                      Breach of Express Warranty  190.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.  191.  Defendant provided the Plaintiff and Class Members an express warranty in  the form of written and oral affirmations of fact, on their website and on the Products,  promising and representing that their Products are not pasteurized and never heated.  192.  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."  193.  These affirmations of fact became part of the basis for the bargain and were  material to the transaction for the Plaintiff's and Class Members' transactions.  194.  Plaintiff and Class Members reasonably relied upon Defendant’s  affirmations of fact and justifiably acted in ignorance of the material facts omitted or  concealed when they decided to buy Defendant’s Products.  195.  Upon information and belief, Defendant was given opportunities to cure its  default but did not.  196.  Contrary to Defendant’s affirmations of fact, Defendant breached the  express warranty because the Products are pasteurized through the application of high  pressure and subjected to an increase in temperature as a result of the production process  and are not “never heated.”  197.  As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and the Class Members have been  damaged in the amount paid for Defendant’s products, together with interest thereon from  the date of purchase.                 Violation of New York GBL § 349  110.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.  111.  Defendant represents that their products are not pasteurized.  112.  Defendant represent through their website and on the Products that their  products are not pasteurized.  113.  Defendant’s representations that its Products are not pasteurized is not  limited to conduct with respect to Plaintiff and has a broader impact on consumers at-large.  114.  Defendant’s acts or practices are not unique to the parties.  115.  All consumers purchasing Defendant’s products are subject to the same  representations of Defendant.  116.  Defendant’s acts or practices are consumer-oriented.  117.  Defendant’s representations that its Products are not pasteurized deceived  the public into believing its Products were not treated in a way that is reasonably certain to  achieve destruction or elimination of the most resistant microorganisms of public health  significance that are likely to occur in the juice.  118.  Defendant’s representations that its Products are not pasteurized is likely to  mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.  119.  Plaintiff relied upon Defendant’s representations.  120.  Defendant’s representations that its Products are not pasteurized is material  because whether or not a product is pasteurized effects a consumer's decision whether to  purchase the Products.  121.  Plaintiff observed the representations on the website of defendant and on the  Product of defendant that the Product was not pasteurized prior to purchasing the Product.  122.  As a result of Defendant’s representations that its Products were not  pasteurized, Plaintiff paid more for the Product than he would have paid had he known that  the Product was pasteurized.  123.  As a result of Defendant’s acts and practices, Plaintiff and class members  are entitled to monetary damages, injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement of all monies  obtained by means of defendants’ unlawful conduct, interest, and attorney’s fees and costs.             Violation of New York GBL § 349 by Omission  124.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.  125.  Defendant fails to reveal that the temperature of its Products increase as a  result of the production process on their website and on the Products.  126.  Defendant’s failure to reveal that the temperature of its Products increases is  not limited to conduct with respect to Plaintiff and has a broader impact on consumers at- large.  127.  Defendant’s acts or practices are not unique to the parties.         128.  All consumers purchasing Defendant’s Products are subject to the same  omissions of Defendant.  129.  Defendant’s acts or practices are consumer-oriented.  130.  Defendant’s omissions that its Products are subjected to an increase in  temperature deceived the public into believing its Products are never heated and do not  experience a rise in temperature during the production process.  131.  Defendant’s omissions that its Products are subjected to an increase in  temperature are likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the  circumstances.  132.  Defendant’s omissions that the temperature of its Products increase as a  result of the production process is material because whether or not the Product is heated or  experiences a rise in temperature effects a consumer's decision whether to purchase the  product.  133.  Prior to purchasing the product, Plaintiff observed that the representations  on the website of defendant and on the Product of defendant did not indicate the  temperatures of the product increased.  134.  Plaintiff relied upon Defendant’s omissions.  135.  As a result of Defendant’s omissions that the temperature of the Product did  not increase and that the product was not heated, Plaintiff paid more for the Product than  he would have paid had he known that the Product is heated and that its temperature  increases during the production process.  136.  As a result of Defendant’s acts and practices, Plaintiff and class members  are entitled to monetary damages, injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement of all monies  obtained by means of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, interest, and attorney’s fees and costs.     Violation of New York GBL § 349       Violation of New York GBL § 350  137.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.  138.  Defendant’s Product labels and advertising on their website indicate their  products are never heated.  139.  Defendant’s labels and advertising that its Products are never heated is not  limited to conduct with respect to Plaintiff and has a broader impact on consumers at-large.  140.  Defendant’s labeling and advertising is not unique to the parties.  141.  All consumers purchasing Defendant’s Products are subject to the same  labels and advertising of defendant.  142.  Defendant’s labeling and advertising of its Products is consumer-oriented.  143.  Defendant’s representations in its labels and advertising that its Products are  never heated deceived the public into believing the temperature of its Products does not  increase.  144.  Defendant’s labels and advertising stating that its Products are never heated  is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.  145.  Defendant’s labeling and advertising that its Products are not heated is  material because whether or not a product experiences a rise in temperature during the  production process affects a consumer's decision whether to purchase the Product.  146.  Plaintiff observed the labels and advertising on defendant’s website  indicating that the Products were never heated prior to purchasing the Product.  147.  Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s labels and advertising.  148.  As a result of Defendant’s labeling and advertising that its Products are  never heated, Plaintiff paid more for the Products than he would have paid had he known  that the products were heated and that its temperature increases as a result of the  production process.  149.  As a result of Defendant’s labeling and advertising, Plaintiff and class  members are entitled to monetary damages, injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement of  all monies obtained by means of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, interest, and attorney’s  fees and costs.                            Unjust Enrichment  205.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.  206.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and consumers nationwide, brings a common  law claim for unjust enrichment.  207.  Defendant’s conduct violated, inter alia, New York General Business Law  392-b by: a) putting upon an article of merchandise, bottle, wrapper, package, label or  other thing, containing or covering such an article, or with which such an article is intended  to be sold, or is sold, a false description or other indication of or respecting the kind of such  article or any part thereof; and b) selling or offering for sale an article, which to their  knowledge is falsely described or indicated upon any such package, or vessel containing  the same, or label thereupon, in any of the particulars specified.  208.  Defendant’s unlawful conduct as described in this complaint, including but  not limited to the representation of its Products as not pasteurized and never heated,  allowed Defendant to knowingly realize substantial revenues from selling their Product at  the expense, and to the detriment and/or impoverishment, of the Plaintiff and Class  Members, and to Defendant’s benefit and enrichment. Defendant has thereby violated  fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.  209.  Plaintiff and Class Members conferred significant financial benefits and  paid substantial compensation to Defendant for Products that were not as Defendant  represented.  210.  Under common law principles of unjust enrichment, it is inequitable for  Defendant to retain the benefits conferred by Plaintiff and Class Members' overpayments.  211.  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 by Omission  163.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.  164.  Defendant’s labels and advertising on their website fail to reveal that the  temperature of its Products increase as a result of the production process.  165.  Defendant’s labels, which fail to reveal that the temperature of its Products  increase, is not limited to conduct with respect to Plaintiff and has a broader impact on  consumers at-large.  166.  Defendant’s labeling is not unique to the parties.  167.  All consumers purchasing Defendant’s Products are subject to the same  labels of Defendant.  168.  Defendant’s labeling is consumer-oriented.  169.  Defendant’s omissions that the temperature of their Products increase  deceived the public into believing their Products are never heated.  170.  Defendant’s omissions that the temperature of their Products increase is  likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.  171.  Defendant’s omissions that the temperature of their Products increase is  material because whether or not the Product is heated effects a consumer's decision  whether to purchase the Product.  172.  Plaintiff observed that the Product’s labels and advertising did not indicate  the temperatures of the products increase prior to purchasing the Product.  173.  Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s labels and advertising.  174.  As a result of Defendant’s omissions that the temperature of their Products  did not increase, Plaintiff paid more for the Products than he would have paid had he  known that the Products are heated.  175.  As a result of Defendant’s labeling and advertising, Plaintiff and class  members are entitled to monetary damages, injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement of  all monies obtained by means of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, interest, and attorney’s  fees and costs.       Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability  198.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.  199.  Defendant is in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing, and  selling juice.  200.  Under  the  Uniform  Commercial  Code's  implied  warranty  of  merchantability, Defendant warranted to Plaintiff and the Class Members that the Products  are not pasteurized and never heated.  201.  Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability in that the  Products are not unpasteurized and not in fact, “never heated.”  202.  Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability in that the  Products do not conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the Product  containers or labels or literature.  Any reasonable consumer would not accept the product if  they knew that the product is pasteurized and not in fact, “never heated.”  203.  The inability of the product to meet the label description was wholly due to  Defendant’s fault and without Plaintiff’s fault or neglect, and was solely due to the  Defendant’s manufacture and distribution of the Products to the public.  204.  As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and the Class Members have been  damaged in the amount paid for the products, together with interest thereon from the date  of purchase.             Violation of New York GBL § 350  150.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.  151.  Defendant’s Product advertising on their website indicate their products are  not pasteurized.  152.  Defendant’s advertising that its Products are not pasteurized is not limited to  conduct with respect to Plaintiff and has a broader impact on consumers at-large.  153.  Defendant’s labeling and advertising is not unique to the parties.  154.  All consumers purchasing Defendant’s Products are subject to the same  labels and advertising of defendant.  155.  Defendant’s labeling and advertising of its Products is consumer-oriented.  156.  Defendant’s representations in its advertising on its website that its Products  are not pasteurized deceived the public into believing its products were not treated in a way  that is reasonably certain to achieve destruction or elimination of the most resistant  microorganisms of public health significance that are likely to occur in the juice.  157.  Defendant’s advertising that its Products are not pasteurized is likely to  mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.  158.  Defendant’s advertising that its Products are not pasteurized is material  because whether or not a Product is pasteurized effects a consumer's decision whether to  purchase the Product.  159.  Plaintiff observed the advertising on defendant’s website indicating that the  Products were not pasteurized prior to purchasing the Product.  160.  Plaintiff relied on Defendant’s advertising that its Products are not  pasteurized.  161.  As a result of Defendant’s advertising that its Products are not pasteurized,  Plaintiff paid more for the Products than he would have paid had he known that the  products  162.  As a result of Defendant’s labeling and advertising, Plaintiff and class  members are entitled to monetary damages, injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement of  all monies obtained by means of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, interest, and attorney’s  fees and costs.    Fraud  176.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.  177.  Defendant represents that the Products are not pasteurized and never heated.  178.  Defendant’s representations that their Products are not pasteurized and  never heated is material because whether or not a product is pasteurized and heated effects  a consumer's decision whether to purchase the product.  179.  Defendant knew their representation that their Products were not  pasteurized was false because Defendant did not include the applicable warning statement  on its Products, which is required where a product is not pasteurized.  180.  Defendant’s claims that its Products are never heated are inconsistent with  the increase in temperature experienced by the Products during the production process.  181.  Defendant does not inform consumers that by using high pressure  processing, its products experience an increase in temperature, become hotter and are  heated.  182.  Defendant believed that since their products were not pasteurized through a  process which caused a direct increase in their product’s temperature, it could accurately  claim their products are never heated.  183.  Defendant knew that their Products were subjected to an increase in  temperature as a result of pasteurization through the application of high pressure, as  opposed to an alternative pasteurization methods, which relies upon causing a direct  increase in a product’s temperature.  184.  Consumers are unlikely to be aware of pasteurization methods which are not  based on causing a direct increase in the temperature of the products.  185.  Defendant’s claims that its products are never heated are made to mislead  consumers to believe its products are not pasteurized.  186.  Defendant intentionally represented that their Products were not pasteurized  and never heated because consumers will pay a premium for products purporting to be  unpasteurized and never heated.  187.  Plaintiff had reason to rely, and did rely, upon Defendant’s representations  that its Products were not pasteurized and never heated.  188.  Plaintiff suffered injury through payment of a premium price for  Defendant’s product as a result of Defendant’s representations that their Products were not  pasteurized and never heated.  189.  As a result of Defendant’s fraud, Plaintiff and class members are entitled to  monetary damages, injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement of all monies obtained by  means of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, interest, and attorney’s fees and costs.  10.  The Products sold in retail locations are identical to those sold from  Defendant’s website.   11.  The Green Juices and the Half Pint Juices have similar packaging, labeling  and advertising with respect to material information disclosed thereupon.   12.  Defendant represents that all Products are “Never heated to preserve  freshness and nutritional value.”   13.  Defendant represents that all Products are “High Pressure Processed.”   14.  Defendant’s website states that “High pressure processing (HPP) is an  alternative to pasteurization.”   15.  Defendant’s website states that “High pressure applied to the outside of the  bottle eliminates any harmful bacteria without ever heating the juice inside.”   16.  Defendant’s website states “Our product is not pasteurized, but it is  pressurized through a unique technology known as high pressure processing (HPP).”   17.  Defendant’s Products are manufactured by using cold-press juicers to  hydraulically extract juice from the produce to which it is applied.   18.  The Products are then subjected to high pressure processing.   19.  To utilize high pressure processing, the juice bottles are loaded into a  cylindrical pressure vessel.   2.  Defendant is a producer and seller of juices bearing the name “Daily  Greens.”   20.  The cylinder is then loaded into a high-pressure chamber.   21.  Water is added to the cylindrical pressure vessel and the vessel is closed.   22.  The contents of the juice bottles are pressurized at levels up to 87,000  pounds per square inch (“psi”) (600) megapascal (“MPa”).   23.  Once the maximum required pressure is achieved, it is sustained for a  specified period.   24.  The pressure is then increased to the processing target pressure.   25.  The product is held at the target pressure for 3 to 10 minutes.   26.  The pressure is applied uniformly in all directions simultaneously.   27.  The act of compression during this process increases the temperature of the  products approximately 3 °C for every 100 MPa.   28.  This increase in temperature results in the juice products becoming hotter.   29.  After the pressure holding time, the pressure is released.   3.  Defendant produces at least two product lines, identified as “Green Juices”  and “Half Pints” (collectively, the “Products”).   30.  Juices which undergo high pressure processing after being cold-pressed  have a shelf life ranging from 30 to 45 days.   31.  Juices which are only produced through the use of a cold-press have a shelf- life from 72 to 96 hours.   32.  In the context of juice products, pasteurization is a processing method that is  reasonably certain to achieve destruction or elimination of the most resistant  microorganisms of public health significance within the juice product.   33.  Defendant’s Products are pasteurized through the application of high  pressure.   34.  As a result of being pasteurized through the application of high pressure,  Defendant’s Products are rendered safer for human consumption than if the Products were  only cold-pressed.   35.  Pasteurization of juice products can be carried out by causing a direct  increase of the temperature of a juice product such that it is reasonably certain to achieve  destruction or elimination of the most resistant microorganisms of public health  significance within the juice product.   36.  Consumers are not generally aware of methods of pasteurization which are  not based on causing a direct increase in the temperature of the juice products.   37.  By describing their products as “never heated,” Defendant is taking  advantage of consumers who associate the absence of a process which causes a direct  increase in temperature of the Products with the non-occurrence of pasteurization.   38.  By describing their products as “not pasteurized,” Defendant is taking  advantage of consumers who lack awareness of other methods of pasteurization which are  not based on causing a direct increase in the temperature of the products.   39.  Where a juice product has not been pasteurized, it is required by law to bear  a warning label informing the consumer of risks associated with its consumption.   4.  Defendant’s Green Juices are available in various flavors and blends, with  the following names:  Harmony – Sweet Greens, Morning Greens – Orange + Probiotics,  Elevate – Smooth Greens, Renew – Hydrating Greens and Vitality – Spicy Greens.   40.  Defendant has knowledge that its Products are pasteurized since its products  do not contain a warning label which would be required if its products were not  pasteurized.     41.  Defendant’s representations of its Products as never heated gives consumers  the impression its products are not pasteurized.   42.  Defendant does not inform consumers that by using high pressure  processing, the temperature of its Products increases, and the Products are not, therefore,  “never heated.”   43.  Defendant labels their Products as “never heated” because consumers  associate such a designation as indicative of a product which has not been pasteurized.   44.  As a result of being pasteurized through the application of high pressure,  Defendant’s Products are not consistent with the claims, representations and warranties  provided by Defendant.    45.  Defendant presents the Products as cold-pressed yet does not disclose their  Products are pasteurized and heated.   46.  Defendant’s representations of its Products as not pasteurized and never  heated imply that its Products contain a greater number of pathogenic microorganisms than  they actually possess.   47.  Defendant does not inform consumers that by using high pressure  processing, its Products are pasteurized and heated.   48.  Defendant markets their Products to the public as unpasteurized and not  heated.   49.  Defendant labels their Products as unpasteurized and not heated because  consumers associate such a designation as indicative of a product which has not been  treated beyond being cold-pressed.   5.  The Green Juices are sold in 12 ounce bottles.   50.  Consumers seek out juice products that are not pasteurized because they  desire a product that has been as minimally processed and treated as possible.     51.  Consumers pay a premium price for juice products that are not pasteurized  due in part to its limited shelf-life.   52.  Consumers seek juice products which are not treated beyond being cold- pressed and therefore contain a greater number of pathogenic microorganisms.   53.  Consumers pay a premium price for unpasteurized and unheated juice  because they desire a product that has been as minimally processed and treated as possible.     54.  By prolonging the expiration date of the product, high pressure processing  can remove the volatility from a low-margin business, because entire batches of cold- pressed juices would no longer need to be discarded after three days.   55.  Defendant possesses superior knowledge vis-à-vis consumers of the  processes by which its products are made.   56.  Consumers cannot discover the true nature of Defendant’s Products from  reading the labels on the Products.   57.  Consumers seek juice products which are not subjected to an increase in  temperature as a result of the production process, beyond the initial cold-pressing of the  juice.   58.  Defendant possesses superior knowledge vis-à-vis consumers of the  processes by which its products are made.   59.  Consumers cannot discover the true nature of Defendant’s Products from  reading the labels on the Products.      JURISDICTION and VENUE   6.  Defendant’s Half Pint Juices are available in various flavors and blends,  with the following names:  Dragon Power, Green Thing and Carrot Kick.   60.  Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 USC § 1332(d)(2).   61.  Upon information and belief, the aggregate amount in controversy is in  excess of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs.   62.  This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant  conducts and transacts business in the State of New York, contracts to supply goods within  the State of New York, and supplies goods within the State of New York.   63.  Venue is proper because Plaintiff and many class members reside in the  Eastern District of New York and Defendant has, at all relevant times, been doing business  in the Eastern District of New York, and throughout the state.   64.  A substantial part of the events or omissions which give rise to the claims  herein occurred in the Eastern District of New York.  7.  The Half Pint Juices are sold in 8 ounce bottles.   75.  Defendant falsely advertises and misrepresents to its consumers, including  Plaintiff and Class Members, through its Products’ packaging, labeling and website,  including Plaintiff and Class Members, that its Products are not pasteurized and never  heated.   76.  These material misrepresentations, mislabeling and omissions induced  Defendant’s consumers, including Plaintiff and Class Members, to purchase the Products at  a premium price.   77.  To their detriment, Plaintiff and Class Members relied on Defendant’s false  and misleading misrepresentations, mislabeling and omissions.   78.  Defendant’s statements and practices are false, deceptive and misleading  because the Products are not never heated and are pasteurized.  79.  Plaintiff brings this matter on behalf of himself and those similarly situated.   As detailed in this complaint, Defendant orchestrated deceptive marketing and labeling  practices.  Defendant’s customers were uniformly impacted by and exposed to this  misconduct.  Accordingly, this Complaint is uniquely situated for class-wide resolution,  including injunctive relief.   8.  Defendant’s Products are sold to consumers at traditional brick-and-mortar  retail locations throughout the country.   80.  The class is defined as all consumers who purchased the Products at any  time during the period within the applicable statute of limitations.   81.  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.   82.  Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable.   Plaintiff believes that there are thousands of consumers who are Class  Members as described above who have been damaged by, inter alia, Defendant’s deceptive  and misleading practices.   83.  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 Defendant is responsible for the conduct alleged herein which was  uniformly directed at all consumers who purchased its Products;  (b) Whether Defendant’s misconduct set forth in this complaint demonstrates  whether Defendant has engaged in unfair, fraudulent, or unlawful business  practices with respect to the advertising, marketing, and sale of its Products;  (c) Whether Defendant’s false and misleading statements concerning its  Products and its concealment of material facts regarding the Products were  likely to deceive reasonable consumers;  (d) Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to injunctive relief; and  (e) Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to money damages under the  same causes of action as the other Class Members.   84.  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’ Products. Plaintiff is entitled to  relief under the same causes of action as the other Class Members.   85.  Plaintiff is an adequate Class representative because his interests do not  conflict with the interests of the Class Members he seeks to represent; his claims are  common to all members of the Class and he has a strong interest in vindicating his rights;  he has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action litigation and  they intend to vigorously prosecute this action.  Plaintiff has no interests which conflict  with those of the Class.  The Class Members' interests will be fairly and adequately  protected by Plaintiff and his counsel.  Defendant has acted in a manner generally  applicable to the Class, making relief appropriate with respect to Plaintiff and the Class  Members.  The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members would create  a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications.   86.  The Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class action  under Rule 23(b) because a class action is superior.   Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), common  issues of law and fact 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, just a narrow focus on Defendant’s  deceptive and misleading product marketing and labeling practices.     87.  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 burdensome, and expensive-if not totally impossible- to justify individual actions;  (c) When Defendant’s 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 assures uniformity of decisions among Class Members;  and  (g) The Class is readily definable and prosecution of this action as a class action  will eliminate the possibility of repetitious litigation.  9.  Defendant’s Products are sold directly to consumers by Defendant from its  website.   97.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   98.  Defendant represents through its website and on its Products that their  products are never heated.   99.  Defendant’s representations that its Products are never heated are not  limited to conduct with respect to Plaintiff and has a broader impact on consumers at-large.  100.  Defendant’s acts or practices are not unique to the parties.  101.  All consumers purchasing Defendant’s products are subject to the same  representations of Defendant.  102.  Defendant’s acts or practices are consumer-oriented.  103.  Defendant’s representations that its Products are never heated deceived the  public into believing the temperature of its Products does not increase.  104.  Defendant’s representations that its Products are never heated are likely to  mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.  105.  Defendant’s representation that its Products are never heated is material  because whether or not a product is heated effects a consumer's decision whether to  purchase the product.  106.  Plaintiff observed the representations that the Products were never heated  prior to purchasing the Products.  107.  Plaintiff relied upon Defendant’s representations.  108.  As a result of Defendant’s representation that its Products were never  heated, Plaintiff paid more for the Products than he would have paid had he known that the  Products were heated and experienced an increase in temperature as a result of the  production process.  109.  As a result of Defendant’s acts and practices, Plaintiff and class members  are entitled to monetary damages, injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement of all monies  obtained by means of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, interest, and attorney’s fees and costs.  TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION  