17.  In June 2007, Defendant FitFlop Ltd. began selling the FitFlop Footwear in the  United States.  At the same time, Defendant launched a major advertising campaign to promote  FitFlop Footwear.   18.  FitFlop Limited, Brand Slam, and Marcia Kilgore produced, designed,  advertised, sold and marketed FitFlop Footwear purchased by United States consumers.  Even  after Defendants established FitFlop USA in 2010, decision-making relating to the advertising,  marketing, design and research and development for FitFlop Footwear continued to be done by  FitFlop Limited, Brand Slam and Marcia Kilgore.   19.  According to testimony by Ms. Kilgore, from the launch until today she is the  person most knowledgeable about FitFlop Footwear’s advertising and marketing materials.   Additionally, Ms. Kilgore creates the content for and personally approves every advertisement  by FitFlop about FitFlop Footwear.     21.  FitFlop’s website describes how Ms. Kilgore – “the FITFLOP boss” – launched  FitFlop: “In 2005 with one booming business under her belt, one in the works [Soap & Glory],  and with time with her kids taking priority over time on the treadmill, Kilgore realised that there  must be thousands of women like her who were looking for the ‘cliff-notes’ version of toning.   Two years, and several rounds of R&D later, she launched FITFLOP.”9       22.  Defendants sell FitFlop Footwear to consumers in the United States through  authorized retailers such as Macy’s, Victoria’s Secret, and Nordstrom.  Beginning in 2012,  Defendants began selling their FitFlop Footwear directly to consumers in the United States  through their ecommerce website as well.   23.  Defendants, led by Marcia Kilgore, maintain strict control over any advertising  for FitFlop Footwear.  Defendants do not permit retailers to create their own advertisements for  FitFlop Footwear.  Retailers are required to use Defendants’ standardized marketing materials  for FitFlop Footwear.     24.  Like their competitors in the so-called “toning shoes” footwear market,  Defendants  claim  that  instability  created  by  FitFlop  Footwear’s  patent-pending  Microwobbleboard™ design (essentially three different densities of foam rubber made of a  chemical called ethylene vinyl acetate (“EVA”)), results in increased toning, increased muscle  activity, and reduction of joint strain.   61.  Pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure, Plaintiff Glaberson brings this action on behalf of herself and members of a Class  defined as:  All persons who purchased FitFlop Footwear in New Jersey until the date notice  is provided to the Class.  Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their  officers, directors and employees, and those who purchased FitFlop Footwear for  the purpose of resale or who assert claims for personal injury.   62.  Numerosity.  The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all  members of the Class is impracticable.  Plaintiff is informed and believes that the proposed  Class contains thousands of purchasers of FitFlop Footwear who have been damaged by  Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein.  The precise number of Class members is unknown to  Plaintiff.  The true number of Class members is known by the Defendants, however, and thus  potential Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action by first class mail,  electronic mail, and/or published notice.   64.  Typicality.  Plaintiff Glaberson’s claims are typical of the claims of the members  of the Class because, inter alia, all Class members were injured through the uniform misconduct  described above, were subject to Defendants’ deceptive statements, including deceptive claims  that accompanied each and every pair of FitFlop Footwear sold.  Plaintiff Glaberson is  advancing the same claims and legal theories on behalf of herself and all members of the Class.   65.  Adequacy of Representation.  Plaintiff Glaberson will fairly and adequately  protect the interests of the members of the Class.  Plaintiff Glaberson has retained highly  competent counsel and experienced class action attorneys to represent her interests and that of  the Class.  Plaintiff Glaberson and her counsel have the necessary financial resources to  adequately and vigorously litigate this class action.  Plaintiff has no adverse or antagonistic  interests to those of the Class.  Plaintiff Glaberson is willing and prepared to serve the Court and  the Class members in a representative capacity with all of the obligations and duties material  thereto and is determined to diligently discharge those duties by vigorously seeking the  maximum possible recovery for Class members.   67.  Unless a Class is certified, Defendants will retain monies received as a result of  its conduct that were taken from Plaintiff Glaberson and Class members.  Unless a class-wide  injunction is issued, Defendants will continue to commit the violations alleged, and the  members of the Class and the general public will continue to be deceived.  69.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the paragraphs above,  as if fully set forth herein.   70.  The Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”) was enacted and designed to protect  consumers against unfair, deceptive and fraudulent business practices. N.J. Stat. Ann. §56:8-1 et.  seq.   71.  N.J. Stat. Ann. §56:8-2 provides:  The act, use or employment by any person of any unconscionable commercial  practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the  knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent  that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection  with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate, or with the  subsequent performance of such person as aforesaid, whether or not any person  has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is declared to be an  unlawful practice . . . .   72.  Plaintiff, other members of the Class, and Defendants are “persons” within the  meaning of the CFA.   74.  Defendants, through their advertisements, used unconscionable commercial  practices, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, and misrepresentation in violation of  the CFA in connection with the marketing of FitFlop Footwear, as alleged above.   75.  Defendants also knowingly concealed, suppressed and consciously omitted  material facts to Plaintiff and other members of the Class knowing that consumers would rely on  the advertisements and packaging to purchase FitFlop Footwear, including by concealing  scientific studies and data that did not support their claims.   76.  The misrepresentations and omissions were material and were intended to,  and likely to, deceive a reasonable consumer.   77.  The foregoing acts, omissions and practices directly, foreseeably and proximately  caused Plaintiff and other members of the Class to suffer an ascertainable loss in the form of,  inter alia, monies spent to purchase FitFlop Footwear, and they are entitled to recover such  damages, together with appropriate penalties, including treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs  of suit.   78.  The CFA is, by its terms, a cumulative remedy, such that remedies under its  provisions can be awarded in addition to those provided under separate statutory schemes.  79.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations contained in the paragraphs above,  as if fully set forth herein.   80.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the Class.   82.  All conditions precedent to Defendants’ liability under this contract have been  performed by Plaintiff and the Class.   83.  Defendants breached the terms of this contract, including the express warranties,  with Plaintiff and the Class by not providing FitFlop Footwear that could provide the benefits  described above.  Such express warranties breached by Defendants include the FitFlop  Footwear representations set forth above, including in ¶¶ 26-29, 31-45, as well as in Exhibits A- E attached to this Complaint.   84.  As a result of Defendants’ breach of their contract, Plaintiff and the Class have  been damaged in the amount of the purchase price of the FitFlop Footwear they purchased.   Breach of Express Warranty   Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act   