10.  Merriam-Webster's defines "pure" as "unmixed with any other matter," in other  words, containing a single, unadulterated ingredient.     11.  Surveys and other market research, including expert testimony Plaintiff intends to  introduce, will demonstrate that the term “Pure Grape Juice” is misleading to a reasonable  consumer because the reasonable consumer believes that the term “pure,” when used to describe  goods such as the Product, means that the goods are free from ingredients other than grape juice.   12.  By deceiving consumers about the nature, quality, and/or ingredients of  the Product, Defendants are able to charge higher prices for the Product, thereby increasing their  own profits.   13.  Defendants intended for consumers to rely on their representations, and  reasonable consumers did in fact so rely. As a result of their false and misleading labeling and  1 https://www.amazon.com/Kedem-64oz-Concord-Grape  Juice/dp/B07ND5F2V6?ref_=bl_dp_s_web_3032710011&th=1  5  omissions of fact, Defendants were and are able to sell the Product to the general public  throughout the United States and to realize sizeable profits.   14.  The front label of the Product prominently displays the representation that the  Product is “Pure Grape Juice” and does not reveal that it contains an added preservative, or any  additional ingredients whatsoever.     15.  Moreover, the reasonable consumer is not expected or required to scour the  ingredients list on the back of the Product in order to confirm or debunk Defendants’ prominent  front-of-the-Product claim, representation, and warranty that the Product is “Pure Grape Juice”   16.  Consumers rely on label representations and information in making purchasing  decisions.   17.  The marketing of the Product as “Pure Grape Juice” in prominent locations on the  labels of all of the Product, throughout the Class Period, evidences Defendants’ awareness that  “Pure” claim is material to consumers.   18.  Defendants’ deceptive representations and omissions are material in that a  reasonable person would attach importance to such information and would be induced to act  upon such information in making purchase decisions.   19.  Plaintiff and the Class members reasonably relied to their detriment on  Defendants’ misleading representations and omissions.   20.  Defendants’ false, misleading, and deceptive misrepresentations and omissions  are likely to continue to deceive and mislead reasonable consumers and the general public, as  6  they have already deceived and misled Plaintiff and the Class members.   21.  In making the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions  described herein, Defendants knew and intended that consumers would pay a premium for a  Product labeled “Pure” over comparable products not so labeled.    22.  As an immediate, direct, and proximate result of Defendants’ false, misleading,  and deceptive representations and omissions, Defendants injured Plaintiff and the Class members  in that they:  a.  Paid a sum of money for a Product that was not what Defendants represented;  b.  Paid a premium price for a Product that was not what Defendants represented;  c.  Were deprived of the benefit of the bargain because the Product they purchased  was different from what Defendants warranted; and  d.  Were deprived of the benefit of the bargain because the Product they purchased  had less value than what Defendants represented.    23.  Had Defendants not made the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and  omissions, Plaintiff and the Class members would not have purchased the Product or would not  have been willing to pay the amount charged for the Product they purchased.   24.  Plaintiff and the Class members paid for a Product that was “Pure Grape Juice”  but received a Product that adulterated with an additional ingredient.  The Product Plaintiff and  the Class members received was worth less than the Product for which they paid.   25.  Based on Defendants’ misleading and deceptive representations, Defendants were  able to, and did, charge a premium price for the Product over the cost of competitive products  7  not bearing a “Pure” label.   26.  Plaintiff and the Class members all paid money for the Product.  However,  Plaintiff and the Class members did not obtain the full value of the advertised Product due to  Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions.  Plaintiff and the Class members purchased,  purchased more of, and/or paid more for, the Product than they would have had they known the  truth about the Product.  Consequently, Plaintiff and the Class members have suffered injury in  fact and lost money as a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct.  36.  Plaintiff brings this matter on behalf of herself and those similarly situated.  As  detailed at length in this Complaint, Defendants orchestrated deceptive marketing and labeling  practices.  Defendants’ customers were uniformly impacted by and exposed to this misconduct.   Accordingly, this Complaint is uniquely situated for class-wide resolution, including injunctive  relief.     37.  The Class is defined as all consumers who purchased the Product anywhere in the  United States during the Class Period (the “Class”).   38.  Plaintiff also seeks certification, to the extent necessary or appropriate, of a  subclass of individuals who purchased the Product in the State of New York at any time during  the Class Period (the “New York Subclass”).  2 See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-j3_0OYWNc, describing how the grapes for the Product are grown at  Defendants’ winery in Marlboro, New York.  Additionally, the back label of the Product states that it is produced in  Marlboro. New York.   10   39.  The Class and New York Subclass shall be referred to collectively throughout the  Complaint as the Class.   40.  The Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class action under  Rule 23(a), satisfying the class action prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and  adequacy because:   41.  Numerosity:  Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable.  Plaintiff believes that there are thousands of consumers who are Class Members  described above who have been damaged by Defendants’ deceptive and misleading practices.     42.  Commonality:  The questions of law and fact common to the Class Members  which predominate over any questions which may affect individual Class Members include, but  are not limited to:   a.  Whether Defendants are responsible for the conduct alleged herein which was  uniformly directed at all consumers who purchased the Product;  b.  Whether Defendants’ misconduct set forth in this Complaint demonstrates that  Defendants have engaged in unfair, fraudulent, or unlawful business practices  with respect to the advertising, marketing, and sale of their Product;  c.  Whether Defendants made false and/or misleading statements to the Class and the  public concerning the contents of their Product;  d.  Whether Defendants’ false and misleading statements concerning their Product  were likely to deceive the public;  e.  Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to injunctive relief; and   f.  Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to money damages under the same  causes of action as the other Class Members.  11   43.  Typicality:  Plaintiff is a member of the Class.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the  claims of each Class Member in that every member of the Class was susceptible to the same  deceptive, misleading conduct and purchased Defendants’ Product.  Plaintiff is entitled to relief  under the same causes of action as the other Class Members.   44.  Adequacy:  Plaintiff is an adequate Class representative because her interests do  not conflict with the interests of the Class Members she seeks to represent; her consumer fraud  claims are common to all members of the Class and she has a strong interest in vindicating her  rights; she has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action litigation and  they intend to vigorously prosecute this action.     45.  Predominance:  Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), the common issues of law and fact  identified above predominate over any other questions affecting only individual members of the  Class.  The Class issues fully predominate over any individual issue because no inquiry into  individual conduct is necessary; all that is required is a narrow focus on Defendants’ deceptive  and misleading marketing and labeling practices.     46.  Superiority:  A class action is superior to the other available methods for the fair  and efficient adjudication of this controversy because:  a.  The joinder of thousands of individual Class Members is impracticable,  cumbersome, unduly burdensome, and a waste of judicial and/or litigation  resources;  b.  The individual claims of the Class Members may be relatively modest compared  with the expense of litigating the claim, thereby making it impracticable, unduly  12  burdensome, and expensive—if not totally impossible—to justify individual  actions;  c.  When Defendants’ liability has been adjudicated, all Class Members’ claims can  be determined by the Court and administered efficiently in a manner far less  burdensome and expensive than if it were attempted through filing, discovery, and  trial of all individual cases;  d.  This class action will promote orderly, efficient, expeditious, and appropriate  adjudication and administration of Class claims;  e.  Plaintiff knows of no difficulty to be encountered in the management of this  action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action;  f.  This class action will assure uniformity of decisions among Class Members;   g.  The Class is readily definable and prosecution of this action as a class action will  eliminate the possibility of repetitious litigation;  h.  Class Members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution of separate  actions is outweighed by their interest in efficient resolution by single class  action; and  i.  It would be desirable to concentrate in this single venue the litigation of all  plaintiffs who were induced by Defendants’ uniform false advertising to purchase  their Product as being “Pure Grape Juice”    47.  Accordingly, this Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class  action under Rule 23(b)(3) because questions of law or fact common to Class Members  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and because a class action is  superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this controversy.  5.  As depicted below, Defendants market and advertise the Product as “Pure Grape  Juice.”     51.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all the  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.    52.  New York General Business Law Section 349 (“GBL § 349”) declares unlawful  “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce or in the  furnishing of any service in this state . . .”   53.  The conduct of Defendants alleged herein constitutes recurring, “unlawful”  deceptive acts and practices in violation of GBL § 349, and as such, Plaintiff and the New York  Subclass Members seek monetary damages and the entry of injunctive relief against Defendants,  enjoining them from inaccurately describing, labeling, marketing, and promoting the Product.   54.  There is no adequate remedy at law.   55.  Defendants misleadingly, inaccurately, and deceptively advertises and markets  their Product to consumers.   56.  Defendants’ improper consumer-oriented conduct—including labeling and  advertising the Product as being “Pure Grape Juice” —is misleading in a material way in that it,  inter alia, induced Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members to purchase and pay a  premium for Defendants’ Product and to use the Product when they otherwise would not have.   Defendants made their untrue and/or misleading statements and representations willfully,  wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the truth.    16   57.  As a result of Defendants’ recurring, “unlawful” deceptive acts and practices,  Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members are entitled to monetary, compensatory, treble  and punitive damages, injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement of all moneys obtained by  means of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.  57.  Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members have been injured inasmuch as  they paid a premium for a product that was—contrary to Defendants’ representations— not  “Pure Grape Juice.”  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members received less  than what they bargained and/or paid for.   58.  Defendants’ advertising and Product’s packaging and labeling induced Plaintiff  and the New York Subclass Members to buy Defendants’ Product and to pay a premium price  for it.   58.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all the  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   59.  Defendants’ deceptive and misleading practices constitute a deceptive act and  practice in the conduct of business in violation of New York General Business Law §349(a) and  Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members have been damaged thereby.   59.  N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350 provides, in part, as follows:  False advertising in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the  17  furnishing of any service in this state is hereby declared unlawful.   6.  The Product’s labeling is depicted below:   3   60.  N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350a(1) provides, in part, as follows:  The term ‘false advertising, including labeling, of a commodity, or of the kind,  character, terms or conditions of any employment opportunity if such advertising  is misleading in a material respect.  In determining whether any advertising is  misleading, there shall be taken into account (among other things) not only  representations made by statement, word, design, device, sound or any  combination thereof, but also the extent to which the advertising fails to reveal  facts material in the light of such representations with respect to the commodity or  employment to which the advertising relates under the conditions proscribed in  said advertisement, or under such conditions as are customary or usual . . .    61.  Defendants’ labeling and advertisements contain untrue and materially misleading  statements concerning Defendants’ Product inasmuch as they misrepresent that the Product is  “Pure Grape Juice.”      62.  Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members have been injured inasmuch as  they relied upon the labeling, packaging and advertising and paid a premium for the Product  which was—contrary to Defendants’ representations—not “Pure Grape Juice.”  Accordingly,  Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members received less than what they bargained and/or  paid for.   63.  Defendants’ advertising, packaging and product labeling induced Plaintiff and the  New York Subclass Members to buy Defendants’ Product.   64.  Defendants made their untrue and/or misleading statements and representations  willfully, wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the truth.     65.  Defendants’ conduct constitutes multiple, separate violations of N.Y. Gen. Bus.  18  Law § 350.   66.  Defendants made the material misrepresentations described in this Complaint in  Defendants’ advertising, and on the Product’s packaging and labeling.    67.  Defendants’ material misrepresentations were substantially uniform in content,  presentation, and impact upon consumers at large.  Moreover, all consumers purchasing the  Product were and continue to be exposed to Defendants’ material misrepresentations.    68.  As a result of Defendants’ recurring, “unlawful” deceptive acts and practices,  Plaintiff and New York Subclass Members are entitled to monetary, compensatory, treble and  punitive damages, injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement of all moneys obtained by  means of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.  69.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all the  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   7.  Defendants’ advertising reinforces the Product label’s “Pure Grape Juice” claim.   For example, a video used to advertise the Product promotes the idea that grape juice is the only  ingredient in the Product by showing grapes going directly from the vines into the bottles and  4  using the slogan “Kedem, it’s about the Grapes.”1     70.  Plaintiff and Class Members have been injured as a result of Defendants’  violations of the following state consumer protection statutes, which also provide a basis for  redress to Plaintiff and Class Members based on Defendants’ fraudulent, deceptive, unfair and  unconscionable acts, practices and conduct.     71.  Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein violates the consumer protection, unfair  trade practices and deceptive acts laws of each of the following jurisdictions:  19  a.  Alaska:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Alaska’s Unfair Trade  Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471, et seq.  b.  Arizona:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Arizona’s Consumer  Fraud Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 44-1521, et seq.  c.  Arkansas:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Arkansas Code  Ann. § 4-88-101, et seq.  d.  California:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of California  Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code § 1750, et seq., and California’s  Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et  seq., and California’s False Advertising Law, California Business and Professions  Code § 17500, et seq.  e.  Colorado:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Colorado’s  Consumer Protection Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 61-1-101, et seq.  f.  Connecticut:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Connecticut’s  Gen. Stat. § 42-110a, et seq.  g.  Delaware:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Delaware’s  Consumer Fraud Act, Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 2511, et seq. and the Deceptive  Trade Practices Act, Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, § 2531, et seq.  h.  District of Columbia:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of the  District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Act, D.C. Code § 28-3901, et seq.  20  i.  Florida:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of the Florida Deceptive  and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 501.201, et seq.  j.  Hawaii:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of the Hawaii’s Uniform  Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-1, et seq. and Haw. Rev.  Stat. § 480-2.  k.  Idaho:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Idaho’s Consumer  Protection Act, Idaho Code Ann. § 48-601, et seq.  l.  Illinois:  Defendants’ acts and practices were and are in violation of Illinois’  Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat.  505/2; and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 510/2.  m. Indiana:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Indiana’s Deceptive  Consumer Sales Act, Ind. Code Ann. § 24-5-0.5-1, et seq.  n.  Kansas:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Kansas’s Consumer  Protection Act, Kat. Stat. Ann. § 50-623, et seq.    o.  Kentucky:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Kentucky’s  Consumer Protection Act, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 367.110, et seq.  p.  Maine:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of the Maine Unfair  Trade Practices Act, 5 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit. 5, § 205-A, et seq. and 10 Me.  Rev. Stat. Ann. § 1101, et seq.   q.  Maryland:  Defendants ’practices were and are in violation of Maryland’s  21  Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Ann. Com. Law § 13-101, et seq.    r.  Massachusetts:  Defendants’ practices were unfair and deceptive acts and  practices in violation of Massachusetts’ Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen.  Laws ch. 93A, § 2.  s.  Michigan:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Michigan’s  Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.901, et seq.  t.  Minnesota:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Minnesota’s  Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat. § 325F.68, et seq. and the  Unlawful Trade Practices law, Minn. Stat. § 325D.09, et seq.  u.  Missouri:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Missouri’s  Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.010, et seq.  v.  Nebraska:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Nebraska’s  Consumer Protection Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1601, et seq. and the Uniform  Deceptive Trade Practices Act, § 87-302, et seq.  w.  Nevada:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Nevada’s Deceptive  Trade Practices Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 598.0903 and 41.600.  x.  New Hampshire:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of New  Hampshire’s Regulation of Business Practices for Consumer Protection, N.H.  Rev. Stat. Ann. § 358-A:1, et seq.   y.  New Jersey:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of New Jersey’s  22  Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-1, et seq.  z.  New Mexico:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of New Mexico’s  Unfair Practices Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-1, et seq.  aa. North Carolina:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of North  Carolina’s Unfair Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 75-1, et  seq.  bb. North Dakota:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of North  Dakota’s Unlawful Sales or Advertising Practices law, N.D. Cent. Code § 51-15- 01, et seq.  cc. Ohio:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Ohio’s Consumer Sales  Practices Act, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.01, et seq. and Ohio’s Deceptive  Trade Practices Act. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4165.01, et seq.   dd. Oklahoma:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Oklahoma’s  Consumer Protection Act, Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 15 § 751, et seq., and Oklahoma’s  Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 78 § 51, et seq.  ee. Oregon:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Oregon’s Unlawful  Trade Practices law, Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605, et seq.  ff.  Pennsylvania:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Pennsylvania’s  Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law, 73 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 201-1, et  seq.  23  gg. Rhode Island:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Rhode Island’s  Deceptive Trade Practices Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-13.1-1, et seq.  hh. South Dakota:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of South  Dakota’s Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, S.D. Codified  Laws § 37-24-1, et seq.  ii.  Texas:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Texas’ Deceptive  Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.41,  et seq.  jj.  Utah:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Utah’s Consumer Sales  Practices Act, Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-1, et seq., and Utah’s Truth in Advertising  Law, Utah Code Ann. § 13-11a-1, et seq.  kk. Vermont:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Vermont’s  Consumer Fraud Act, Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9 § 2451, et seq.  ll.  Washington:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Washington  Consumer Protection Act, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 19.86, et seq.  mm. West Virginia:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of West  Virginia’s Consumer Credit and Protection Act, W. Va. Code § 46A-6-101, et  seq.  nn. Wisconsin:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Wisconsin’s  Consumer Act, Wis. Stat. §421.101, et seq.  24  oo. Wyoming:  Defendants’ practices were and are in violation of Wyoming’s  Consumer Protection Act, Wyo. Stat. Ann. §40-12-101, et seq.   72.  Defendants violated the aforementioned states’ unfair and deceptive acts and  practices laws by representing that the Product is “Pure Grape Juice.”       73.  Contrary to Defendants’ representations, the Product is not “Pure Grape Juice,”  but, rather, is adulterated with an additional artificial ingredient, potassium metabisulfite.    74.  Defendants’ misrepresentations were material to Plaintiff’s and Class Members’  decision to pay a premium for the Product.     75.  Defendants made their untrue and/or misleading statements and representations  willfully, wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the truth.     76.  As a result of Defendants’ violations of the aforementioned states’ unfair and  deceptive practices laws, Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Product.   77.  As a result of Defendants’ violations, Defendants have been unjustly enriched.   78.  Pursuant to the aforementioned states’ unfair and deceptive practices laws,  Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to recover compensatory damages, restitution, punitive  and special damages including but not limited to treble damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and  costs and other injunctive or declaratory relief as deemed appropriate or permitted pursuant to  the relevant law.  25  79.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   8.  Defendants’ representation that the Product is “Pure Grape Juice” is false,  misleading, and deceptive because the Product contains an additional ingredient, namely  potassium metabisulfite, a synthetic chemical preservative.     80.  Defendants provided Plaintiff and Class Members with an express warranty in the  form of written affirmations of fact promising and representing that the Product is “Pure Grape  Juice.”     81.  The above affirmations of fact were not couched as “belief” or “opinion,” and  were not “generalized statements of quality not capable of proof or disproof.”   82.  These affirmations of fact became part of the basis for the bargain and were  material to Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ transactions.   83.  Plaintiff and Class Members reasonably relied upon Defendants’ affirmations of  fact and justifiably acted in ignorance of the material facts omitted or concealed when they  decided to buy Defendants’ Product.   84.  Within a reasonable time after they knew or should have known of Defendants’  breach, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and Class Members, placed Defendants on notice of their  breach, giving Defendants an opportunity to cure their breach, which they refused to do.   85.  Defendants breached the express warranty because the Product is not “Pure Grape  Juice,” but rather, is adulterated with an additional artificial ingredient, potassium metabisulfite.   86.  Defendants thereby breached the following state warranty laws:  26  a.  Code of Ala. § 7-2-313;  b.  Alaska Stat. § 45.02.313;  c.  88.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.    89.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of all members of the Class.  29  Upon certification, the Class will consist of more than 100 named plaintiffs.   9.  Whether Defendants’ labeling of the Product as “Pure Grape Juice” is deceptive is  judged by whether it would deceive or mislead a reasonable person.     90.  The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act provides a federal remedy for consumers who  have been damaged by the failure of a supplier or warrantor to comply with any obligation under  a written warranty or implied warranty, or other various obligations established under the  Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.   91.  The Product is a “consumer product” within the meaning of the Magnuson-Moss  Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(1).   92.  Plaintiff and other members of the Class are “consumers” within the meaning of  the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3).   93.  Defendants are the “suppliers” and “warrantors” of the Product within the  meaning of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301(4) & 2301(5).   94.  Defendants represented in writing that the Product is “Pure Grape Juice.”     95.  This statement was made in connection with the sale of the Product and relates to  the nature of the Product and affirm and promise that the Product is as represented and defect  free and, as such, are “written warranties” within the meaning of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty  Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(6)(A).   96.  As alleged herein, Defendants breached the written warranty by selling consumers  a Product that are not “Pure Grape Juice,” but rather, is adulterated with an additional artificial  ingredient, potassium metabisulfite.   97.  The Product does not conform to Defendants’ written warranty and therefore  30  violates the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.  Consequently, Plaintiff and  the other members of the Class have suffered injury and are entitled to damages in an amount to  be proven at trial.  98.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   99.  Defendants are in the business of manufacturing, distributing, marketing and  advertising the Product.  100.  Under the Uniform Commercial Code’s implied warranty of merchantability,  Defendants warranted to Plaintiff and Class Members that the Product is “Pure Grape Juice”     101.  Defendants breached the implied warranty of merchantability in that Defendants’  Product’s ingredients deviate from the Product’s labelling as “Pure Grape Juice,” and reasonable  consumers expecting a product that conforms to their label would not accept Defendants’  Product if they knew that they actually contained ingredients other than grape juice.   102.  Within a reasonable amount of time after Plaintiff discovered that the Product  contains additional ingredients other than grape juice, Plaintiff notified Defendants of such  breach.  103.  The inability of Defendants’ Product to meet the label description was wholly due  to Defendants’ fault and without Plaintiff’s or Class Members’ fault or neglect, and was solely  31  due to Defendants ’manufacture and distribution of the Product to the public.  104.  As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and Class Members have been damaged in  the amount paid for Defendants’ Product, together with interest thereon from the date of  purchase.  BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)   BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)  105.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.  106.  Defendants knew or had reason to know that Plaintiff and other Class Members  were buying their Product with the specific purpose of buying “Pure Grape Juice” that was not  adulterated with additional ingredients.  107.  Plaintiff and the other Class Members, intending to use pure grape juice  unadulterated with additional ingredients, relied on Defendants in selecting their Product to fit  their specific intended use.  108.  Defendants held themselves out as having particular knowledge of Defendants’  Product’s ingredients.  109.  Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ reliance on Defendants in selecting Defendants’  Product to fit their particular purpose was reasonable given Defendants’ claims and  representations in its advertising, packaging and labeling concerning the Product’s ingredients.  110.  Plaintiff and the other Class Members’ reliance on Defendants in selecting  32  Defendants’ Product to fit their particular use was reasonable given Defendants’ particular  knowledge of the Product it manufactures and distributes.  111.  As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and Class Members have been damaged in  the amount paid for Defendants’ Product, together with interest thereon from the date of  purchase.  BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTIBILITY  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)   COMMON LAW UNJUST ENRICHMENT  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members in the Alternative)  112.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.  113.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and consumers nationwide, bring a common law  claim for unjust enrichment.   114.  Defendants’ conduct violated, inter alia, state and federal law by manufacturing,  advertising, marketing, and selling their Product while misrepresenting and omitting material  facts.  115.  Defendants’ unlawful conduct as described in this Complaint allowed Defendants  to knowingly realize substantial revenues from selling their Product at the expense of, and to the  detriment or impoverishment of, Plaintiff and Class Members, and to Defendants’ benefit and  enrichment.  Defendants have thereby violated fundamental principles of justice, equity, and  good conscience.   116.  Plaintiff and Class Members conferred significant financial benefits and paid  33  substantial compensation to Defendants for the Product, which was not as Defendants  represented them to be.   117.  Under New York’s common law principles of unjust enrichment, it is inequitable  for Defendants to retain the benefits conferred by Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ overpayments.  118.  Plaintiff and Class Members seek disgorgement of all profits resulting from such  overpayments and establishment of a constructive trust from which Plaintiff and Class Members  may seek restitution.   VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GBL § 350  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members)   VIOLATION OF THE MAGNUSON-MOSS  WARRANTY ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)   VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GBL § 349  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and New York Subclass Members)   VIOLATION OF STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION STATUTES  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)  