36.  Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the following class:  All persons or entities in the United States who made retail purchases of  Products during the applicable limitations period, and/or such subclasses as  the Court may deem appropriate (“the Nationwide Class”).   37.  In the alternative, Plaintiff JOSLIN seeks to represent a class consisting of:  All persons or entities who made retail purchases of the Products in California  during the applicable limitations period, and/or such subclasses as the Court  may deem appropriate (“the California Class”).   38.  Also in the alternative, Plaintiff DAVIS seeks to represent a class consisting  of:  All persons or entities who made retail purchases of the Products in New York  during the applicable limitations period, and/or such subclasses as the Court  may deem appropriate (“the New York Class”).   50.  Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations  contained in all preceding paragraphs, and further allege as follows:   51.  Plaintiffs brings this claim individually and on behalf of the other members of  the Nationwide Class for Defendant’s violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies  Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq., including § 1761(d).   52.  Alternatively, should the Court not certify Plaintiffs’ proposed Nationwide  Class, Plaintiff JOSLIN brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the  California Class for Defendant’s violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act  (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq., including § 1761(d).   53.  Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class and California Class are  consumers who purchased the Products for personal, family or household purposes.  Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class and California Class are “consumers” as  that term is defined by the CLRA in Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(d). Plaintiffs and the members  of the Nationwide Class and California Class are not sophisticated experts with  independent knowledge of corporate branding, labeling and marketing practices.    62.  Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations  contained in all preceding paragraphs, and further allege as follows:   63.  Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the other members of  the Nationwide Class for Defendant’s violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law  (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.   72.  Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein by reference the allegations  contained in all preceding paragraphs, and further allege as follows:   73.  Plaintiffs brings this claim individually and on behalf of the other members of  the Nationwide Class for Defendant’s violations of California’s False Advertising Law  (“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.   74.  Alternatively, should the Court not certify Plaintiffs’ proposed Nationwide  Class, Plaintiff JOSLIN brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the  California Class for Defendant’s violations of California’s False Advertising Law  (“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.   75.  Under the FAL, the State of California makes it “unlawful for any person to  make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated before the public in this state, …  in any advertising device … or in any other manner or means whatever, including over the  Internet, any statement, concerning … personal property or services, professional or  otherwise, or performance or disposition thereof, which is untrue or misleading and which  is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or  misleading.”   81.  Plaintiff DAVIS realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations  contained in all preceding paragraphs, and further alleges as follows:   82.  Plaintiff DAVIS brings this claim individually and on behalf of the other  members of the New York Class for an injunction for violations of New York’s Deceptive  Acts or Practices Law, General Business Law (“NY GBL”) § 349.   83.  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.”   84.  Under the New York Gen. Bus. Code § 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)).   91.  Plaintiff DAVIS realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations  contained in all preceding paragraphs, and further alleges as follows:   98.  This claim is brought on behalf of Plaintiff DAVIS and members of the New  York Class against Defendant.   DAMAGES AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK  GENERAL BUSINESS LAW §§ 350 AND 350-a(1)  (FALSE ADVERTISING)  (brought individually and on behalf of the New York Class)   DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK DECEPTIVE AND  UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT   (New York General Business Law § 349)  (Brought Individually and on Behalf of the New York Class)   Defendant’s Products Do Not Contain Real White Chocolate   INJUNCTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK DECEPTIVE AND  UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT   (New York General Business Law § 349)  (Brought Individually and on Behalf of the New York Class)   VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW,  (California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.)  (brought individually and on behalf of the Nationwide Class, in conjunction with the  substantively similar consumer protection laws of the other states and the District of  Columbia to the extent California law is inapplicable to out-of-state Class members,  or, in the alternative, on behalf of the California Class).   VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA’S CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT,  (Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.)  (brought individually and on behalf of the Nationwide Class, in conjunction with the  substantively similar consumer protection laws of the other states and the District of  Columbia to the extent California law is inapplicable to out-of-state Class members,  or, in the alternative, on behalf of the California Class)   VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S FALSE ADVERTISING LAW,  (California Business & Professions Code § 17500, et seq.)  (Brought Individually and on behalf of the Nationwide Class, in conjunction with  the substantively similar consumer protection laws of the other states and the  District of Columbia to the extent California law is inapplicable to out-of-state Class  members, or, in the alternative, on behalf of the California Class).  