19.  Sales tax is a consumption tax on the purchase of goods or services assessed by  some states and municipalities.   20.  A retail transaction is only subject to sales tax in the taxing authority where the  goods are delivered.   21.  For example, when a buyer and seller reside in the same state, and the buyer takes  possession of the purchased goods in that state, the sales tax laws of the buyer and seller’s state  govern the transaction.   22.  On the other hand, when the buyer and seller reside in different states, and the seller  delivers the purchased goods from its state to the buyer’s state, the sales tax laws of the buyer’s  state govern the transaction.   23.  Defendants are aware of these tax collection and assessment procedures, laws and  regulations and know how to assess retail sales tax on their clothing sales.   25.  Defendants’ failure to calculate tax based on the buyer’s ship to address is  problematic because many taxing authorities do not charge sales tax, or exempt clothing from sales  tax, on purchases made or shipped to their tax jurisdiction.   26.  As a result, if a consumer purchases Defendants’ clothing from Defendants who,  upon information and belief, are within a jurisdiction that charges sales tax, but the purchase is  delivered into a jurisdiction that does not charge sales tax, Defendants’ payment system  overcharges the consumer in the guise of a sales tax that does not exist in the jurisdiction governing  that transaction.   27.  Upon information and belief, Defendants do not remit this overcharge to the taxing  authority that governs that transaction.   28.  For instance, on or about May 19, 2017, Plaintiff purchased at least 20 separate  items of exempt clothing from Defendants’ website, with each item being priced at less than $110,  which combined, totaled $283.40 before tax.  A copy of the sales invoice for Order No. 68092432  is attached hereto as Exhibit A.3   29.  Plaintiff ordered these items for delivery to her mailing address in New York City,  a jurisdiction exempt from all retail sales tax on clothing items each priced at less than $110.   Exhibit A.   31.  New York City does not charge sales tax on the clothing Defendants sell and  Plaintiff purchased. See NY CLS § 1115(a)(30); Exhibit A.   32.  Despite the exemption, Defendants charged Plaintiff a nonexistent retail sales tax  on these 21 clothing purchases.   33.  For these purchases, Plaintiff paid a total of $306.30, of which Defendants  overcharged her $22.90 in the guise of an ostensible “sales tax.”  Exhibit A.   34.  These funds are not an authorized tax and Plaintiff’s taxing authorities never  authorized Defendants to collect or remit sales tax on these purchases.   35.  This ostensible sales tax was never paid to the New York State Department of  Taxation and Finance.   36.  Instead, upon information and belief, Defendants retained the fraudulently obtained  $22.90, or remitted it to taxing authorities outside of New York, which authorities have no  jurisdiction to assess sales tax on purchases shipped to the exempt jurisdictions in New York and  New York City.   37.  Defendants’ sales tax assessment practices, in effect, are improperly and  fraudulently adding a surcharge to purchases, and are disguising those surcharges as a “sales tax”  that does not exist, and for which Defendants lack authority to collect or remit.   38.  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class will continue to be injured by  Defendants’ conduct as they intend to continue purchasing Defendants clothes.   40.  Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated  Class members under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and seeks to  certify the following Class:  All persons who were or will be assessed retail sales tax on  clothing or footwear purchases from Defendants for items  less than $110, and whose purchases were or will be  delivered to New York State tax jurisdictions that do not  authorize a collection of sales tax on the clothing Defendants  sell.   41.  Excluded from the Class are Defendants, as well as their past and present officers,  employees, agents or affiliates, any judge who presides over this action, and any attorneys who  enter their appearance in this action.   42.  Numerosity.  Members of the Class described above are so numerous that joinder  of all members is impracticable.  The Class is believed to be in the thousands, if not tens or  hundreds of thousands.  The disposition of the individual claims of the respective Class members  will benefit the parties and the Court and will facilitate judicial economy.   43.  Ascertainability.  The Class members are ascertainable through records kept by  Defendants.  Plaintiff and Class members were required to input their personal and financial  information into Defendants’ online store to purchase products from Defendants.  Defendants  record this information and the products the Class members purchased in internal databases.   45.  Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact. This action  involves common questions of law and fact, which predominate over any questions affecting  individual Class members.  These common questions include, but are not limited to, the following:  a. Whether Defendants collected funds from Plaintiff and individual Class  members under a nonexistent tax;  b. Whether Defendants lack authority under the law to collect funds under a  nonexistent tax;  c. Whether Defendants’ illegal and unauthorized collections caused its unjust  enrichment;  d. Whether it would be unjust or inequitable to allow Defendants to retain the ill- gotten taxes; and  e. Whether Defendants converted funds that lawfully belonged to Plaintiff and  the Class members.   46.  Adequacy of Representation.  Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class  because her interests do not conflict with the interests of the Class members.  Plaintiff will fairly,  adequately, and vigorously represent and protect their interests and Plaintiff has no interest  antagonistic to the Class members.  Plaintiff has retained counsel who are competent and  experienced in class action litigation, and who possess specific expertise in consumer class actions.   48.  Plaintiff reserves the right to expand, limit, modify or amend this Class definition,  including the addition of one or more subclasses, in connection with her motion for class  certification, or at any other time, based on, among other things, changing circumstances and new  facts obtained during discovery.  49.  Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.   50.  Defendants’ retention of illegally collected retail sales taxes during the relevant  time period constitutes unjust enrichment.   51.  By paying the taxes ($22.90 in Plaintiff’s case), Plaintiff and the Class benefited  Defendants at their expense and to their detriment.   52.  By charging Plaintiff and individual Class members amounts for an ostensible  sales tax on items for which no such tax exists, Defendants received funds to which they have no  legal right.   54.  It would be inequitable if Plaintiff and individual Class members were not  reimbursed for the amounts Defendants wrongfully took from them.   55.  Therefore, equity and good conscience require restitution of the unlawful taxes  collected by Defendants to Plaintiff and the Class members.  Count II  Conversion   56.  Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.   57.  By its conduct, Defendants have converted and/or misappropriated funds  belonging to Plaintiff and individual Class members.   58.  Defendants had no authority to collect taxes pursuant to the tax jurisdictions in  which Plaintiff and the Class members reside, and the tax jurisdictions in which Defendants’  online orders were processed had no authority to impose sales taxes on Plaintiff and Class  members because the purchases of Plaintiff and the Class members were not made in, or shipped  to, those tax jurisdictions.   59.  As such, Defendants’ collection of sales tax converted the funds of Plaintiff and  the members of the Class.   60.  Defendants have, without proper authorization, assumed and exercised the right  of ownership and control over funds from the illegal taxes remitted by Plaintiff and the members  of the Class.   61.  The illegal taxes charged were properly owned by Plaintiff and the Class  members, not by Defendants.   63.  The conversion of these funds is illegal, unjustified, and intentional, insofar as it  is believed and therefore averred that Defendants had actual knowledge of the regulations of the  taxing authorities in which Plaintiff and the individual Class members reside.   64.  Alternatively, if the conversion was not deliberate, it is the result of Defendants’  recklessness and gross neglect.   65.  This conversion of funds benefitted and continues to benefit Defendants, while  acting to the severe pecuniary disadvantage of Plaintiff and Class members.    66.  Plaintiff and the members of the Class are entitled to the immediate possession or  repossession of the taxes charged to them and paid to Defendants.    67.  Plaintiff and Class members have sustained damages, including monetary losses,  as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conversion of the illegal taxes charged.   68.  Based on Defendants’ wrongful conversion of the illegal taxes charged to Plaintiff  and Class members, Defendants are liable for damages, including all amounts wrongfully  converted, and costs permitted by law.   69.  Defendants should be ordered to remit all illegally taken funds to Plaintiff and    the Class.  Count III  Money Had And Received   70.  Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.   71.  Defendants received the illegal taxes paid by Plaintiff and the Class members.   72.  Defendants benefitted from the receipt of the illegal taxes charged to Plaintiff and  the Class members.   Count I  Unjust Enrichment  