14.  Defendant’s labeling and advertising scheme is deliberately intended to give  consumers the false impression that the Products are composed only of natural flavors  and “no artificial colors or flavors.”   58.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly  situated (the “Class”) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), and  23(b)(3).   59.   The nationwide Class is defined as follows:  All U.S. citizens who purchased the Products in their respective state of  citizenship on or after January 1, 2012 and until the Class is certified, for  personal use and not for resale, excluding Defendant and Defendant’s  officers, directors, employees, agents and affiliates, and the Court and its  staff.   60.   The California Class is defined as follows:  All California citizens who made retail purchases of the Products in  California on or after January 1, 2012 and until the Class is certified, for  personal use and not for resale, excluding Defendant and Defendant’s  officers, directors, employees, agents and affiliates, and the Court and its  staff.   61.   During the Class Period, the Products unlawfully contained the undisclosed  artificial flavors d-malic acid or d-l malic acid and were otherwise improperly labeled.  Defendant failed to label the Products as required by California law.   62.  During the Class Period, Class members purchased the misbranded  Products, paying a price premium for those Products compared to similar products  lawfully labeled.   63.  The proposed Class meets all criteria for a class action, including  numerosity, commonality, typicality, predominance, superiority, and adequacy of  representation.    78.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made  elsewhere in the Complaint as if set forth in full herein.   79.   Plaintiff brings this claim for fraud by omission pursuant to California Civil  Code §§ 1709-1710, et seq. and the common law of all states. The elements of fraud are  substantially similar from state to state, thus making nationwide class certification  appropriate.    80.   Defendant actively concealed material facts, in whole or in part, with the  intent to induce Plaintiff and members of the Class to purchase the Products.  Specifically, Defendant actively concealed the truth about the Products by not disclosing  the existence of artificial flavoring ingredients on the front label of the Products as is  required by California and federal law.    81.  Plaintiff and the Class were unaware of these omitted material facts and  would not have purchased the Products, or would have paid less for the Products, if they  had known of the concealed facts.    84.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made  elsewhere in the Complaint as if set forth in full herein.    85.  Plaintiff brings this claim for negligent misrepresentation pursuant to  California Civil Code §§ 1709-1710, et seq. and the common law of all states. The  elements of negligent misrepresentation are substantially similar from state to state, thus  making nationwide class certification appropriate.    86.  Defendant had a duty to disclose to Plaintiff and the Class members the  existence of artificial flavoring ingredients on the front labels of the Products pursuant  to California and federal law. Defendant was in a superior position than Plaintiff and the  Class members such that reliance by Plaintiff and the Class members was justified.  Defendant possessed the skills and expertise to know the type of information that would  influence a consumer’s purchasing decision.    87.  During the applicable Class period, Defendant negligently or carelessly  misrepresented, omitted, and concealed from consumers material facts regarding the  products, including the existence of artificial flavoring ingredients.    88.  Defendant was careless in ascertaining the truth of their representations in  that it knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the Class members would not have  realized the true existence of artificial flavoring ingredients in the Products.    91.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations  contained in all preceding paragraphs, and further allege as follows:   92.  The California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et  seq. (“CLRA”) prohibits any unfair, deceptive and unlawful practices, and  unconscionable commercial practices in connection with the sale of any goods or  services to consumers.   93.  Plaintiff and the Class are “consumers” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code §  1761(d). The Products are a “good” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1761.    94.  Defendant’s failure to label the Products in compliance with federal and  state labeling regulations, was an unfair, deceptive, unlawful, and unconscionable  commercial practice.   95.  Defendant’s conduct violates the CLRA, including but not limited to, the  following provisions:  § 1770(a)(5): representing that goods have characteristics, uses, or benefits which  they do not have.  § 1770(a)(7): representing that goods are of a particular standard, quality, or grade  if they are of another.  § 1770(a)(9): advertising goods with intent not to sell them as advertised.  § 1770(a)(16): representing the subject of a transaction has been supplied in  accordance with a previous representation when it has not.   Defendant Does Not Disclose That The Products Are Artificially Flavored.   FRAUD BY OMISSION,  Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1709-1710  and the common law of all states  (on behalf of the Nationwide Class and the California Class)   NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION,  Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1709-1710  and the common law of all states  (on behalf of the Nationwide Class and the California Class)   VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT,  CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 1750, et seq.  (on behalf of the California Class)   VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW,  (UNLAWFUL PRONG)  CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200, et seq.  (on behalf of the California Class)  