.   96.  Defendant made misrepresentations to Plaintiff and the putative Class Members,  including without limitation, the misrepresentation that Hero3s had fully functioning power  button, looping mode, date retention, uninterrupted recording, and battery charging features.   97.  Defendant made the foregoing representations without reasonable grounds for  believing them to be true. These representations were made directly by GoPro and its authorized  agents on the Hero3 packaging and in publications and other written materials directed to the  public with the intention of inducing reliance and the purchase and use of the Hero3.   98.  The representations by Defendant were in fact false and made with the intention  of inducing reliance resulting in the purchase and use of the Hero3s.   99.  In reliance on the above misrepresentations by Defendant, Plaintiff and the  putative Class Members were induced to purchase and to use the Hero3s. If Plaintiff and the  Class Members had known of the true facts and the facts concealed by GoPro, Plaintiff would  not have purchased or used the Hero3s.  100.  Plaintiff and the putative Class Members’ reliance on the misrepresentations by  GoPro was justified and reasonable in that such misrepresentations were made by individuals  Case3:14-cv-02320   Document1   Filed05/19/14   Page17 of 20 A.  General Allegations   Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability and  Fitness for a Particular Purpose   Breach of Express Warranty   California False Advertising Law  (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17500 et seq.)   Deceit by Concealment  CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 1709, 1710   Negligent Misrepresentation   Unjust Enrichment  102.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in this  Class Action Complaint.  103.  As a result of its unlawful conduct described above, GoPro was unjustly  enriched.  104.  GoPro has benefited from its unlawful acts and it would be inequitable for GoPro  to be permitted to retain any of the ill-gotten gains resulting from payments made by Plaintiff  and the putative Class Members in reliance on its false, misleading, and unlawful  representations about the Hero3s’ features.  105.  Plaintiff and the putative Class Members’ are entitled to the amount of GoPro’s  ill-gotten gains resulting from its unlawful, unjust, and inequitable conduct.  106.  Plaintiff and Class Members may have no adequate other remedy at law.  Violation of California Unfair Competition Law  CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200, et seq.  (“unfair” and “fraudulent” elements)  