(Violation of M.G.L. c. 93A on behalf of Plaintiff and the Classes)   13.  Defendant provides cameras and other equipment for rent for various  periods of time to its customers.    14.  To rent equipment from Defendant, customers go to the  www.lensprotogo.com website, select the equipment they want to rent, select the  dates/number of days they want to rent the equipment and select to either have the  equipment shipped to them or to pick up the equipment at a participating store.   15.  Defendant’s website prominently and repeatedly advertised and  represented that it would ship all of the rented equipment for “FREE”.    17.  On September 18, 2019, Plaintiff visited Defendant’s website to rent a  Canon camera from September 23-27, 2019. During the process, Defendant’s website  indicated that he had the choice to either (i) pick up the rental at a store, or (ii) have  the camera shipped to his home. Defendant’s website indicated that either option  included “FREE SHIPPING”. Plaintiff chose the shipped to home option.   24.  Defendant was renting that same camera, for the same period of time,  for $120 plus tax (instead of the $155 plus tax charged to Plaintiff) for a customer  who picked up the camera at a participating shop. As a result, Defendant in fact  charged Plaintiff $35.00 more for the camera he rented solely because Plaintiff had the  camera shipped to his home. In other words, the Defendant in fact charged the  Plaintiff $35.00 for the camera to be shipped to his home, despite Defendant’s  repeated promises and representations that shipping was “FREE”.   25.  This demonstrates that shipping was not in fact “FREE” as Defendant  prominently and repeatedly claimed on its website. Rather, Defendant had included  the cost of shipping within the higher price of the rental itself while still telling  customers that shipping was “FREE”. As a result of this unfair, deceptive and  misleading practice, Plaintiff paid $35.00 for shipping which Plaintiff had promised  would be “FREE”.   27.  The Defendant charged the Plaintiff $35.00 to ship the camera to him. It  was an unfair and deceptive practice, in violation of c. 93A, § 2, for the Defendant to  do so.    28.  Defendant’s practice of advertising FREE SHIPPING but charging  more for shipped items was not limited to Plaintiff.  Defendant universally advertised  FREE SHIPPING on all its equipment rentals on its website for all customers and  then charged those customers who chose to have the equipment shipped to them a  higher price for the rentals than it charged customers who chose to pick up the  equipment. Defendant charged all it customers who had the equipment shipped to  them for shipping despite its repeated and consistent representations that it was  providing “FREE SHIPPING”. Plaintiff’s claim and the claim of all members of the  proposed Classes arise from a single course of conduct engaged in by Defendant.   29.  Defendant made the false and misleading representations that its rentals  included FREE SHIPPING from its headquarters in Massachusetts.   30.  Defendant decided and determined to make its false and misleading  representations that its rentals included FREE SHIPPING at Defendant’s  headquarters in Massachusetts.   32.  Defendant’s unfair, false, deceptive and misleading practices of  representing all its rentals as including FREE SHIPPING and charging more for  shipped rentals did not vary based on where the customer lived or had the rental  shipped to them.  33.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations  contained in the paragraphs above.   34.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure  23 and G.L. c. 93A, §§ 2, 9, on behalf of himself and a class (the “Nationwide Class”)  of:   All persons in the United States who have rented equipment from  Defendant and who selected the shipping delivery option, between  August 18, 2016 and the date, presently unknown to Plaintiff, when  LensPro ceased making the false representation on its website that  shipping was free.   36.  The Nationwide Class and Massachusetts Subclass are referred to herein  as the “Classes”.   37.  Excluded from the Classes is Defendant and its officers, directors,  partners, employees, any affiliated companies or entities Defendant controls.    38.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the definition of the Classes.   39.  This action is properly maintainable as a class action.   40.  Plaintiff is similarly situated to the members of the Classes because, like  each member of the Classes, Plaintiff rented equipment that was represented as  having FREE SHIPPING when in fact Defendant charged Plaintiff and the members  of the Classes for shipping.   41.  Tens of thousands of consumers have rented equipment from  Defendant through Defendant’s website which is accessible to consumers throughout  the United States.  The Defendant has told Plaintiff, through counsel, that Defendant  has rented cameras and other equipment to over 3,500 customers located in  Massachusetts since October 2015. See Exhibit B at 5. The members of the Classes are  so numerous that joinder of all members would be impractical.   48.  Plaintiff incorporates the forgoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   49.  At all relevant times, Defendant was engaged in trade or commerce  within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.   51.  As alleged above, Defendant conducted these actions from its  headquarters in Massachusetts, and therefore it is liable under 93A to all members of  the Nationwide Class regardless of whether they reside in or received the rental in  Massachusetts.    52.  Defendant’s conduct was objectively false, misleading and deceptive, and  had the capacity to deceive reasonable consumers under the circumstances. The fact  that Defendant charged more for rentals when a customer selected the FREE  SHIPPING option was a material fact that a reasonable consumer would attach  importance at the time of purchase.   54.  The violations of Chapter 93A by Defendant in connection with its  representing rentals as including FREE SHIPPING as described herein were done  willfully, knowingly, and in bad faith.   55.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct in connection  with its false, misleading and deceptive FREE SHIPPING representations alleged  herein, Plaintiff and the Classes were injured.   57.  On October 18, 2019, Plaintiff, through counsel, sent a demand letter  (the “Demand Letter”), pursuant to G.L. c. 93A, to Defendant regarding its unfair,  false, deceptive and misleading representations to customers that all equipment rentals  came with FREE SHIPPING when in fact Defendant charged a higher price for  shipped rentals. The Demand Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A.   58.  In the Demand Letter, Plaintiff demanded relief under c. 93A for  himself and all customers of Defendant in the United States to whom Defendant had  shipped the rented equipment.  Plaintiff demanded that Defendant pay each such  customer in the amount that customer had paid Defendant for shipping the  equipment, or the minimum $25 statutory damages under c. 93A, whichever was  greater.     59.  On November 15, 2019, Defendant, through counsel, responded to  Plaintiff’s demand letter (the “Response Letter”).  A copy of the Response Letter is  attached hereto as Exhibit B.   61.  As a result of the conduct described herein, Defendant violated Chapter  93A and is liable to Plaintiff and the members of the Classes for the amount  Defendant charged each of them for shipping, or $25, whichever is greater.     Defendant’s False and Misleading Representations of “FREE  SHIPPING”  