22.  Upon information and belief, almost all corn grown in the United States is grown  from seeds that have been genetically modified (commonly referred to as genetically modified  organisms, or, for short, “GMOs”), and as such, almost all corn and corn-based ingredients in the  United States are in fact unnatural, synthetic, artificial, and/or genetically modified ingredients.    24.  As a result, Defendant’s “All Natural” claim, which is uniformly, consistently,  and prominently displayed on the front of each individual packaging of the Products, is untrue,  misleading, and likely to deceive reasonable consumers, such as Plaintiff and members of the  Class.   25.  Defendant unlawfully markets, advertises, sells, and distributes the Products to  Florida purchasers in grocery stores, food chains, mass discounters, mass merchandisers, club  stores, convenience stores, drug stores, and/or dollar stores as being “All Natural.”    26.  At all material times hereto, Defendant sells the Products at a premium price,  above other similar products in the marketplace that do not claim to be “All Natural.”     27.  Plaintiff and members of the Class were charged a price premium for the  Products, over and above other products that do not claim to be “All Natural.”  A. Defendant’s False and Misleading Advertising is Likely to Deceive Reasonable  Consumers   28.  Defendant’s false and misleading representations and omissions are likely to  deceive Plaintiff and other reasonable consumers.   29.  Reasonable consumers rely on food label representations and information in  making purchase decisions.     30.  Defendant’s statement that the Products are “All Natural,” is material to a  reasonable consumer’s purchase decision, because reasonable consumers, such as Plaintiff and  members of the Class, care whether food products contain unnatural, synthetic, artificial, and/or  genetically modified ingredients, especially when a product claims to be “All Natural.”   32.  According to Consumers Union, “Eighty-six percent of consumers expect a  ‘natural’ label to mean processed foods do not contain any artificial ingredients.”  See Notice of  the Federal Trade Commission, Comments of Consumers Union on Proposed Guides for Use of  Environmental  Marketing  Claims,  16  CFR  §  260,  Dec.  10,  2010,  http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/greenguiderevisions/00289-57072.pdf (last visited Jan. 3,  2014).   33.  Defendant markets and advertises the Products as “All Natural,” to increase sales  derived from the Products.  Defendant is well-aware that claims of food being “All Natural” are  material to reasonable consumers.     34.  Plaintiff and the other Class members reasonably relied to their detriment on  Defendant’s misleading representations and omissions.     35.  Plaintiff and the other Class members were among the intended recipients of  Defendant’s deceptive representations and omissions.     36.  Upon information and belief, Defendant made the deceptive representations and  omissions regarding the Products with the intent to induce Plaintiff’s and the other Class  members’ purchase of the Products.     37.  Defendant’s representations and omissions are material in that a reasonable  person would attach importance to such information and would be induced to act upon such  information in making purchase decisions.     39.  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 the Products over comparable products that are not labeled “All Natural,” furthering  Defendant’s private interest of increasing sales for the Products, and decreasing the sales of  products by Defendant’s competitors that do not claim to be “All Natural.”   41.  Had Defendant not made the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and  omissions, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have been economically injured  because Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased the Products.     42.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered injury in fact  and lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct.    43.  Plaintiff and the other Class members did not obtain the full value of the  advertised Products due to Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions.     44.  Plaintiff and the other Class members purchased, purchased more of, or paid more  for the Products than they would have done had they known the truth about the Products.   B. Plaintiff’s Reliance and Damages   46.  All of Defendant’s Products are advertised and sold as “All natural,” in a  substantially similar manner, on their front packaging and labeling, despite the fact that the same  contain unnatural, artificial, synthetic, and/or genetically modified ingredients.   47.  Upon information and belief, all of the unnatural, artificial, synthetic, and/or  genetically modified ingredients included in the Products that are at issue herein are substantially  similar to each other, in that they are all corn or corn-based substances.   48.  The Products purchased by Plaintiff claimed to be “All Natural” on the front  packaging, which Plaintiff perceived, read and relied on in making Plaintiff’s purchase.     50.  Plaintiff interpreted the “All Natural” claim to mean that the Products did not  contain unnatural, synthetic, artificial, or genetically modified ingredients.     51.  Subsequent to purchasing the Products, Plaintiff discovered that they are not “All  Natural” because of the presence of unnatural, synthetic, artificial, and/or genetically modified  ingredients.   52.  Plaintiff and members of the Class paid a price premium for the Products because  the Products claimed to be “All Natural.”    53.  Plaintiff and members of the Class would not have purchased the Products had  they known that they contained ingredients that are not “All Natural.”   54.  Likewise, if Plaintiff and members of the Class had known the Products contained  unnatural, synthetic, artificial, and/or genetically modified ingredients, they would not have  purchased them.     55.  As a result, Plaintiff and members of the Class have suffered economic damages  as a result of purchasing the Products that claim to be “All Natural” because the Products contain  unnatural, synthetic, artificial, and/or genetically modified ingredients.   56.  The Products are valueless, worth less than what Plaintiff and members of the  Class paid for them, and/or are not what Plaintiff and members of the Class reasonably intended  to receive.     57.  Plaintiff and the Class seek damages equal to the aggregate purchase price paid  for the Products during the Class Period, and injunctive relief described below.    59.  Pursuant to Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff brings this class  action and seeks certification of the claims and certain issues in this action on behalf of a Class  defined as:  All Florida residents who have purchased for personal use one  or more of the Products, from January 16, 2009, through and  to the date Notice is provided to the Class.   60.  Plaintiff respectfully reserves the right to amend the Class definition if further  investigation and discovery indicates that the Class definition should be narrowed, expanded, or  otherwise modified.  Excluded from the Class are governmental entities, Defendant, any entity in  which Defendant has a controlling interest, and Defendant’s officers, directors, affiliates, legal  representatives, employees, co-conspirators, successors, subsidiaries,  and assigns.  Also  excluded from the Class is any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter and  the members of their immediate families and judicial staff.      61.  Defendant’s practices and omissions were applied uniformly to all members of  the Class, including any subclass, so that the questions of law and fact are common to all  members of the Class and any subclass. All members of the Class and any subclass were and are  similarly affected by the deceptive advertising for the Products, and the relief sought herein is for  the benefit of Plaintiff and members of the Class and any subclass.    62.  Based on the annual sales of the Products and the popularity of the Products, it is  readily apparent that the number of consumers in both the Class and any subclass is so large as to  make joinder impractical, if not impossible.    65.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  members of the Plaintiff Class and any subclass.    66.  Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in both consumer  protection and class action litigation.    67.  Certification of this class action is appropriate under Rule 23, Federal Rules of  Civil Procedure, because the questions of law or fact common to the respective members of the  Class and any subclass predominate over questions of law or fact affecting only individual  members.  This predominance makes class litigation superior to any other method available for a  fair and efficient decree of the claims.     68.  Absent a class action, it would be highly unlikely that the representative Plaintiff,  or any other members of the Class or any subclass, would be able to protect their own interests  because the cost of litigation through individual lawsuits might exceed expected recovery.    69.  Certification also is appropriate because Defendant acted, or refused to act, on  grounds generally applicable to both the Class and any subclass, thereby making appropriate the  relief sought on behalf of the Class and any subclass as respective wholes.    70.  Further, given the large number of consumers of the Products, allowing individual  actions to proceed in lieu of a class action would run the risk of yielding inconsistent and  conflicting adjudications.    72.  The benefits of proceeding as a class action, including providing a method for  obtaining redress for claims that would not be practical to pursue individually, outweigh any  difficulties that might be argued with regard to the management of this class action.  73.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the  preceding paragraphs numbered one (1) through seventy two (72) of this Complaint as if fully set  forth herein verbatim.   74.  This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair  Trade Practices Act, Sections 501.201 to 501.213, Florida Statutes.    75.  The express purpose of FDUTPA is to “protect the consuming public...from those  who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or  practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” FLA. STAT. § 501.202(2).   76.   Section 501.204(1), Florida Statutes declares as unlawful “unfair methods of  competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the  conduct of any trade or commerce.”   77.  The sale of the Products at issue in this cause was a “consumer transaction”  within the scope of FDUTPA.   78.  Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by Section 501.203, Florida Statutes.     80.    Defendant’s unfair and deceptive practices are likely to mislead – and have  misled – reasonable consumers, such as Plaintiff and members of the Class, and therefore,  violate Section 500.04, Florida Statutes.   81.  Defendant has violated FDUTPA by engaging in the unfair and deceptive  practices described above, which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous  and substantially injurious to consumers.     82.  Specifically, Defendant has represented that the Products are “All Natural,” when  in fact, the Products contain unnatural, synthetic, artificial, and/or genetically modified  ingredients, including, but not limited to, White Corn, Corn Oil, and/or Toasted Corn Germ.   83.  Plaintiff and Class Members have been aggrieved by Defendant’s unfair and  deceptive practices in violation of FDUTPA, in that they purchased and consumed Defendant’s  mislabeled Products.    84.  Reasonable consumers rely on Defendant to honestly represent the true nature of  its ingredients.    85.  Defendant has deceived reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff and the Class, into  believing the Products were something they were not; specifically that they are “All Natural.”   86.  The knowledge required to discern the true nature of the Products is beyond that  of the reasonable consumer—namely that the Products do or do not contain unnatural, synthetic,  artificial, and/or genetically modified ingredients.   87.  Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages and are entitled to injunctive relief.   89.  Plaintiff seeks all available remedies, damages, and awards as a result of  Defendant’s violations of FDUTPA.  90.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in the  preceding paragraphs numbered one (1) through seventy two (72) of this Complaint as if fully set  forth herein verbatim.   91.  Defendant has negligently represented that the Products are “All Natural.”    92.  Defendant has represented that the Products are “All Natural,” when in fact, the  Products contain unnatural, synthetic, artificial, and/or genetically modified ingredients,  including, but not limited to, White Corn, Corn Oil, and/or Toasted Corn Germ.   93.  Defendant has misrepresented a material fact to the public, including Plaintiff and  Class Members, about the Products.   94.  The Products are marketed directly to consumers by Defendant, come in sealed  packages, and do not change from the time they leave Defendant’s possession until they arrive in  stores to be sold to consumers.   96.  Defendant has omitted the fact that the Products contain unnatural, synthetic,  artificial, and/or genetically modified ingredients in the Products, despite claiming that the  Products are “All Natural.”    97.  Defendant knew or should have known that these misstatements or omissions  would materially affect Plaintiff’s and Class members’ decisions to purchase the Products.   98.  Plaintiff and other reasonable consumers, including the Class members,  reasonably relied on Defendant’s representations set forth herein, and, in reliance thereon,  purchased the Products.     FOR VIOLATIONS OF FLORIDA’S DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES  ACT, FLA. STAT. §§ 501.201, ET SEQ.   NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION  