(Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability)  104.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each ofthe above allegations as iffully set forth herein.  (Unjust Enrichment)  I 0 I.  Plaintiff repeats and rea lieges each of the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.  (Violation of A.C.A. § 4-88-101 et seq.)   42.  Food manufacturers are required to comply with state laws and regulations that  govern the labeling of food products. First and foremost among these is the A.C.A. § 20-56-201, et  seq.   43.  Arkansas law provides in relevant part that food shall be deemed misbranded "[i]f its  labeling is false or misleading in any particular." Arkansas also discourages the misbranding of food  through the availability of remedies pursuant to the state's consumer protection laws. Therefore, any  labeling violation of A.C.A. § 20-56-20 I, et seq, is also a violation of Arkansas common law and the  Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  B.  Defendant's Use of "All Natural" is Unlawful   45.  Defendants unlawfully labeled some of its food products as being "All Natural,"  when they actually contain artificial ingredients and flavorings, artificial coloring and chemical  preservatives.  For example, Defendant's 365 Everyday Value Cola bought by Plaintiff is  represented to be "All Natural," but contains caramel coloring, tartaric acid, citric acid and carbon  dioxide.  Defendant's 365 Everyday Value Ginger Ale and Root Beer bought by Plaintiff are  represented to be "All Natural," but contain caramel coloring, citric acid and carbon dioxide.   46.  Plaintiff purchased Whole Foods' 365 Everyday Value sodas throughout the Class  Period, including 365 Everyday Value Cola, 365 Everyday Value Ginger Ale and 365 Everyday  Value Root Beer, in reliance on Defendant's false representations that the products were "All  Natural." Had Plaintiff known this representation was false, she would not have purchased the  products or paid a premium for them.   47.  Consumers reasonably expect that products carrying an "All Natural" claim must not  contain any artificial flavoring, color ingredients, chemical preservatives, or artificial or synthetic  ingredients, and be only minimally processed by a process that does not fundamentally alter the raw  product. A reasonable consumer would understand that "natural" products do not contain synthetic,  artificial or excessively processed ingredients.   49.  The term "organic" adds a premium to food products and makes them appear fresher,  minimally processed and safer. Seeking to profit from consumers' desire for organic food products  and recognizing that the labeling of products as "Organic" implicitly conveys to consumers that the  products carry health benefits important to consumers, Whole Foods has falsely represented its  Whole Foods Products as "Organic" when that is not true. On the principal display panel of its  product labels, Whole Foods claims that such products are "Organic" despite the fact that they  contain nonorganic ingredients that preclude the labeling of the very types of products at issue here  as being "organic."   50.  Defendant unlawfully labeled some of its food products as being "Organic," when  they actually contain nonorganic. For example, Defendant's 365 Everyday Value Organic Tomato  Ketchup and 365 Everyday Value Organic Chicken Broth bought by Plaintiff is represented to be  "Organic," but contains nonorganic ingredients.   51.  Plaintiff purchased Whole Foods' 365 Everyday Value Organic Tomato Ketchup and  365 Everyday Value Organic Chicken Broth in reliance on Defendant's false representations that the  products were "Organic." Had Plaintiff known this representation was false, she would not have  purchased the products or paid a premium for them.   53.  Consumers are thus misled into purchasing Defendant's products with ingredients  that are not natural as falsely represented on their labeling. Defendant's products in this respect are  misbranded under Arkansas law.  Plaintiff did not know, and had no reason to know, that the  Purchased Products were misbranded, and bore natural claims despite failing to meet the  requirements to make those natural claims. Plaintiff would not have bought these products had they  been accurately labeled and disclosed the information required by law. Because of this improper  manner in which ingredients were described, Plaintiff purchased Defendant's products and paid  premiums for them. Defendants have violated these referenced regulations and thlls misled Plaintiff  and the Class who were injured as a result and suffered economic loss.  D.  Defendant has Knowingly Violated Arkansas Laws   54.  Defendant has violated A.C.A. § 20-56-209 by, inter alia, failing to reveal material  facts on the label of Defendant's Misbrand Food Product.   55.  Defendant has violated Arkansas A.C.A. § 20-56-209 because Defendant's  Misbranded Food Products are fabricated from two (2) or more ingredients, but fail to utilize the  common or usual name of each ingredient on their labeling.   56.  Defendant has violated Arkansas A.C.A. § 20-56-209 because words, statements, or  other information required pursuant to Arkansas's food labeling laws to appear on the label or  labeling are not prominently placed upon the label or labeling with conspicuousness, as compared  with other words, statements, designs, or devices in the labeling and in terms as to render it likely to  be read and understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use.   58.  Defendant has violated Arkansas A.C.A. § 20-56-215 which make it unlawful to  manufacture, sell, deliver, hold, or offer to sell any misbranded food.   59.  Defendant has violated Arkansas A.C.A. § 20-56-214 and§ 20-56-215 which make it  unlawful to falsely or misleadingly advertise food or food.   60.  Defendant has a duty to disclose the true nature of the contents of Defendant's  Misbranded Food Products and failed to abide by that duty.   61.  Significantly, the food labeling laws of Arkansas, Defendant's violations of the food  labeling laws of Arkansas (including all of the aforementioned provisions) are strict liability crimes  for which no showing of intent to deceive or defraud is required.   62.  Under the food labeling laws of Arkansas, it is a strict liability crime to, inter alia,  manufacture, sell, deliver, hold, or offer for sale any food that is misbranded.   63.  By manufacturing and selling misbranded products, Defendant has committed a  predicate unlawful act, regardless of any misrepresentation or reliance thereon.   64.  Because Defendant's Misbranded Food Products are misbranded and illegal they have  a value of zero. Plaintiff and other consumers were injured when paying money for a worthless  product.  E.  Plaintiff Purchased Defendant's Misbranded Food Product   65.  Plaintiff cares about the nutritional content of food and seeks to maintain a healthy  diet.   67.  At point of sale, Plaintiff did not know, and had no reason to know, that the  Purchased Products was unlawful and misbranded as set forth herein, and would not have bought the  product had Plaintiff known the truth about it, i.e., that the product was illegal to purchase and  possess.   68.  After Plaintiff learned that Defendant's Purchased Products was falsely labeled,  Plaintiff stopped purchasing them.   69.  As a result of Defendant's unlawful misrepresentations, Plaintiff and thousands of  others in Arkansas purchased the Purchased Product.   70.  Defendant's labeling as alleged herein is false and misleading and was designed to  increase sales of the product at issue. Defendant's misrepresentations are part of its systematic  labeling  practice and  a reasonable  person  would  attach  importance  to  Defendant's  misrepresentations in determining whether to purchase the product at issue.   71.  A reasonable person would also attach importance to whether Defendant's product is  "misbranded," i.e., legally salable, and capable of legal possession, and to Defendant's  representations about these issues in determining whether to purchase the product at issue. Plaintiff  would not have purchased Defendant's product had Plaintiff known it was not capable of being  legally sold or held.   73.  Plaintiff cares about the nutritional content of food and seeks to maintain a healthy  diet. During the class period, Plaintiff read the labels on Defendant's Misbranded Food Products  before purchasing the product. Based on those representations, Plaintiff purchased the Whole Foods  Products at grocery stores and third-party retailers in and around Little Rock, Arkansas. At point of  sale, Plaintiff did not know, and had no reason to know, that Defendant's claims on its label were  unlawful and unauthorized as set forth herein.  Had Plaintiff known Defendant's product that  Plaintiff purchased were not "All Natural" and/or "Organic," Plaintiff would not have purchased the  product. As a result, Plaintiff suffered injury-in-fact and lost money.   74.  Plaintiff seeks to avoid and/or minimize unnatural and nonorganic ingredients in the  food products that Plaintiff purchases. At the time Plaintiff read the label of the Whole Foods,  Plaintiff attempted to determine whether the Whole Foods Products contained unnatural or  nonorganic ingredients by reading the ingredient list. When Plaintiff read the ingredient list of the  Whole Foods Products to determine if unnatural or nonorganic ingredients had been added, none  were listed, thus Plaintiff was led to believe that the Whole Foods Products that Plaintiff purchased  did not contain unnatural or nonorganic ingredients.   75.  Plaintiff was deceived because the Whole Foods Products were not "All Natural" or  "Organic."   76.  Defendant's labeling, advertising and marketing as alleged herein are false and  misleading and were designed to increase sales of the products at issue.  Defendant's  misrepresentations and material omissions are part of an extensive labeling, advertising and  marketing campaign, and a reasonable person would attach importance to Defendant's  misrepresentations and material omissions in determining whether to purchase the products at issue.   78.  Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to the Arkansas Rule of  Procedure 23 on behalf of the following class:  88.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the above allegations as if fully set forth herein.   89.  Defendant's conduct constitutes unlawful deceptive and unconscionable trade  practices. Defendant's conduct was consumer-oriented and this conduct had broad impact on  consumers at large. Defendant engaged in false, misleading and unlawful advertising, marketing and  labeling of Defendant's Misbranded Food Products. Defendant's manufacturing, distribution and  sale of Defendant's Misbranded Food Products were similarly unlawful.   90.  Defendant unlawfully sold Defendant's Misbranded Food Products tn Arkansas  during the Class Period.   91.  As fully alleged above, by advertising, marketing, distributing and selling mislabeled  and misbranded Defendant's Misbranded Food Products to Plaintiff and other members of the Class  who purchased Defendant's Misbranded Food Products in Arkansas, Defendant engaged in, and  continue to engage in, unlawful deceptive and unconscionable trade practices.   92.  Defendant's misleading marketing, advertising,  packaging and  labeling of  Defendant's Misbranded Food Products were likely to deceive reasonable consumers.   94.  Defendant has engaged in unlawful deceptive and unconscionable trade practices.   95.  Plaintiff and other members of the Class who purchased Defendant's Misbranded  Food Products in Arkansas were injured by Defendant's unlawful deceptive and unconscionable  trade practices.   96.  Defendant's fraud and deception caused Plaintiff and other members of the Class who  purchased Defendant's Misbranded Food Products in Arkansas to purchase Defendant's Misbranded  Food Products that they would otherwise not have purchased had Plaintiff known the true nature of  these products.   97.  Plaintiff and other members of the Class who purchased Defendant's Misbranded  Food Products in Arkansas were injured as a result of Defendant's unlawful deceptive and  unconscionable trade practices.   98.  In violation of the labeling laws of the state of Arkansas and A.C.A. §§ 4-88- I 07 and  4-88- I 08, Defendant sold to Plaintiff and the members of the Class who purchased Defendant's  Misbranded Food Products in Arkansas, a product that was not capable of being sold legally, and  which has no economic value. Defendant's violation of A.C.A. §§ 4-88-107 and 4-88- I 08 remains  ongoing.   99.  As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant violation of A.C.A. §§ 4-88-1 07 and 4- 88-108, Plaintiff and the members of the Class who purchased Defendant's Misbranded Food  Products in Arkansas were injured when they paid for this illegal and worthless products. Plaintiff  and the members of the Class who purchased Defendant's Misbranded Food Products in Arkansas  have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.  A.  Identical Arkansas Laws Regulate Food Labeling   DIVISION  CONNIE STAFFORD, individually and on  behalf of all others similarly situated,  Plaintiff,  -against-