21.  Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises and sells personal care and hygiene  products in the United States and throughout the world.    22.  Defendant markets numerous products under their “Kiss My Face” brand such as  the Product purchased by Plaintiffs. The Product is available at many higher-end supermarket  chains and grocery stores and other retail outlets throughout the United States, including but not  limited to Whole Foods.   24.  By representing that Product was “Natural,” Defendant sought to capitalize on  consumers’ preference for natural products and the association between such products and a  wholesome way of life. Consumers are willing to pay more for natural products because of this  association as well as the perceived higher quality, health and safety benefits and low impact on  the environment associated with products labeled as “Natural.”   25.  Although Defendant represented the Product as “Natural,” they are not natural  because they contain the highly processed ingredient Glycerin.    64.  Plaintiff TRONCOSO seeks to represent a class consisting of the following  subclass (the “New York Class”):  All New York residents who made retail purchases of the Product  during the applicable limitations period, and/or such subclasses as  the Court may deem appropriate.    65.  The proposed Classes exclude current and former officers and directors of  Defendant, members of the immediate families of the officers and directors of Defendant,  Defendant’s legal representatives, heirs, successors, assigns, and any entity in which they have or  have had a controlling interest, and the judicial officer to whom this lawsuit is assigned.   66.  Plaintiffs reserve the right to revise the Class definition based on facts learned in  the course of litigating this matter.   67.  This action is proper for class treatment under Rules 23(b)(1)(B) and 23(b)(3) of  the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While the exact number and identities of other Class  members are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that there are  thousands of Class members. Thus, the Class is so numerous that individual joinder of all Class  members is impracticable.    70.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and pursue the interests of the Class  and have retained competent counsel experienced in prosecuting nationwide class actions.   Plaintiffs understand the nature of their claims herein, have no disqualifying conditions, and will  vigorously represent the interests of the Class. Neither Plaintiffs nor Plaintiffs’ counsel have any  interests that conflict with or are antagonistic to the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs have retained  highly competent and experienced class action attorneys to represent their interests and those of  the Class. Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel have the necessary financial resources to adequately  and vigorously litigate this class action, and Plaintiffs and counsel are aware of their fiduciary  responsibilities to the Class and will diligently discharge those duties by vigorously seeking the  maximum possible recovery for the Class.   71.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy. The damages suffered by any individual class member are too  small to make it economically feasible for an individual class member to prosecute a separate  action, and it is desirable for judicial efficiency to concentrate the litigation of the claims in this  forum. Furthermore, the adjudication of this controversy through a class action will avoid the  potentially inconsistent and conflicting adjudications of the claims asserted herein. There will be  no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.   73.  The prerequisites to maintaining a class action for injunctive relief or equitable  relief pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) are met, as questions of law or fact common to the Class  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior  to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.   74.  The prosecution of separate actions by members of the Class would create a risk  of establishing inconsistent rulings and/or incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant.  Additionally, individual actions may be dispositive of the interest of all members of the Class,  although certain Class members are not parties to such actions.   75.  Defendant’s conduct is generally applicable to the Class as a whole and Plaintiffs  seek, inter alia, equitable remedies with respect to the Class as a whole. As such, Defendant’s  systematic policies and practices make declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole  appropriate.  76.  Plaintiff TRONCOSO repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained  above as if fully set forth herein and further alleges the following:   78.  NY GBL § 349 provides that “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any  business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state are . . . unlawful.”   79.  Under the § 349, it is not necessary to prove justifiable reliance.  (“To the extent  that the Appellate Division order imposed a reliance requirement on General Business Law [§]  349 … claims, it was error.  Justifiable reliance by the plaintiff is not an element of the statutory  claim.”  Koch v. Acker, Merrall & Condit Co., 18 N.Y.3d 940, 941 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)  (internal citations omitted)).    80.  Any person who has been injured by reason of any violation of the NY GBL may  bring an action in their own name to enjoin such unlawful act or practice, an action to recover  their actual damages or fifty dollars, whichever is greater, or both such actions. The court may, in  its discretion, increase the award of damages to an amount not to exceed three times the actual  damages up to one thousand dollars, if the court finds the Defendant willfully or knowingly  violated this section. The court may award reasonable attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff.   81.  The practices employed by Defendant, whereby Defendant advertised, promoted,  and marketed that their Product contain “Natural” ingredients, were unfair, deceptive, and  misleading and are in violation of the NY GBL § 349.   82.  The foregoing deceptive acts and practices were directed at customers.   83.   Defendant should be enjoined from marketing their Product as “Natural” as  described above pursuant to NY GBL § 349.   85.  Plaintiff TRONCOSO repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained  above as if fully set forth herein and further alleges the following:   86.  Plaintiff TRONCOSO brings this claim individually and on behalf of the other  members of the Class for violations of NY GBL § 349.   87.  By the acts and conduct alleged herein, Defendant committed unfair or deceptive  acts and practices by misbranding their Product as “Natural.”    88.  The practices employed by Defendant, whereby Defendant advertised, promoted,  and marketed that their Product are “Natural” were unfair, deceptive, and misleading and are in  violation of NY GBL § 349.   89.  The foregoing deceptive acts and practices were directed at consumers.   90.  Plaintiff TRONCOSO and the other Class members suffered a loss as a result of  Defendant’s deceptive and unfair trade acts. Specifically, as a result of Defendant’s deceptive  and unfair trade acts and practices, Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered monetary  losses associated with the purchase of the Product, i.e., the purchase price of the Product and/or  the premium paid by Plaintiff and the Class for said Product.  92.  Defendant, directly or through their agents and employees, made false  representations, concealments, and nondisclosures to Plaintiffs and members of the Class.   93.  In making the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions,  Defendant knew and intended that consumers would pay a premium for “Natural” labeled  products over comparable products that are not labeled “Natural” furthering Defendant’s private  interest of increasing sales for their Product and decreasing the sales of products that are  truthfully offered as “Natural” by Defendant’s competitors, or those that do not claim to be  “Natural”.   94.  As an immediate, direct, and proximate result of Defendant’s false, misleading,  and deceptive representations and omissions, Defendant injured Plaintiffs and the other Class  members in that they paid a premium price for Product that were not as represented.   95.  In making the representations of fact to Plaintiffs and members of the Class  described herein, Defendant has failed to fulfill their duties to disclose the material facts set forth  above. The direct and proximate cause of this failure to disclose was Defendant’s negligence and  carelessness.   96.  Defendant, in making the misrepresentations and omissions, and in doing the acts  alleged above, knew or reasonably should have known that the representations were not true.  Defendant made and intended the misrepresentations to induce the reliance of Plaintiffs and  members of the Class.   98.  As a result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and members of the Class  have suffered and continue to suffer economic losses and other general and specific damages,  including but not limited to the amounts paid for the Product and any interest that would have  been accrued on those monies, all in an amount to be determined according to proof at time of  trial.    BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTIES  (All States)   INJUNCTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 349  (DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT)   NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION  (All States)   The Nationwide Class   VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 349   (DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT)  