43.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every preceding paragraph as though fully set  forth herein.  Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of herself and the Class solely for  breach of federal law.   This cause of action is not based on any violation of state law.   44.  The MMWA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq., creates a private federal cause of action for  breach of “written warranty” as defined by the Act. 15 U.S.C. § 2301(6) and § 2310(d)(1).   45.  The AirFloss is a “consumer products” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2301(1), as they  constitute tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used  for personal, family or household purposes.   46.  Plaintiff and members of the Class are “consumers” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3),  since they are buyers of the AirFloss product for purposes other than resale.   47.  Defendants are entities engaged in the business of making the AirFloss available, either  directly or indirectly, to consumers such as Plaintiff and the Class. As such, Defendants are  “suppliers” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2301(4).   48.  Through their labeling, Defendants gave and offered a written warranty to consumers  relating to the nature and quality of the AirFloss. As a result, Defendants are “warrantors” within  the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 2301(5).   5.  Since at least 2011, Defendants have packaged, marketed, distributed and sold AirFloss as  either being “Floss”, a replacement for Floss to or better than Floss.  In addition, Defendants have  failed to warn consumers that their product does not replace flossing, which is a recognized  requirement for proper oral hygiene.  The following representations appear on the packaging of the  product (Exhibit 1) as well as on the internet, including Defendants’ website, and in print  advertisements  A. “An Easier Way to Floss”;   B. “It’s probably the easiest way to floss in just 60 seconds”;  C. “Airfloss takes the hassle out of flossing so you can get a deep clean every day”; and  D. “AirFloss” (Presented on the package in a way that Air is bolder than the Floss)   6.  The following representations were also made on the internet and in print media:  A. “Sonicare Airfloss Replaces Traditional Flossing With Micro Bursts of Water and  Air”; (See Exhibit 2).  B. Sonicare AirFloss is designed to make flossing easier, maximize plaque removal..."  C. “With Sonicare Airfloss, interdental cleaning has just been reinvented”;  D. “They’re calling it a game changer that will benefit virtually all their patients”;  E. “Sonicare AirFloss has been through meticulous clinical validation…”.; and  F. "The reputation of the Sonicare brand is built on its research-based approach to  dental and oral care and AirFloss underwent the same rigorous clinical validation as  all Sonicare products".   71.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every preceding paragraph as though fully set  forth herein. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of herself and the Class.  This claim is  brought in the alternative to the First Cause of Action under state law.   72.  Defendants made express warranties to Plaintiff and members of the Class that the products  they were purchasing was: 1) “An Easier Way to Floss”; 2) “It’s probably the easiest way to floss  in just 60 seconds”; 3) “Airfloss takes the hassle out of flossing so you can get a deep clean every  day”.   73.  These express warranties made to Plaintiff and Class appears on every package of the  AirFloss products  and was also reinforced by appearing in numerous other forms of advertising  commissioned by Defendants.  These promises regarding the nature of the products marketed by  Defendants, specifically relate to the goods being purchased and became the basis of the bargain.   74.  Plaintiff and the Class purchased the AirFloss in the belief that they conformed to the  express warranties that were made on the AirFloss’ packaging.   75.  Defendants breached the express warranties made to Plaintiff and members of the Class by  failing to supply goods that conformed to the warranties they made. As a result, Plaintiff and the  members of the Class suffered injury and deserve to be compensated for the damages they  suffered.   78.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every preceding paragraph as though fully set  forth herein.   79.  Plaintiff asserts this cause of action on behalf of herself individually, and on behalf of the  Class.   80.  Plaintiff is a person as defined by California’s Unfair Competition Act.   81.  Defendants designed, marketed and/or sell, and continue to market and sell the AirFloss in  California, including through the internet and through a distribution network that includes major  retail outlets such as, Costco and Walmart.  Each of the defendants have purposefully availed  themselves of the California market with respect to AirFloss by putting the AirFloss into the  stream of national commerce.   82.  Plaintiff became aware of the AirFloss though defendants’ label claims and promotional  activities undertaken and directed to California consumers.  On the basis of these factors, plaintiff  purchased the AirFloss for money at a San Diego Costco store.   92.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every preceding paragraph as though fully set  forth herein.   93.  Plaintiff asserts this cause of action on behalf of herself individually, and on behalf of the  Class.   94.  California Business & Professions Code § 17500 prohibits various deceptive practices in  connection with the dissemination in any manner of representations for the purpose of inducing, or  which are likely to induce, directly or indirectly, customers to purchase products, including the  product at issue.   95.  Defendants knew that their representations were false when they put these  misrepresentations on the AirFloss packaging, on the internet, including defendants’ website and  in print media, but did it any way.  Their knowledge of the falsity of their statements is evidenced  in a buried section of their Frequently Asked Questions on their website.  See Exhibit 3.  Further,  Defendant failed to inform Plaintiff and the Class that their product was not a substitute for  flossing.  Such a disclaimer was required to properly inform the consumers of the true efficacy of  their product for proper oral hygiene.  However, including such a disclaimer would have  undermined Defendants’ AirFloss, which was intentionally marketed as a replacement for  traditional dental floss.  In order to increase sales, defendants have fraudulently induced customers  to by their product.   96.  The defendants’ acts, practices, misrepresentations and omissions alleged herein were  intended to, and did, induce the consuming public, including plaintiff, to purchase the products in  California, and violated and continue to violate Business & Professions Code § 17500.   98.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every preceding paragraph as though fully set  forth herein.   Breach of Express Warranty   Cal. Com. Code § 2313  (Against all Defendants)   Unlawful, unfair and Fraudulent Business Acts and Practices in   Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law   Bus. & Prof. Code §17500, et. seq.  (Against all Defendants)   Unlawful, unfair and Fraudulent Business Acts and Practices in   Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law   Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et. seq.  (Against all Defendants)   Violation Of The Consumers Legal Remedies Act  Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et Seq.  (Against All Defendants)   Violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”)  15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.   (Violation of Implied Warranty of Merchantability Under California Law)  (Against all Defendants)   Violation of the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”)   15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.   (Violation of Written Warranty Under Federal Law)  (Against all Defendants)  