34.  EOS placed EOS Lip Balm products, including Blackberry Nectar, Coconut  Milk, Strawberry Sorbet, Blueberry Acai, Pomegranate Raspberry, Summer Fruit, Sweet  Mint, Honeysuckle Honeydew, Lemon Drop, and Medicated Tangerine, into the stream of  commerce.     35.  EOS has promoted the use of its Visibly Soft Lip Balm and lip balm products to  consumers as having unique beauty and health benefits.    36.  EOS promotes EOS Lip Balms as being enriched with natural conditioning oils,  moisturizing shea butter and antioxidant Vitamins C & E which nourish for immediately softer,  more beautiful lips.   37.  EOS promotes that its product is “healthy” “organic” and “gluten free.”    38.  EOS pursued an aggressive marketing campaign, utilizing product placement as  well as celebrity endorsements in magazines, Twitter, Pinterest, and Instagram.  EOS markets  heavily through its website “evolutionofsmooth.com.”    39.  EOS advertises its products on its website and permits users to purchase products  on the website. The website promotes the products in the following ways:   a. NEW! Get noticed with visibly softer lips. Nourish your lips with the  delicious flavor of blackberry nectar.  b. Treat your lips to an all-natural lip balm that’s bursting with moisture and  the refreshing flavors of strawberry, blueberry and peach.  c. Delight your lips with the irresistible flavor of fresh honeydew and with  moisture that keeps your lips feeling soft and smooth all day long.   43.  While boasting celebrity endorsements and magazine advertisements, and while  making lofty representations regarding the health and curative effects of their lip balm products,  EOS provides no warnings on its product, packaging, labeling, or anywhere on the website  regarding health problems which are caused by the mix and use of ingredients used in its  products, and the lack of instruction regarding the appropriate amount of use of the product.    45.  Plaintiff, and putative class representative, Nicole Emily Caggiano, used “Vanilla  Mint” and “Sweet Mint” EOS lip balm, which was purchased at a CVS retail store in or around  Holtsville, New York in January 2015, and progressively developed substantial health problems  in January 2015, and thereafter, including but not limited to swelling, dryness, cracking and  blisters on and around her lips.  Below is a picture of the front / back packaging of the EOS lip  balm “Sweet Mint” like the one purchased by Ms. Caggiano.     47.  Alarmingly, nowhere on the EOS website, packaging, and labeling are there any  warnings about potential dangers and health problems caused by EOS Lip Balm.  This is despite  the fact that EOS has received massive amounts of complaints from consumers related to adverse  health effects caused by the use of EOS lip balm and the fact that EOS has established a medical  team related to adverse health effects caused by its product.    48.  The scope of individuals who have likely been harmed by EOS Lip Balm appears  to massive in scope, ranging in thousands to potential hundreds of thousands.  Below is a small  sample of other pictures of individuals suffering the same or similar reactions to Ms. Caggiano:    52.  EOS provides no warning regarding the potential dangerous side-effects of the  ingredients used in the product, or the cumulative effect of combining these very diverse  ingredients into a singular delivery lip balm module.     53.  Indeed, not only does EOS fail to provide any warnings regarding the product,  EOS provides no disclaimers at all about any aspect of the product, nor does it provide  instruction or any information about recommended use.  Instead, EOS encourages through its  advertisements, the constant and consistent application of the product, causing foreseeable and  actual harmful health consequences to consumers.    54.  The only “direction” provided by EOS on its packaging is:   58.  Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and all others similarly  situated as Class Members pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   60.  Plaintiff seeks to represent a “New York Subclass” defined as follows:  All New York residents who purchased EOS Lip Balm excluding  EOS, EOS’s officers, directors, and employees, EOS’s subsidiaries,  those who purchased the products for the purpose of resale, the Judge  to whom this case is assigned and the immediate family of the Judge  to whom this case is assigned.   61.  Plaintiff is a member of the Class she seeks to represent. Plaintiff is a United  States resident who purchased EOS Lip Balm.    62.  Plaintiff is a member of the Sub-Class she seeks to represent. Plaintiff is a New  York resident who purchased EOS Lip Balm.    63.  The definition of the Class is narrowly tailored so as to include only identifiable  Class Members who can be identified through EOS’ wholesale sale information. The Class has  no time limit because, as discussed below, the statute of limitations has been tolled by the EOS’  fraudulent concealment of the true nature of the product purchased by Class Members.    67.  The factual bases of EOS’ misconduct are common to the Class Members and  represent a common thread of deceptive advertising and breach of warranty resulting in injury to  all Class Members. Plaintiff is asserting the same rights, making the same claims, and seeking  the same relief for themselves and all other Class Members. The central question of whether  EOS’s representations are accurate and truthful is common to all Class Members and  predominates over all other questions, legal and factual in this litigation.   68.  Adequate Representation:  Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the proposed  Class because she is a Class Member and does not have interests that conflict with those of the  other Class members she seeks to represent. Plaintiff is represented by experienced and able  counsel, who has litigated numerous class-action lawsuits, and Plaintiff’s Counsel intends to  prosecute this action vigorously for the benefit of the proposed Class. Plaintiff and her Counsel  will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class Members.    70.  A class action for injunctive and equitable relief pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is also appropriate. EOS acted or refused to act on grounds  generally applicable to the Class thereby making appropriate final injunctive and equitable relief  with respect to the Class as a whole. EOS’ actions are generally applicable to the Class as a  whole, and Plaintiff, on behalf of the Class, seeks damages and injunctive relief described herein.  Moreover, EOS’ systemic policy and practices make declaratory relief with respect to the Class  as a whole appropriate.  79.  Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopts and  incorporates by reference all allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully  set forth herein.   80.  Plaintiff asserts this cause of action on behalf of herself and the Putative Class  Members.   82.  EOS misrepresented and omitted material information regarding EOS Lip Balm  by failing to disclose known risks.    83.  EOS’ 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 EOS Lip Balm, in violation of New York General Business Law (“GBL”) §§  349 and 350.    84.  New York has enacted statutes to protect consumers from deceptive, fraudulent,  and unconscionable trade and business practices.  EOS violated these statutes by knowingly and  falsely representing that EOS Lip Balm was fit to be used for the purpose for which it was  intended, when EOS knew it was defective and dangerous, and by other acts alleged herein.    85.  EOS engaged in the deceptive acts and practices alleged herein in order to sell  EOS Lip Balm to the public, including Plaintiff.    86.  EOS’ practices, acts, policies, and course of conduct, including its omissions, as  described above, were intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the Putative Class  Members to purchase EOS Lip Balm.   87.  EOS sold EOS Lip Balm knowingly concealing that it contained the defects  alleged.    90.  The aforementioned conduct is and was deceptive and false and constitutes an  unconscionable, unfair, and deceptive act or practice in that EOS has, by the use of knowing,  intentional material omissions, concealed the true defective nature of EOS Lip Balm.   91.  In making these misrepresentations of fact and/or material omissions to  prospective consumers while knowing such representations to be false, EOS has misrepresented  and/or knowingly and intentionally concealed material facts and breached its duty not to do so.   92.  Members of the public were deceived by EOS’ failure to disclose and could not  discover the defect themselves before suffering their injuries.   93.  As a direct and proximate result of these unconscionable, unfair, and deceptive  acts or practices, Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members have been damaged as alleged herein,  and are entitled to recover actual damages to the extent permitted by law, including class action  rules, in an amount to be proven at trial.    94.  Plaintiff and the Putative Class Members seek restitution of the substantial sums  of money they expended as a result of the defects in EOS Lip Balm, which EOS knew about  prior to the sale of EOS Lip Balm. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the amount of said  restitution is greater than the Class Action Fairness Act minimum of five million dollars  ($5,000,000) but will seek relief to amend this complaint at the time of trial, when the precise  amount has been ascertained.   96.  Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, adopts and  incorporates by reference all allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully  set forth herein.   97.  EOS expressly warranted that EOSs’ EOS Lip Balm was safe and well accepted  by users.    98.  EOS Lip Balm does not conform to these express representations because EOS  Lip Balm is not safe and is associated with numerous side effects not accurately warned about by  EOS. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of said warranties, Plaintiff and the Putative  Class Members suffered, and/or will continue to suffer, and/or are at an increased risk to suffer,  severe and permanent personal injuries, harm, and/or economic loss.    BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY  (On Behalf of the National Class or, alternatively, the Putative New York Subclass)   UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF NEW  YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW SECTION 349 and 350 et seq.  (On Behalf of the Putative New York Subclass)  