2:16-cv-13060-NGE-SDD   Doc # 1   Filed 08/23/16   Pg 19 of 23    Pg ID 19 20  Connecticut Consumer Protection Act, §§ 42-110 et seq.  (On Behalf of the Connecticut Subclass)   50.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every preceding  allegation as if it is specifically set forth herein.   51.  Defendants engaged in commercial conduct by selling the EpiPens  and placing them into the stream of commerce.   52.  Defendants made misstatements regarding the EpiPens by suggesting  that two were required for effectiveness and that this requirement was the reason  they were selling the two packs only; omitted material information concerning the  EpiPens, such as their effectiveness in single doses and the reason for the two pack  requirements; and engaged in unconscionable, unfair, and/or deceptive acts by  2:16-cv-13060-NGE-SDD   Doc # 1   Filed 08/23/16   Pg 14 of 23    Pg ID 14 15  requiring consumers to buy the EpiPens as two packs. These deceptive and/or  misleading representations regarding EpiPens would have deceived an objectively  reasonable person.   53.  Defendants’ unfair practices offend public policy and are immoral,  unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers.   54.  Plaintiffs and members of the Class would not have purchased the two  packs had they been fully informed regarding the above-referenced policies and  procedures, or only would have done so in light of the risk to their health from  avoiding such purchase.   55.  Defendants profited from the two pack requirement for EpiPens,  which was a thinly veiled mechanism for increasing their price.   56.  Defendants’ concealment of material facts, including the effectiveness  of single EpiPens doses and the actual reason for the two pack requirement,  constitutes unconscionable commercial practices, deception, false pretenses, the  knowing concealment, suppression, or omissions of material facts with the intent  that others would rely on such concealment, suppression, or omission in  connection with the sale of the EpiPens under the substantially similar Consumer  Protection laws of all other states in which Defendants do business.    57.  State legislatures generally enact Unfair Trade and Deceptive  Practices Acts and/or Consumer Protection Acts to protect consumers from  2:16-cv-13060-NGE-SDD   Doc # 1   Filed 08/23/16   Pg 15 of 23    Pg ID 15 16  deceptive, fraudulent, and unconscionable trade and business practices.   Defendants violated these statutes by falsely representing that two doses of  EpiPens were required in order to purportedly justify the Double Pack requirement  and attendant price increase.   58.  Defendants’ acts violate the applicable Unfair Trade and Deceptive  Practices Acts and/or Consumer Protection Acts of all States where Defendants do  business.   59.  Defendants’ acts rise to the level of intentional, willful, and wanton  misconduct and/or gross negligence.   60.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and violations of  the applicable Unfair Trade and Deceptive Practices Acts and/or Consumer  Protection Acts of all States where Defendants do business, Plaintiffs and members  of the Class have suffered actual damages.   61.  Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to recover statutory  penalties, actual, consequential, and punitive damages, equitable and declaratory  relief, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.   62.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above  as if fully set forth herein.  2:16-cv-13060-NGE-SDD   Doc # 1   Filed 08/23/16   Pg 16 of 23    Pg ID 16 17   63.  The Kentucky Consumer Protection Act prohibits “[u]nfair, false,  misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or  commerce.” Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 367.170.   64.  Plaintiff Debra Bailey and members of the Kentucky Subclass  purchased “goods or services primarily for personal, family or household  purposes” as alleged herein.   65.  Defendants engaged in unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts or  practices through the unlawful conduct alleged herein.   66.  As a result of Defendants’ unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts  or practices alleged herein, Plaintiff Debra Bailey and the members of the  Kentucky Subclass have suffered damages and an ascertainable loss of money or  property in an amount to be determined at trial.   67.  Plaintiff Debra Bailey and members of the Class are entitled to  recover statutory penalties, actual, consequential, and punitive damages, equitable  and declaratory relief, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.  68.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above  as if fully set forth herein.  2:16-cv-13060-NGE-SDD   Doc # 1   Filed 08/23/16   Pg 17 of 23    Pg ID 17 18   69.  The  Michigan  Consumer  Protection  Act  prohibits  “Unfair,  unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or practices in the conduct of trade or  commerce.”  MCL § 445.903.   70.  Plaintiffs Anastasia Johnston, individually and on behalf of Claire  Johnston, Claire Johnston, and Karl Thomsen and members of the Michigan  Subclass purchased “goods or services primarily for personal, family or household  purposes” as alleged herein.   71.  Defendants engaged in unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts or  practices through the unlawful conduct alleged herein.   72.  As a result of Defendants’ unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts  or practices alleged herein, Plaintiffs Anastasia Johnston, individually and on  behalf of Claire Johnston, Claire Johnston, and Karl Thomsen and the members of  the Michigan Subclass have suffered damages and an ascertainable loss of money  or property in an amount to be determined at trial.   73.  Plaintiffs Anastasia Johnston, individually and on behalf of Claire  Johnston, Claire Johnston, and Karl Thomsen and members of the Class are  entitled to recover statutory penalties, actual, consequential, and punitive damages,  equitable and declaratory relief, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.  74.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above  as if fully set forth herein.   75.  The New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act prohibits “any person  to use any unfair method of competition or any unfair or deceptive act or practice  in the conduct of any trade or commerce within this state.” N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.  80.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation set forth above  as if fully set forth herein.   81.  The Connecticut Consumer Protection Act prohibits “unfair methods  of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade  or commerce.” Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 42-110b.   82.  Plaintiff Rachel Fernandez, individually and on behalf of minor Hope  Moran, and members of the Connecticut Subclass purchased goods or services  primarily for personal, family or household purposes as alleged herein.   83.  Defendants engaged in unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts or  practices through the unlawful conduct alleged herein.   84.  As a result of Defendants’ unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive acts  or practices alleged herein, Plaintiff Rachel Fernandez, on behalf of herself and  minor Hope Moran, and the members of the Connecticut Subclass have suffered  damages and an ascertainable loss of money or property in an amount to be  determined at trial.   85.  Plaintiff Rachel Fernandez, individually and on behalf of minor Hope  Moran, and members of the Class are entitled to recover statutory penalties, actual,  consequential, and punitive damages, equitable and declaratory relief, costs and  reasonable attorneys’ fees.  2:16-cv-13060-NGE-SDD   Doc # 1   Filed 08/23/16   Pg 20 of 23    Pg ID 20 21  86.  Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs.    87.  Defendants’ conduct described herein was malicious, willful, reckless,  and/or wanton.   88.  Defendants’ financial benefits resulting from their unlawful and  inequitable conduct are economically traceable to their misleading statements  regarding the need for double doses of EpiPens and the reason for their two pack- only sales strategy.    89.  The Class has conferred Defendants an economic benefit nature of ill- gotten profits resulting from unlawful and inequitable conduct to the Class  Members’ detriment.   90.  Defendants’ economic benefit is a direct and proximate result of  Defendants’ unlawful practices and conduct.    91.  It would be inequitable and unjust for Defendants to retain any of the  unlawful gains and/or profits resulting from its unlawful and inequitable conduct.   92.  Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to recover statutory  penalties, actual, consequential, and punitive damages, equitable and declaratory  relief, costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.  Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, KRS §§ 367.110 et seq.  (On Behalf of the Kentucky Subclass)   Michigan Consumer Protection Act, MCL § 445.901 et seq.  (On Behalf of the Michigan Subclass)   New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act, RSA §§ 358-A et seq.  (On Behalf of the New Hampshire Subclass)  2:16-cv-13060-NGE-SDD   Doc # 1   Filed 08/23/16   Pg 18 of 23    Pg ID 18 19   Unjust Enrichment, Restitution, and Disgorgement    Violation of State Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Acts and/or Consumer  Protection Acts   