(Breach Of Express Warranty)   (Breach Of Implied Warranty Of Merchantability)   (Deceptive Acts Or Practices, New York Gen. Bus. Law § 349)   (False Advertising, New York Gen. Bus. Law § 350)   (Fraud)   (Negligent Misrepresentation)   (Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices in Violation of the California Consumers  Legal Remedies Act)   (Unjust Enrichment)   (Violation Of The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.)   13.  Nothing boosts the prestige (and price) of a food or beverage like the perception  that it is traditional, hand-picked, fresh, or otherwise limited in production.   14.  For example, Whole Foods lists prices for its fruits and vegetables on what appear  to be chalkboards.  The implication is that prices change regularly as if responding to local crop  conditions.  In fact, the prices are permanently printed on the faux chalkboards, which are part of  a marketing strategy meant to “evoke the image of Grapes of Wrath-era laborers piling box after  box of fresh fruit into the store.”   16.  These truffles help dishes “jump off the plate” with an aroma that is captivating.   These fickle cousins of mushrooms have proven impossible to mass produce; they are still dug  up individually by dogs that track their scent.   17.  The truffle stands in stark contrast to our era of convenience: the preservatives in  bread that allow it to stay fresh for weeks and the year-round availability of seasonal fruits and  vegetables.  Admirers contend that the truffle begins to lose its flavor as soon as it is pulled from  the ground, and fresh truffles are seasonal.  The rarity of truffles has made them—at thousands of  dollars per pound for Italy’s prized white truffles—the most expensive food in the world.  In  2007, a Macau casino owner set a record by paying $330,000 for a 3.3-pound truffle unearthed in  Tuscany.   18.  The combination of these two trends—the desire for a convenient, ever-ready  supply of an ingredient, and a hunger for the traditional, the rare, and “real food”—has created  an environment ripe for fraudulent behavior.  This, in turn, led to what seems to be a remarkably  successful scam on foodie culture: truffle oil.   19.  Despite the name, some manufacturers produce “truffle oil” that does not contain  even trace amounts of truffle; it is olive oil mixed with 2,4-dithiapentane, a compound that  makes up part of the smell of truffles and is entirely the product of a laboratory.  Essentially,  truffle oil is olive oil plus a synthetic injection imitating truffles’ famous taste and smell.   21.  What it does contain, however, is 2,4-dithiapentane—a petroleum-based,  synthetically-produced imposter chemical that imitates the distinct taste and smell of real  truffles.    22.  The Material Safety Data Sheet on 2,4-dithiapentane has many cautions and  warnings.  This compound is listed as a flammable, as well as being a severe eye, lung and skin  irritant.  If ingested, this chemical “may cause CNS [central nervous system] depression,” and if  it is inhaled, it can lead to delayed pulmonary edema.     23.  And many consumers are tricked into purchasing what they believe to be truffle  oil because 2,4-dithiapentane is often disguised on truffle oil product labels as “aroma,” “flavor,”  or “essence.”   24.  To make matters worse, according to the New York Times, “one teaspoon of  ‘truffle aroma,’ the amount typically used in an eight-ounce bottle of white truffle oil (black  truffle oil is made with a lesser quantity of the same chemical) costs about 40 cents.”  By  comparison, actual truffles cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars per ounce.   25.  Nonetheless, Monini capitalizes on this trickery to dupe consumers into paying an  enormous price premium for oil that is not flavored by actual truffles.   26.  Monini intentionally designs its packaging so that the words “White Truffle”  appear in large lettering on the front of the Product’s label.  Directly underneath the “White  Truffle” representation is an even bigger picture of actual white truffles.   28.   Reasonable consumers must and do rely on food label representations and  information in making purchasing decisions.     29.  Defendant’s statement that the Product is flavored by “White Truffle” is material  to a reasonable consumer’s purchase decision because reasonable consumers, such as Plaintiffs,  care whether a food product is actually flavored by what Defendant purports, especially when the  product claims to be flavored by “White Truffle,” which carries with it an enormous price  premium.   30.  Defendant markets and advertises the Product as flavored by “White Truffle” to  increase sales derived from the Product.  Defendant is well aware that the “White Truffle” claim  is material to reasonable consumers, and knowingly mislabeled its Product.   31.  Upon information and belief, in making the false, misleading, and deceptive  representations and omissions, Defendant knew and intended that consumers would pay a price  premium for Monini Truffle Oil if it were labeled as flavored by “White Truffle,” a coveted  delicacy.  Indeed, Defendant prominently marked the front packaging of Monini Truffle Oil with  the words “White Truffle” in extra-large font, and even incorporated a massive image of white  truffles directly underneath the words “White Truffle,” precisely because it knew that consumers  like Plaintiffs attach great importance to the presence of white truffle in Monini Truffle Oil.  32.  Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as all persons in the United States who  purchased Monini Truffle Oil (the “Class”).  Excluded from the Class are persons who made  such purchase for purpose of resale.   34.  Plaintiff Burnett also seeks to represent a subclass of all Class members who  purchased Monini Truffle Oil in California (the “California Subclass”).    35.  Members of the Class and Subclasses are so numerous that their individual  joinder herein is impracticable.  The precise number of Class members and their identities are  unknown to Plaintiffs at this time but may be determined through discovery.  Class members  may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail and/or publication through the distribution  records of Defendant and third party retailers and vendors.   37.  The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the Class and  Subclasses in that the named Plaintiffs purchased one or more containers of Monini Truffle Oil.   38.  Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class and Subclasses because their  interests do not conflict with the interests of the Class members they seek to represent, they have  retained competent counsel experienced in prosecuting class actions, and they intend to  prosecute this action vigorously.  The interests of Class members will be fairly and adequately  protected by Plaintiffs and their counsel.   39.  The class mechanism is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the claims of Class and Subclass members.  Each individual Class member may  lack the resources to undergo the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex  and extensive litigation necessary to establish Defendant’s liability.  Individualized litigation  increases the delay and expense to all parties and multiplies the burden on the judicial system  presented by the complex legal and factual issues of this case.  Individualized litigation also  presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments.  In contrast, the class action  device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of single  adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court on the issue of  Defendant’s liability.  Class treatment of the liability issues will ensure that all claims and  claimants are before this Court for consistent adjudication of the liability issues.  41.  Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the  proposed Class, New York Subclass, and California Subclass against Defendant.     42.  Monini Truffle Oil is a consumer product as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2301(1).   43.  Plaintiffs and Class members are consumers as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3).   44.  Defendant is a supplier and warrantor as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2301(4) and (5).   45.  In connection with the sale of Monini Truffle Oil, Defendant issued written  warranties as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2301(6), which warranted that Monini Truffle Oil was, in  fact, flavored by “White Truffle.”   46.  In fact, Monini Truffle Oil is an adulterated product that is not flavored by real  “White Truffle,” but rather is flavored by artificial chemicals that emulate the taste and smell of  real truffles.    47.  By reason of Defendant’s breach of warranty, Defendant violated the statutory  rights due to Plaintiffs and Class members pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15  U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq., thereby damaging Plaintiffs and Class members.   49.  Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   50.  Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the  proposed Class, New York Subclass, and California Subclass against Defendant.   51.  Defendant, as the designer, manufacturer, marketer, distributor, and/or seller,  expressly warranted that Monini Truffle Oil was, in fact, flavored by “White Truffle.”   52.  In fact, Monini Truffle Oil is an adulterated product that is flavored by artificial  chemicals, and not by white truffles.   53.  Plaintiffs and Class members were injured as a direct and proximate result of  Defendant’s violation because (a) they would not have purchased Monini Truffle Oil had they  known that it was flavored by artificial chemicals, and not flavored by “White Truffle,” (b) they  overpaid for Monini Truffle Oil because it is sold at a price premium when compared to similar  products that do not contain this misrepresentation, and (c) Monini Truffle Oil did not have the  characteristics, uses, or benefits as promised, namely that it was flavored by “White Truffle.”  As  a result, Plaintiff and members of the Class have been damaged either in the full amount of the  purchase price of the Monini Truffle Oil or in the difference in value between Monini Truffle Oil  as warranted and Monini Truffle Oil as actually sold.  55.  Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the  proposed Class, New York Subclass, and California Subclass against Defendant.   56.  Defendant, as the designer, manufacturer, marketer, distributor, and/or seller,  impliedly warranted that Monini Truffle Oil was, in fact, flavored by “White Truffle.”   57.  Defendant breached the warranty implied in the contract for the sale of Monini  Truffle Oil because it could not pass without objection in the trade under the contract description,  the goods were not of fair average quality within the description, and the goods were unfit for  their intended and ordinary purpose because Monini Truffle Oil is an adulterated product that is  flavored by artificial chemicals, not “White Truffle.”  As a result, Plaintiffs and Class members  did not receive the goods as impliedly warranted by Defendant to be merchantable.   58.  Plaintiffs and Class members purchased Monini Truffle Oil in reliance upon  Defendant’s skill and judgment and the implied warranties of fitness for the purpose.   59.  Monini Truffle Oil was not altered by Plaintiffs or Class members.     60.  Monini Truffle Oil was defective when it left the exclusive control of Defendant.   61.  Defendant knew that Monini Truffle Oil would be purchased and used without  additional testing by Plaintiffs and Class members.   62.  Monini Truffle Oil was defectively designed and unfit for its intended purpose,  and Plaintiffs and Class members did not receive the goods as warranted.   64.  Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   65.  Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the  proposed Class, New York Subclass, and California Subclass against Defendant.   66.  Plaintiffs and Class members conferred benefits on Defendant by purchasing  Monini Truffle Oil.   67.  Defendant has been unjustly enriched in retaining the revenues derived from  Plaintiffs and Class members’ purchases of Monini Truffle Oil.  Retention of those moneys  under these circumstances is unjust and inequitable because Monini Truffle Oil is an adulterated  product that consists artificial flavoring, not “White Truffle,” and resulted in purchasers being  denied the full benefit of their purchase because they did not purchase a product that was actually  flavored by “White Truffle.”   69.  Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   70.  Plaintiff Jessani brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of  the proposed New York Subclass against Defendant.   71.  By the acts and conduct alleged herein, Defendant committed unfair or deceptive  acts and practices by misrepresenting that Monini Truffle Oil was, in fact, flavored by “White  Truffle.”   72.  The foregoing deceptive acts and practices were directed at consumers.   73.  The foregoing deceptive acts and practices are misleading in a material way  because they fundamentally misrepresent the characteristics of Monini Truffle Oil to induce  consumers to purchase same.   75.  On behalf of himself and other members of the New York Subclass, Plaintiff  Jessani seeks to enjoin the unlawful acts and practices described herein, to recover his actual  damages or fifty dollars, whichever is greater, three times actual damages, and reasonable  attorneys’ fees.  76.  Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   77.  Plaintiff Jessani brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of  the proposed New York Subclass.   78.  Based on the foregoing, Defendant has engaged in consumer-oriented conduct  that is deceptive or misleading in a material way which constitutes false advertising in violation  of Section 350 of the New York General Business Law by misrepresenting the nature of the  ingredients contained in Monini Truffle Oil.     79.  The foregoing advertising was directed at consumers and was likely to mislead a  reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.   80.  This misrepresentation has resulted in consumer injury or harm to the public  interest.   82.  On behalf of himself and other members of the New York Subclass, Plaintiff  Jessani seeks to enjoin the unlawful acts and practices described herein, to recover actual  damages or five hundred dollars per violation, whichever is greater, three times actual damages  and reasonable attorneys’ fees.  83.  Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   84.  Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the  proposed Class, New York Subclass, and California Subclass against Defendant.   85.  As discussed above, Defendant represented that Monini Truffle Oil is, in fact,  flavored by “White Truffle,” but failed to disclose that it is actually an adulterated product that is  flavored by artificial chemicals, not by “White Truffle.”  Defendant had a duty to disclose this  information.   87.  At an absolute minimum, Defendant negligently misrepresented and/or  negligently omitted material facts about Monini Truffle Oil.   88.  The negligent misrepresentations and omissions made by Defendant, upon which  Plaintiffs and Class members reasonably and justifiably relied, were intended to induce and  actually induced Plaintiffs and Class members to purchase Monini Truffle Oil.   89.  Plaintiffs and Class members would not have purchased Monini Truffle Oil if the  true facts had been known.   90.  The negligent actions of Defendant caused damage to Plaintiffs and Class  members, who are entitled to damages and other legal and equitable relief as a result.  91.  Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   92.  Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the  proposed Class, New York Subclass, and California Subclass against Defendant.   93.  As discussed above, Defendant provided Plaintiffs and Class members with false  or misleading material information and failed to disclose material facts about Monini Truffle Oil,  including but not limited to the fact that it is an adulterated product that is flavored by artificial  chemicals, not by “White Truffle.”  These misrepresentations and omissions were made with  knowledge of their falsehood.   95.  The fraudulent actions of Defendant caused damage to Plaintiffs and Class  members, who are entitled to damages and other legal and equitable relief as a result.  96.  Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   97.  Plaintiff Burnett brings this cause of action on behalf of herself and members of  the California Subclass.   98.  This cause of action is brought pursuant to California’s Consumers Legal  Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750-1785 (the “CLRA”).  