18. Angus Steak & Egg Breakfast Sandwich and Angus Steak & Egg Wake-Up Wrap  are registered trademarks of Defendant, and Defendant grants licenses to franchisees  to operate the Dunkin’ Donut in the United States.  75. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit, both individually and as a class action on behalf of  similarly situated purchasers of the Dunkin’ Donuts “Angus Steak and Egg Sandwich”,  including on Plain Bagel, Croissant, English Muffin, Multigrain Flatbread, and Texas  Toast and “Angus Steak and Egg Snack N’ Go Wrap”, also known as the “Angus  Steak and Egg Wrap”, and formerly known as the “Angus Steak and Egg Wake-Up  Wrap”, pursuant Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The proposed Class is defined as:  All persons in the United States who purchased Angus Steak and Egg  Sandwich”, including on Plain Bagel, Croissant, English Muffin,  Multigrain Flatbread, and Texas Toast and “Angus Steak and Egg Snack  N’ Go Wrap”, formerly known as the “Angus Steak and Egg Wake-Up  Wrap” and were charged a premium for their purchase of “steak”  sandwiches and wraps.  Excluded from the proposed Class are Defendant, its respective officers, directors  and employees, any entity that has a controlling interest in Defendant, and all of its  respective employees, affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assignees.  Also excluded from membership in the Class is any Judge or Magistrate presiding  over this action and members of their family. Any claims for personal injury or  consequential damages, not otherwise permitted under the facts pled herein, are    76. Plaintiff also seeks certification, to the extent necessary or appropriate, of a subclass  of individuals who purchased the Products in the State of New York at any time  during the Class Period (the “New York Subclass”).   77. The Class and New York Subclass shall be referred to collectively throughout the  Complaint as the Class.   78.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Class definition as necessary.  87. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.   88. New York General Business Law Section 349 (“GBL § 349”) declares unlawful  “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce or in  the furnishing of any service in this state . . .”   89. The conduct of Defendant alleged herein constitutes recurring, “unlawful” deceptive  acts and practices in violation of GBL § 349, and as such, Plaintiff and the New York  Subclass Members seek monetary damages and the entry of preliminary and  permanent injunctive relief against Defendant, enjoining it from inaccurately  describing, labeling, marketing, and promoting the Products.   90. There is no adequate remedy at law.   91. Defendant misleadingly, inaccurately, and deceptively presents its Product to  97. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all the  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   98. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350 provides, in part, as follows:  False advertising in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in  the furnishing of any service in this state is hereby declared unlawful.   99. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350a(1) provides, in part, as follows:  The term ‘false advertising, including labeling, of a commodity, or of the  kind, character, terms or conditions of any employment opportunity if  such advertising is misleading in a material respect. In determining  whether any advertising is misleading, there shall be taken into account  (among other things) not only representations made by statement, word,  design, device, sound or any combination thereof, but also the extent to  which the advertising fails to reveal facts material in the light of such  representations with respect to the commodity or employment to which the  advertising relates under the conditions proscribed in said advertisement,  or under such conditions as are customary or  usual . . .  100. Defendant’s labeling and advertisements contain untrue and materially misleading  statements concerning Defendant’s Products inasmuch as they misrepresent that the  Products are Angus Steak and Egg Sandwich & Angus Steak and Egg Wrap when in  fact they are Angus Patty and Egg Sandwich & Angus Patty and Egg Wrap, an  inferior product.  101. Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members have been injured inasmuch as  they relied upon the labeling, packaging and advertising and paid a premium for the  Products which were—contrary to Defendant’s representations—do not include  Angus “Steak”. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members  [Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability  brought on behalf of Plaintiff and proposed Class]  152. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.  153. Defendant is in the business of manufacturing, distributing, marketing and  advertising the above listed products.  154. Under the Uniform Commercial Code’s implied warranty of merchantability, the  Defendant warranted to Plaintiff and Class Members that the Products include Angus  “Steak”.  155. Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability in that Defendant’s  Products’ ingredients deviate from the label and product description, and reasonable  [Breach of Express Warranty  brought on behalf of Plaintiff and proposed Class]  127. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.  128. Defendants provided Plaintiff and other members of the Class with written express  warranties including, but not limited to, warranties that Dunkin’ Donuts Products were  “Angus Steak”  129. These affirmations of fact or promises by Defendants relate to the goods and  became part of the basis of the bargain.  130. Plaintiff and members of the Class purchased Products believing them to conform  [Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness  brought on behalf of Plaintiff and proposed Class]  158. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.  159. Defendant knew or had reason to know that the Plaintiff and other Class Members  were buying its Products with the specific purpose of buying products that contained  premium Angus “steak”.  160. Plaintiff and the other Class Members, intending to eat a premium meat product,  relied on the Defendant in selecting its Products to fit their specific intended use.  161. Defendant held itself out as having particular knowledge of the Defendant’s  Products’ ingredients.  162. Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ reliance on Defendant in selecting Defendant’s  Products to fit their particular purpose was reasonable given Defendant’s claims and  [False Advertising, Pursuant to the New York GBL §350  brought on behalf of Plaintiff and proposed New York subclass]   [Negligent Misrepresentation  brought on behalf of Plaintiff and proposed Class]  145. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.  146. Defendants, directly or through their agents and employees, made false  representations, concealments, and nondisclosures to Plaintiffs and members of the  class.   147. In making the representations of fact to Plaintiffs and members of the class  described herein, Defendants have failed to fulfill their duty to disclose the material  facts set forth above. The direct and proximate cause of this failure to disclose was  Defendant’s negligence and carelessness.  148. Defendants, in making the misrepresentations and omissions, and in doing the acts  alleged above, knew or reasonably should have known that the representations were  not true. Defendants made and intended the misrepresentations to induce the reliance  [Unjust Enrichment  brought on behalf of Plaintiff and proposed Class]  119. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.  120. Plaintiff brings this claim individually, and on behalf of all similarly situated  residents in and under the unjust enrichment laws of each of the 50 states and the  District of Columbia.  121. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s misconduct as set forth above,  Defendant has been unjustly enriched.  122. Specifically, by its misconduct described herein, Defendant has accepted a benefit  (i.e., monies paid by Plaintiff and the proposed Class members for the purchase of the  Product, at a premium of its Classic line of sandwiches) to the detriment of Plaintiff  [Violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Acts of the  Various States and District of Columbia  brought on behalf of Plaintiff and proposed class]  108. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.  [Violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Acts of the  New York GBL §349  brought on behalf of Plaintiff and proposed New York subclass]   [Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Federal Trade Commission  Improvement Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.  brought on behalf of Plaintiff and proposed Class]  135. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.  136. Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of the other members of the Class for  violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement  Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. (the “Magnuson-Moss Act”).   137. Upon certification, the Class will consist of more than 100 named Plaintiffs.  138. The Magnuson-Moss Act provides that “a consumer who is damaged by the failure  of a supplier, warrantor, or service contractor to comply with any obligation under [the  Magnuson-Moss Act], or under a written warranty, implied warranty, or service  contract, may bring suit for damages and other legal equitable relief.” 15 U.S.C. §  2310(d)(1).   139. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Class members were “consumers” as that term  is defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2301 (3).   140. At all relevant times, Defendant was a “supplier,” as that term is defined in 15  U.S.C. § 2301(4), because it was a “person engaged in the business of making a  consumer product directly or indirectly available to consumers.”   141. At all relevant times, Defendant was a “warrantor,” as that term is defined in 15  U.S.C. §2301(5), because it was a “supplier or other person who gives offers to give  a written warranty or who is or may be obligated under an implied warranty.”  142. The Products that Plaintiff and the Class members purchased were “consumer  products,” as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2301(6), because the Products were 