 (Violations of California’s Environmental Marketing Claims Act)  On Behalf of the California Sub-Class    (Violations of California’s False Advertising Law)  On Behalf of the California Sub-Class   (Breach of Express Warranty)  On Behalf of the Class   (Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices   In Violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act)  On Behalf of the California Sub-Class   (Violation of California Organic Products Act)  On Behalf of the California Sub-Class  100.  Plaintiff McBride incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above.  101.  Plaintiff Baharestan is a “person” within the meaning of Cal. Health & Safety  Code § 111910(a).  102.  Defendant has violated and continues to violate the provisions of COPA, Cal.  Health & Safety Code § 110838, as described above.  103.  Cal. Health & Safety Code § 111910(a) provides for injunctive relief for any  violation of COPA and affords standing to “any person” to enforce such violations.  That Section  provides, in part:  any person may bring an action in superior court pursuant to this section  and the court shall have jurisdiction upon hearing and for cause shown, to  grant a temporary or permanent injunction restraining any person from  Case3:15-cv-03578   Document1   Filed08/04/15   Page29 of 36 (Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law)  On Behalf of the California Sub-Class  106.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege herein all paragraphs alleged  above.  107.  By committing the acts and practices alleged herein, Defendant has violated  California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200-17210, as to the  California Sub-Class as a whole, by engaging in unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair conduct.  108.  Defendant has violated the UCL’s proscription against engaging in unlawful  conduct as a result of:   a. its violations of the CLRA, Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(5), (a)(7), and (a)(9), as  alleged above;   b. its violations of the FAL, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq., as alleged  above;   Case3:15-cv-03578   Document1   Filed08/04/15   Page30 of 36 (Violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act – RCW §§ 19.86, et seq.)  On Behalf of the Washington Sub-Class  118.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege herein all paragraphs alleged  above.  119.  This claim arises under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev.  Code (“RCW”) §§ 19.86, et seq. (“CPA”).  120.  At all relevant times, Defendant engaged in “trade” and/or “commerce” within the  meaning of RCW § 19.86.010.  121.  The CPA broadly prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive  acts or practices in the conduct of trade or business. RCW § 19.86.020  122.  Defendant made uniform representations that the Products were of a particular  standard, quality, or grade when they were not, and, as set forth above, made false and/or  misleading statements regarding the “natural” quality and characteristics of the Products that, as  set forth above, were unfair and deceptive, had and continue to have the capacity to deceive the  public, cause injury to Plaintiff McIntyre and the Washington Class, and were made in violation  of the CPA.  123.  As alleged above, Defendant has violated the CPA by making false representations  on the Products’ packaging and in marketing (as detailed herein) that the Products are “natural,”  when in fact they contain highly processed and/or non-natural ingredients.  124.  This type of information is relied upon by consumers in making purchasing  decisions and is fundamental to the decision to purchase the Products.   125.  Defendant has represented and continues to represent its Products in a deceptive  and misleading manner as described herein.  These representations were important to reasonable  consumers, such as Plaintiff and members of the Washington Class, in deciding whether to  purchase the Products.  Defendant knew or should have known these representations were  patently false and/or misleading.  126.  Plaintiff McIntyre and members of the Washington Class have each been directly  and proximately injured by the conduct of Defendant, and such injuries include economic injury  Case3:15-cv-03578   Document1   Filed08/04/15   Page33 of 36 25.  Each year, consumers purchase billions of dollars’ worth of “natural” products.  In  2010, U.S. consumers purchased $10.9 billion worth of natural/organic personal care and  household products; up from $10.4 billion in 2009.1  Given this strong demand for “natural”  products, it is not surprising that Defendant labels its Products as “natural.”   26.  Seeking to profit on consumers’ desire to locate and use natural, environmentally  sound, non-abrasive, and non-injurious detergent alternatives to standard offerings, Defendant  markets the Products as “natural,” derived from plants, and free from harmful chemicals,  providing environmental and safety benefits that traditional detergents do not.  1 Natural Products Association,  http://www.npainfo.org/NPA/About_NPA/NPA/AboutNPA/AbouttheNaturalProductsAssociation .aspx?hkey=8d3a15ab-f44f-4473-aa6e-ba27ccebcbb8 (last visited June 30, 2014).  Case3:15-cv-03578   Document1   Filed08/04/15   Page7 of 36 67.  Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated individuals within the United  States (the “Class”), defined as follows:  All United States residents who purchased the Products within the United  States during the period from January 23, 2011 through the date of the  Preliminary Approval Order. Excluded from the Nationwide Class are any  of Defendant’s officers, directors, or employees; officers, directors, or  employees of any entity in which Defendant currently has or has had a  controlling interest; and Defendant’s legal representatives, heirs,  successors, and assigns.   68.  Additionally, Plaintiff Baharestan brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated Californians  (the “California Sub-Class”), defined as follows:  Case3:15-cv-03578   Document1   Filed08/04/15   Page21 of 36 72.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations set forth above.   73.  Plaintiffs and the Class members formed a contract with Defendant at the time  Case3:15-cv-03578   Document1   Filed08/04/15   Page23 of 36 80.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege herein all paragraphs alleged  above.   81.  This cause of action is brought pursuant to California’s Consumers Legal  Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750-1785 (“CLRA”).   82.  Plaintiff Baharestan and the other members of the California Sub-Class are  “consumers,” as the term is defined by California Civil Code § 1761(d), because they bought the  Products for personal, family, or household purposes.    83.  Plaintiff Baharestan, the other members of the California Sub-Class, and  Defendant have engaged in “transactions,” as that term is defined by California Civil Code  §1761(e).   84.  The conduct alleged in this Complaint constitutes unfair methods of competition  and unfair and deceptive acts and practices for the purpose of the CLRA, and the conduct was  undertaken by Defendant in transactions intended to result in, and which did result in, the sale of  goods to consumers.    85.  As alleged more fully above, Defendant has violated the CLRA by falsely  representing to Plaintiff Baharestan and the other members of the California Sub-Class that the  Case3:15-cv-03578   Document1   Filed08/04/15   Page26 of 36 91.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege herein all paragraphs alleged  above.   92.  As alleged more fully above, Defendant has falsely advertised the Products by  falsely claiming that the Products are unqualifiedly naturally derived and environmentally sound.   93.   Plaintiff Baharestan and the other members of the California Sub-Class have  suffered injury in fact and have lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s violations of  California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq.    94.  Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code §§ 17203 and 17535,  Plaintiff Baharestan and the California Sub-Class seek an order of this Court that includes, but is  not limited to, an order requiring Defendant to:   a. remove and/or refrain from making representations on the Products’  packaging representing that the Products provide an unqualified level of  “natural” benefits; and  b. remove and/or refrain from making representations on the Products’  packaging representing that the Products are unqualifiedly naturally derived  and unqualifiedly made from plants.  95.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege herein all paragraphs alleged  above.   96.  As alleged more fully above, Defendant has falsely advertised the Products by  falsely claiming that the Products are unqualifiedly natural, unqualifiedly naturally derived, and  unqualifiedly made from plants.   97.   Plaintiff Baharestan and the other members of the California Sub-Class have  suffered injury in fact and have lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s violations of  Case3:15-cv-03578   Document1   Filed08/04/15   Page28 of 36 A. Defendant Deceives Consumers By Falsely Labeling the Products as “Natural.”  