15.   Plaintiff Morales immediately stopped using the still full box of Huggies diapers.   But the rash persisted for another four days until she took J.F. to a doctor on February 15, 2018.   17.  When she initially removed the diaper, Plaintiff Morales noticed blue crystals that  were within, but touching the surface of, the Huggies diaper, which she had not noticed when she  first put the diaper on J.F.    Plaintiff’s Morales’s Experience is not Unique   19.  In the same vein, commenters on community.babycenter.com2 relate:   We were using the Huggies Little Snugglers newborn size diapers on her; never any  problems. When we realized she was growing too big for them, I searched her closet for  size 1 diapers (since that's all we got from her shower) and decided to use Huggies Snug  & Dry size 1's, with Mickey Mouse on them. I decided to wait on trying the Pampers or  Luvs and Target brand size 1's that we also have a bunch of, since she was doing so well  on the Huggies before.  Now I'm seriously confused because after just half a day of  wearing the Snug & Dry, she's got terrible diaper rash!!! She's never had even a spot of  redness down there before. I understand it could just be a coincidence, but I'm baffled  because I change her diapers so often (probably too much) and all of a sudden, she's in  pain, screaming and a firery red rash all up her privates, in the creases and spreading back  to the crack of her bum.   My daughter is fine with any Huggies diapers except the snug and dry. She got a terrible  rash on them. I returned them to Walmart, and got a different line of Huggies. I have also  herd from friends that their children are super sensitive to the snug and dry diapers.  Although when we use disposables Huggies are my favorite by far. Little Snugglers are  #1 and Little Movers are #2. And nothing works as well overnight as their overnight  diapers!   When my DD (dear daughter) was that age, we found a great deal on a pack of huggies.  Most regrettable diaper purchase ever. Less than an hour of wearing one and she started  screaming. Horrible red rash all over privates and bum. We never used huggies products  since.   I had to switch DD (dear daughter) from Huggies Snug and Dry because it caused a  HORRIBLE rash in just a matter of days. It could be a coincidence that your daughter is  getting it right as you changed diapers, but that's what it was for mine.   This sounds just like a reaction one of mine had to Huggies. We switched to Pampers and  had no more problems.   21.  The same points are reiterated in customer complaints on Huggies’s very own  website.  On dissatisfied customer wrote as recently as the latter half of July 2018:  I bought the snug and dry diapers for my toddler 2 months ago through Amazon  subscription. I was excited bc it was a great savings compared to the luvs we were buying  from Walmart. He never has a diaper rash, but I started noticing his bottom stayed red all  of sudden and he would cry (sometimes scream) when I changed him. It seemed odd but I  hadn't even thought it may be the diapers.  Well we ran out before the next shipment [sic] came and so we bought our usual luvs. He  had zero issues with a diaper rash during this time.  The next box arrived last week. After just 2 days of using the huggies again his bottom is  bright red! He screams when he soils the diaper. He screams when we change and bathe  him so much that his little body is shaking! It is absolutely the diapers causing the rash!  I'm have about 160 diapers left and I'm throwing them out!!9   23.  Notwithstanding its announced interest in learning more, the facts on the ground  show that Defendant has learned nothing.   Defendant’s Actionable Conduct   24.  Defendant is in the business of developing, designing, manufacturing, marketing,  advertising, and distributing Huggies diapers and other personal care and cleaning products to  consumers.  Huggies is among the top-selling diapers in the country and is sold in supermarkets,  convenience stories, and pharmacies throughout the United States.   25.  Through its advertising and marketing, Defendant promoted and continues to  promote Huggies as being safe and comfortable for infants.  The Product website states that the  Product’s characteristics will ensure “more quality time with baby” and “help keep baby dry so  they can giggle a little longer.”11  Yet J.F. was very far from giggling after Plaintiff Morales  applied the Product to him, and Plaintiff Morales did not consider the ensuing doctor’s visit to be  quality time.     26.  Whether or not they viewed these specific representations, Plaintiff and the Class  did, and a reasonable consumer would, expect the Product to be safe and comfortable for infants.   No reasonable consumer would expect the Product to cause prolonged, painful rashes that lead to  doctors’ visits.     28.  Defendant failed to warn consumers that the Product carried the unreasonable  dangers exemplified in Plaintiff Morales’s experience.    29.  Defendant owed a legal duty to Plaintiff and Class members to exercise  reasonable care by developing, manufacturing, and marketing a product that was safe for its  intended use.  Defendant knew or should have known that its failure to ensure reasonable safety  standards would cause serious pain and injury to vulnerable infants.    30.  Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased the Product had they  known it carried these dangers.    31.  Plaintiff and Class members had no way of independently discovering that  Defendant’s design and/or manufacturing process assigned little importance to infant health and  safety.   32.  Defendant breached its duty to consumers, which directly and proximately  resulted in Plaintiff and other Class members suffering injury in fact, physical injury and  suffering, financial injury, the personal expenditure of time and resources, and mental anguish.     34.  Plaintiff Morales seeks to represent a class consisting of:  All persons or entities who purchased the Product in the United States during the  applicable limitations period, and/or such subclasses as the Court may deem  appropriate (“the Nationwide Class”)   35.  In the alternative, Plaintiff Morales seeks to represent a class consisting of:   All persons or entities who purchased the Product in New York during the  applicable limitations period, and/or such subclasses as the Court may deem  appropriate (“the New York Class”)   36.  The proposed Classes exclude current and former officers and directors of  Defendant, members of the immediate families of the officers and directors of Defendant,  Defendant’s legal representatives, heirs, successors, assigns, and any entity in which it has or has  had a controlling interest, and the judicial officer to whom this lawsuit is assigned.   37.  Plaintiff reserves the right to revise Class definitions based on facts learned in the  course of litigating this matter.   38.  Class members are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.  While the exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can only be  ascertained through the appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believes that there are thousands of  members in the proposed Classes. Other members of the Class may be identified from records  maintained by Defendant and may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail, or by  advertisement, using the forms of notice customarily used in class actions such as this.   40.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of Class members in that  Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of other Class members.  Plaintiff has retained  experienced and competent counsel.   41.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy. Since the damages sustained by individual Class members may  be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it impracticable for  them to individually seek redress for the wrongful conduct alleged herein. If class treatment of  these claims were not available, Defendant would likely unfairly receive hundreds of thousands  of dollars or more in improper charges.   43.  The prosecution of this action as a Class action will reduce the possibility of  repetitious litigation. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty which will be encountered in the  management of this litigation which would preclude its maintenance as a class action.   44.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy. The damages suffered by any individual class member are too  small to make it economically feasible for an individual class member to prosecute a separate  action, and it is desirable for judicial efficiency to concentrate the litigation of the claims in this  forum. Furthermore, the adjudication of this controversy through a class action will avoid the  potentially inconsistent and conflicting adjudications of the claims asserted herein. There will be  no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.   45.  The prerequisites to maintaining a class action for injunctive relief or equitable  relief pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) are met, as Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds  generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive or equitable relief  with respect to the Class as a whole.    47.  The prosecution of separate actions by members of the Class would create a risk  of establishing inconsistent rulings and/or incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant.    48.  Defendant’s conduct is generally applicable to the Classes as a whole and Plaintiff  seeks, inter alia, equitable remedies with respect to the Classes as a whole. As such, Defendant’s  systematic policies and practices make declaratory relief with respect to the Classes as a whole  appropriate.   49.  Plaintiff Morales realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations  contained in all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.   50.  Plaintiff Morales brings this claim individually and on behalf of the Class for an  injunction for violations of NY GBL § 349.   51.  NY GBL § 349 provides that deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any  business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state are unlawful.    53.  Defendant both expressly and by omission misrepresented the nature of the  Product, failing to warn consumers of its significant dangers for the health and safety of  vulnerable infants.      54.  Defendant knowingly and falsely represented that the Product was fit to be used  for the purpose for which it was intended when it knew that the Product was defective and  dangerous.   55.  Defendant’s misrepresentations and concealment of material facts constitute  unconscionable commercial practices, deception, fraud, false pretenses, misrepresentation,  and/or the knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of materials facts with the intent that  others rely on such concealment, suppression, or omission in connection with the sale and  advertisement of the Products.   56.  Defendant engaged in the deceptive acts and practices alleged herein in order to  sell the Product to the public, including Plaintiff and the Class.   57.  Defendant’s practices, acts, policies, and course of conduct, including its  omissions, as described above, were intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the Class to  purchase the Product.   59.  Acts and omissions by Defendant were likely to mislead a reasonable consumer  into purchasing the Product.  Defendant’s deceptive acts and omissions are material because they  concern an essential feature of the Product, its safety for vulnerable infants.   60.  Defendant has refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the injunctive  relief sought by Plaintiff, thereby making final injunctive relief appropriate.   61.  Defendant persists in its deceptive and unfair marketing and sales practices  regarding the Product to the detriment of consumers across the country, including Plaintiff and  the Class.   62.  If Defendant is allowed to continue with these practices, consumers, including  Plaintiff and the Class, will be irreparably harmed.  Plaintiff and the Class do not have a plain,  adequate, speedy, or complete remedy at law to address all of the wrongs alleged in this  Complaint unless injunctive relief is granted to stop Defendant’s deceptive marketing and sale of  the Product.   63.  Plaintiff Morales is therefore entitled to an injunction requiring Defendant to  cease its unfair and deceptive practices relating the sale of the Product.    65.  Plaintiff Morales realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations  contained in all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.   66.  Plaintiff Morales brings this claim for damages under NY GBL § 349 & § 350.   67.  Defendant engaged in consumer-oriented, commercial conduct by selling and  advertising the Product.   68.  Defendant misrepresented and omitted material information regarding the Product  by failing to disclose foreseeable risks created by its systematic indifference the harmful, rash- inducing nature of its diapers.     70.  Defendant knowingly and falsely represented that the Product was fit to be used  for the purpose for which it was intended, when Defendant knew it was defective and dangerous.   71.  Defendant engaged in the deceptive acts and practices alleged herein in order to  sell the Product to the public, including to Plaintiff Morales and the Class.   72.  Defendant’s practices, acts, policies, and course of conduct, including its  omissions, as described above, were intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff Morales and  Class members to purchase the Product.   73.  Defendant sold the Product knowingly concealing that it contained the defects  alleged herein.   74.  As a direct and proximate result of these unconscionable, unfair, and deceptive  acts or practices, Plaintiff Morales and the Class were injured when they paid money for a  product that did not have the qualities and attributes that Defendant had advertised.   75.  Plaintiff and the Class are therefore entitled to compensatory damages, equitable  and declaratory relief, punitive damages, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.  76.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained  in all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.   78.  Defendant impliedly warranted and represented through advertisements,  marketing, packaging, labels, websites and other material that the Product is fit for the ordinary  purposes of diapers, which is to capture infant’s waste products without unnecessary pain or  discomfort.      79.  Defendant breached said warranty because the Product purchased by Plaintiff  induced painful rashes that are not created by other brands of diapers and which reasonable  consumers do not expect.   80.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of the implied warranty of  merchantability, Plaintiff purchased unsafe products and her son was physically harmed as a  result.    81.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiff has been  damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.  83.  At all times herein mentioned, Defendant designed, researched, manufactured,  tested, advertised, promoted, marketed, sold and/or distributed the Product used by Plaintiff and  the Class.   84.  The Product was expected to, and did, reach the usual consumers, handlers, and  persons coming into contact with it without substantial change in the condition in which it was  produced, manufactured, sold, distributed, and marketed by Defendant.   85.  In order to plead a manufacturing defect, a plaintiff must assert that (1) the  product was not reasonably safe as marketed; (2) the plaintiff used the product for a normal  purpose; (3) by exercising reasonable care, plaintiff would not have discovered the defect and  apprehended its danger; and (4) plaintiff would not have otherwise avoided injury by exercising  ordinary care. Derienzo v. Trek Bicycle Corp., 376 F.Supp.2d 537, 560 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).   86.  Element #1 is satisfied because The Product was not reasonably safe as marketed.    87.  Element #2 is satisfied because Plaintiff used the Product for its normal, intended  purpose—as a diaper.   88.  Element #3 is satisfied because Plaintiff could not have discovered the danger of  the Product through the exercise of reasonable care, as the Product did not have any obvious  signs of defect.     89.  Element #4 is satisfied because while Plaintiff stopped using the Product after it  caused injury to J.F., she could not have anticipated this outcome ahead of time.    91.  In combination with myriad consumer complaints posted throughout the internet,  the circumstances of J.F’s injury establish that the Product was defectively manufactured—that  is, manufactured without the safety precautions appropriate for diapers.     92.  Defendant failed to warn Plaintiff of this problem even though it knew or had  reason to know of it, having been aware of complaints regarding it for years.    93.  Defendant had a duty to give conspicuous warning of the dangers associated with  the Product, which it knew or should have known existed.   94.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s manufacturing process and failure  to warn of the dangers created by that process, Plaintiff, J.F., and the Class suffered physical  injury and/or economic harm.   95.  Defendant’s actions and omissions as identified in this Complaint show that  Defendant acted maliciously and intentionally disregarded the rights of Plaintiff, J.F., and the  Class, thus warranting the imposition of punitive damages.   96.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations contained  in all the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein, and further alleges  as follows:   98.  Defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care in designing, manufacturing,  assembling, marketing, selling and/or distributing the Product. Defendant placed the Product into  the stream of commerce.  It had a duty to ensure that the Product would perform as intended and  not create serious health risks to Plaintiff.    BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY  (brought on behalf of the Nationwide Class, in conjunction with the substantively similar  breach of warranty laws of other states and the District of Columbia to the extent New  York breach of warranty laws are inapplicable to out-of-state Class members, or, in the  alternative, on behalf of the New York Class)   Background: Defendant’s Culture of Reckless Indifference to Infant Health and Safety   DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF NY GBL § 349 and § 350  (DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES/FALSE ADVERTISING)  (Brought Individually and on Behalf of the Class)  (brought on behalf of the Nationwide Class, in conjunction with the substantively similar  consumer protection laws of other states and the District of Columbia to the extent New  York consumer protection laws are inapplicable to out-of-state Class members, or, in the  alternative, on behalf of the New York Class)   INJUNCTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF NY GBL § 349   (DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT)  (brought on behalf of the Nationwide Class, in conjunction with the substantively similar  consumer protection laws of other states and the District of Columbia to the extent New  York consumer protection laws are inapplicable to out-of-state Class members, or, in the  alternative, on behalf of the New York Class)   NEGLIGENCE   (brought on behalf of the Nationwide Class, in conjunction with the substantively similar  negligence law of other states and the District of Columbia to the extent New York  negligence law is inapplicable to out-of-state Class members, or, in the alternative, on  behalf of the New York Class)   STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY  (Manufacturing Defect and Failure to Warn)  (brought on behalf of the Nationwide Class, in conjunction with the substantively similar  strict products liability laws of other states and the District of Columbia to the extent New  York strict liability law are inapplicable to out-of-state Class members, or, in the  alternative, on behalf of the New York Class)  