15.  Sales tax is a consumption tax on the purchase of goods or services assessed by  some states and municipalities.   16.  A retail transaction is only subject to sales tax in the taxing authority where the  goods are delivered.   17.  For example, when a buyer and seller reside in the same state, and the buyer takes  possession of the purchased goods in that state, the sales tax laws of the buyer and seller’s state  govern the transaction.   18.  On the other hand, when the buyer and seller reside in different states, and the seller  delivers the purchased goods from its state to the buyer’s state, the sales tax laws of the buyer’s  state govern the transaction.   19.  Defendant is aware of these tax collection and assessment procedures and knows  how to assess sales tax on its clothing sales.   21.  Audrey is Defendant’s proprietary, online point-of-sale system through which  Defendant processes all sales that its consultants make.   22.  Defendant’s fashion consultants have no ability to control or adjust the sales tax  that Audrey applies to each transaction.   23.  Instead, Defendant has configured Audrey to automatically charge customers sales  tax based on the location of Defendant’s consultant who made the sale, and not the laws of the  taxing authority where Defendant delivered the purchase, i.e. the “ship to address.”   24.  As Defendant’s CEO, Mark Stidham, explained in 2016:  Your customers will be charged the sales tax from your state, city and/or county,  not theirs. If you live in a state where sales tax does not apply, then your customer  will not be charged any sales tax. State laws require us to collect this and in order  to comply with the reporting they have instructed us to provide them relative to  your sales and we have found this method to be the most efficient for now.   25.  Defendant’s failure to calculate tax based on the buyer’s ship to address is  problematic because many taxing authorities do not charge sales tax, or exempt clothing from sales  tax, on purchases made or shipped to their tax jurisdiction.    26.  As a result, if a buyer purchases Defendant’s clothing from a consultant in a  jurisdiction that charges sales tax, but the purchase is delivered into a jurisdiction that does not  charge sales tax, Defendant’s payment system overcharges the buyer in the guise of a sales tax that  does not exist in the jurisdiction governing that transaction.   27.  Defendant does not remit this overcharge to the taxing authority that governs that  transaction.   29.  Defendant’s consultants delivered these purchases to Plaintiff at her home in  Pennsylvania.   30.  Pennsylvania does not charge sales tax on the clothing Defendant sells and Plaintiff  purchased. See 72 P.S. § 7204.   31.  Yet, throughout 2016, Defendant’s payment system, Audrey, charged Plaintiff a  nonexistent sales tax on these 12 clothing purchases.   32.  For these purchases, Plaintiff paid a total of $585.16, of which Defendant  overcharged her $35.16 in the guise of an ostensible “sales tax.”   33.  These funds are not an authorized tax and Plaintiff’s taxing authorities never  authorized Defendant to collect or remit sales tax on these purchases.   34.  This ostensible sales tax was never paid to or held in trust for the Pennsylvania  State Taxing Authority.   35.  Instead, Defendant retained the fraudulently obtained $35.16, or remitted it to  taxing authorities outside of Pennsylvania, which authorities have no jurisdiction to assess sales  tax on purchases shipped to Pennsylvania.   36.  Defendant’s sales tax assessment practices, in effect, are improperly and  fraudulently adding a surcharge to purchases, and are disguising those surcharges as a “sales tax”  that does not exist, and for which Defendant lacks authority to collect or remit.   37.  The “sales tax” surcharge is more than the price advertised online for the product  and purchasers do not become aware of this overcharge until Audrey sends them an invoice.    39.  Defendant’s unlawful and unauthorized tax assessments have harmed and will  continue to harm residents whose taxing authorities do not charge sales tax on Defendant’s  clothing or that do not charge sales tax generally, but who, like Plaintiff, purchase Defendant’s  product from sellers located in jurisdictions that do charge such tax.   40.  Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated  class members under Rules 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and  seeks to certify the following multi-state class:  All persons who were or will be assessed sales tax on clothing purchases  processed through Audrey, and whose purchases were or will be delivered  to tax jurisdictions of the United States that do not authorize a collection of  sales tax on the clothing Defendant sells.   41.  Excluded from the class is Defendant, as well as its past and present officers,  employees, agents or affiliates, any judge who presides over this action, and any attorneys who  enter their appearance in this action.    42.  Plaintiff reserves the right to expand, limit, modify or amend this class definition,  including the addition of one or more subclasses, in connection with her motion for class  certification, or at any other time, based on, among other things, changing circumstances and new  facts obtained during discovery.   43.  Numerosity. The class described above is so numerous that joinder of all members  is impracticable. The disposition of the individual claims of the respective class members will  benefit the parties and the Court and will facilitate judicial economy.   45.  Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the class.  The claims of each class member arise from the same course of conduct: Defendant’s requirement  that class members pay for their purchases via an online point-of-sale payment platform that  automatically assesses sales tax without consideration of the laws of the taxing authorities where  the class members reside. The claims of Plaintiff and Class Members are based on the same legal  theories and arise from the same unlawful conduct.   46.  Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact. This action  involves common questions of law and fact, which predominate over any questions affecting  individual class members. These common questions include, but are not limited to, the following:  a.  Whether Defendant collected funds from Plaintiff and individual class  members under a nonexistent tax;  b.  Whether the law authorizes these converted funds;  c.  Whether Defendant lacks authority under the law to collect funds under a  nonexistent tax;  d.  Whether Defendant’s illegal and unauthorized collections caused its unjust  enrichment;   e.  Whether Defendant’s conduct was fraudulent;  f.  Whether Defendant’s conduct was deceptive and likely to mislead  consumers; and  g.  Whether Defendant converted funds that lawfully belonged to Plaintiff and  the class members.   48.  Superiority. The nature of this action and the nature of laws available to Plaintiff  and the class make the use of the class action format a particularly efficient and appropriate  procedure to afford relief for themselves and the class for the wrongs alleged. The damages or  other financial detriment suffered by individual class members is relatively modest compared to  the burden and expense that individual litigation of their claims against Defendants would entail.  It would thus be virtually impossible for Plaintiff and class members, on an individual basis, to  obtain effective redress for the wrongs done to them. Absent class action litigation, class members,  and the general public would not likely recover, or would not likely have the chance to recover  damages, and Defendant will be permitted to retain the converted proceeds of its fraudulent and  deceptive misdeeds.   49.  General Applicability. Defendant’s conduct in charging and collecting sales tax on  purchases to which it is not authorized to assess or collect such charges is generally applicable to  the class as a whole, making certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)  appropriate.  50.  The allegations contained in the previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference.   51.  Plaintiff brings this claim under the laws of Pennsylvania, and all similar state laws.   53.  There was no legal basis to charge these amounts to Plaintiff and the class because  Pennsylvania does not charge sales tax on Defendant’s clothing sales, and the tax jurisdictions  where Defendant’s fashion consultants reside do not have authority to assess sales tax on the class  members’ purchases, which were not made in or shipped to the tax jurisdictions of Defendant’s  fashion consultants.   54.  The amounts Defendant charged and collected from Plaintiff and class members  for this ostensible purpose created and continue to create a constructive trust, with Defendant  serving as a trustee for purposes of ensuring the funds held in trust were and are paid to the proper  payee.   55.  Defendant improperly retained the constructive trust funds, in which case it has  been unjustly enriched, or alternatively, improperly paid the trust funds to a third party (i.e. the  taxing jurisdiction in which a fashion consultant is located) which had no authority or jurisdiction  to assess those charges and was not entitled to receive those funds.   56.  Whether Defendant obtained the funds subject to the constructive trust from  Plaintiff and individual class members intentionally or through mistaken belief or assumption that  taxes were payable, the taxes collected were not payable either in fact or law, and the funds paid  by Plaintiff and class members are recoverable from Defendant, which breached its duties and  obligations as trustee by failing to remit the funds to the proper payees (the class members).  57.  The allegations contained in the previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference.   58.  Plaintiff brings this claim under the laws of Pennsylvania, and all similar state laws.   60.  To the extent Defendant retained or improperly distributed the nonexistent sales  taxes it assessed Plaintiff and the class members, or otherwise benefitted from charging them a  phony sales tax (i.e., by retaining a percentage of the taxes it collected after remittance to a certain  taxing jurisdiction), Defendant is unjustly enriched, to the deprivation of Plaintiff and class  members.   61.  It would be inequitable if Plaintiff and individual class members were not  reimbursed for the amounts Defendant wrongfully took from them.   62.  Therefore, Defendant must return the funds it unlawfully collected to Plaintiff and  the class.   63.  The allegations contained in the previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference.   64.  Plaintiff brings this claim under the laws of Pennsylvania, and all similar state laws.   65.  Plaintiff and Defendant are “persons” under the Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade  Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”), 73 Pa. Stat. § 201-1, et seq.   66.  The products purchased by Plaintiff are “goods…primarily for personal, family or  household purposes.” 73 P.S. § 201-9.2.   67.  The UTPCPL declares as unlawful “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or  deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce as defined by subclauses (i)  through (xxi) of clause (4) of section 21 of this act.” 73 P.S. § 201-3.   69.  Defendant violated the UTPCPL by engaging in fraudulent and deceptive conduct  which created the likelihood of confusion and misunderstanding.   70.  Specifically, Defendant unlawfully collected sales tax on its clothing sales and  failed to disclose that it was not authorized to collect such taxes.   71.  Defendant’s representations that it was collecting and remitting taxes to the taxing  authorities in which Plaintiff and the class members reside were fraudulent and deceptive, because  Defendant was not collecting tax under that authority. Instead, Defendant either collected those  amounts for itself or for taxing authorities that had no jurisdiction to assess sales tax on the class  members’ transactions.   72.  Defendant intentionally violated the UTPCPL by programming its online point-of- sale payment system to collect sales tax on clothing when such collection was unlawful and not  authorized by the taxing authority of the buyer.   73.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and individual class members are entitled to recover actual  damages, statutory damages, treble damages, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and/or other  additional relief as this Court deems necessary or proper.  74.  The allegations contained in the previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference.   75.  Plaintiff brings this claim under the laws of Pennsylvania, and all similar state laws.   76.  By its conduct, Defendant has converted and/or misappropriated funds belonging  to Plaintiff and individual class members.   78.  As such, Defendant’s collection of sales tax converted and misappropriated the  funds of Plaintiff and the members of the class.   79.  The conversion and misappropriation of these funds are illegal, unjustified, and  intentional, insofar as it is believed and therefore averred that Defendant has actual knowledge of  the regulations of the taxing authorities in which Plaintiff and individual class members reside.   80.  Alternatively, if the conversion and/or misappropriation was not deliberate, it is the  result of Defendant’s recklessness and gross neglect.   81.  This conversion and misappropriation of funds benefitted and continues to benefit  Defendant, while acting to the severe pecuniary disadvantage of Plaintiff and class members.   82.  Defendant should be ordered to remit all illegally taken funds to Plaintiff and the  class.  Breach of Constructive Trust   Conversion and Misappropriation   Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law   Unjust Enrichment  