13. Defendant Onity (formerly TESA Security Systems) was founded in 1941 as a lock manufacturer.  14. Onity represents that it has “set the standard” for locking devices with installations of more than 3.7 million locks worldwide since 1984.  15 U.S.C. §§ 2301 ET SEQ.  15. Onity represents that it provides the finest quality in its products. Onity proclaims on its website: “Our products meet International standards, and are designed and built to uncompromising quality approval. From research and development to after- the-sale support, we cover all the stages of providing electronic solutions, to guarantee the finest quality in all our products and services.”  16. Included in the locks defectively designed and sold by Defendant are those produced under the names HT 28 Smart Lock, HT24 Lock, HT RFID, Advanced RFID, Advanced Lock, CodePro, Integra 5 Locking System, and Onity Wireless Lock.  18. In its product brochure, Onity states that its electronic locking products have “the most reliable technology” and the company provides “the most advanced electronic locking systems in the industry today.”  19. Onity purports to guarantee repair or replacement of all of its product parts for any reason.  20. In the “Our Service Commitment” section on its website, Onity states: “No one does this better than Onity! If any Onity product fails to work for any reason, send it to us. We'll either fix the problem or replace it with a new one.” There is no time limitation on this statement.  21. In its product brochure, Onity makes a similar statement. It states: “Onity provides solutions tailor made to each Hotel’s individual needs, including: Guaranteed replacement and repair of system components.”  22. Despite these express representations of being the “most advanced” and the “most reliable” product in the industry today, Onity Locks lack even basic security features and can be opened easily by unauthorized persons due to their defective design.  23. Onity Lock systems are comprised of three main parts. An “encoder” is a device which makes the keycards to be used by the guests. A “portable programmer” is a device which programs the locks with guest code key values, time tables and other guest information. And the “lock” is the actual lock installed on every door.  25. Every Lock’s memory contains data that is used to communicate with the portable Programmer, including the hotel’s sitecode. A sitecode is a 32-bit unique value that identifies and gives access to the hotel room.  26. Onity Locks requires no authentication for reading memory. Thus, any device that emulates the same pulses as a portable programmer can direct the Lock to send data contained in its memory.  27. Normally, one can alleviate the problem of a lock’s memory being readily accessible if the exact location of the sitecode in the memory is found. However, each Onity Lock has its sitecode data at the same address, which allows hackers to uncover the sitecode easily once they read memory from the lock.  28. Once a hacker easily determines a particular lock’s sitecode, the hacker can quickly open a guestroom door by playing this sitecode back to the lock.  29. On July 24, 2012, Cody Brocious, a hacker and software engineer for Mozilla, revealed the Onity Locks’ security flaw described herein at the Black Hat security conference. There, Mr. Brocious demonstrated a hardware hack that allows a simple homemade device, created with readily available and store-bought parts, to read the sitecode out of the Lock’s memory and open the Lock.  31. Following his demonstration at the Black Hat conference, Mr. Brocious posted on his internet blog the detailed schematics for the hacking device. Since then, other hackers have been able to replicate and refine the device, and have posted videos on You Tube explaining the method in detail. Current improvements allow the hacking device to be disguised as a dry erase marker, iPhone cover, or an aluminum wallet, which makes it almost undetectable for most hotels and their security.  32. Shortly after Mr. Brocious’s public demonstration, Onity told the BBC in a statement that “Onity places the highest priority on the safety and security provided by its products and works everyday to develop and supply the latest security technologies to the marketplace,” and that “Onity is prepared to address any potential issues posed by the presentation.” Onity also posted a statement on its website stating that the demonstrated hacking method is “unreliable” and “complex to implement.” This posting has been removed and replaced with just contact information for its customers.  33. Forbes first reported Mr. Brocious’s hacking method on July 23, 2012, the day before the Black Hat conference was held. Shortly thereafter, the story was picked up by other news outlets including CBS, BBC, MSNBC and spread rapidly across the news wires and the internet.  35. According to Forbes, Richard Kindel, a 32 year old call center employee, who was able to assemble his own hacking device using Mr. Brocious’s method, commented on how easy it was to make the device: “The parts list was super simple, so I went to Radio Shack and put it together.”  36. In the same article, another hacker, who goes by the name Mr_Q, claimed that he was able to assemble a similar hacking device using readily available parts for less than $41. Mr_Q told Forbes that the device worked on the first try on five doors at a local hotel. Mr_Q also said that he was worried that the rapid and broad spread of information regarding this method would “allow almost anyone to make one of these devices and start opening doors.”  37. According to a Hotel Online article written by Todd Seiders from Petra Risk Solutions, there have been reported burglaries and thefts by use of these hacking devices in Texas. Similar instances of attempted burglaries that might have been linked to the hacking devices were also reported in Florida. Mr. Seiders concluded the article by emphasizing the need to train and notify the hotel staffs that the burglaries relating to use of these hacking devices are “spreading across the country.”  39. Any applicable statutes of limitations have been tolled by Defendant’s knowing and active concealment and denial of the facts as alleged herein. Defendant has kept Plaintiffs and the Class in ignorance of vital information essential to the pursuit of these claims, without any fault or lack of diligence on their part. Defendant is and was under a continuing duty to disclose the true character, quality, and nature of its locks to Plaintiffs and the Class. Because of its concealment of the true character, quality and nature of its locks, Defendant is estopped from relying on any statute of limitations defense.  42. After news of the Onity Locks’ vulnerabilities were exposed in the media, representatives of Onity visited with representatives of Plaintiffs in October 2012 regarding the defects in the locks and Onity’s “fix” program. Plaintiffs and Defendant discussed the presence of defective locks at each of Plaintiffs’ properties.  43. Onity informed Plaintiffs of the two remedies it was making available – the free mechanical cap “fix” and the replacement circuit boards that Plaintiffs would have to pay for. Onity informed Plaintiffs the replacement circuit boards would cost $11 per lock for a circuit board upgrade to permanently fix the problem. Onity offered a $6 “rebate” on the circuit board fixes for Onity Locks purchased after 2005.  45. The defects in Defendants’ Onity Locks were latent and incapable of detection by Plaintiffs. Thus, Plaintiffs were unaware of any defect in their Onity Locks prior to the hacking issue being reported in a trade journal in 2012. 46. Pursuant to Rules 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs bring this action against Defendant on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. The Class is defined as follows: All entities in the United States that own the following Onity Locks: HT28 Smart Lock, HT24 Lock, HT RFID, Advanced RFID, Advanced Lock, CodePro, Integra 5 Locking System, and Onity Wireless Lock  47. Excluded from the Class are directors and officers of the Defendant or its affiliates, as well as those individuals with a present loss of property claim from the failure of one of Defendant’s products.  48. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the Class definition if discovery and further investigation reveal that the Class should be expanded or otherwise modified.  49. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members would be impracticable. It is estimated that Onity has sold hundreds of thousands of these defective locks in the United States. The precise numbers of members can be ascertained through discovery, which will include Defendant’s sales, warranty service, and other records.  51. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class Members. Plaintiffs and all Class Members have been injured by the same wrongful practices of Defendant. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the same practices and course of conduct that give rise to the claims of the Class Members and are based on the same legal theories.  52. Plaintiffs will fully and adequately assert and protect the interests of the Class, and have retained class counsel who are experienced and qualified in prosecuting class actions. Neither Plaintiffs nor their attorneys have any interests contrary to or conflicting with the Class.  54. Plaintiffs do not anticipate any difficulty in the management of this litigation. Any potential difficulties can be easily managed through sub-classing or other methods. 55. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein and further allege as follows.  56. Defendant is a merchant as defined by applicable U.C.C. provisions and sold Onity Locks directly and indirectly to Plaintiffs and the Class.  57. Defendant expressly warranted that its Onity Locks were free from defects at the time of delivery.  58. Defendant expressly warranted that its products have “the most reliable technology.”  59. Defendant expressly warranted that it provides “the most advanced electronic locking systems in the industry today.”  60. Defendant expressly warranted that if “any” of the products fail to work for “any” reason, it would either “fix the problem” or “replace it with a new one.” There is no time limitation on this statement.  62. These express warranties proclaiming advanced technology, reliability, and a guarantee to fix or repair any problems were a part of the basis of the bargain for Plaintiffs and the Class in purchasing the Onity Locks.  63. Defendant breached these warranties. Onity Locks were not “the most reliable” and “the most advanced” products in the industry as Defendant proclaimed. In fact, Defendant’s Onity Locks were defective and failed to protect from even the simplest hacking tool easily assembled by following instructions posted on the internet.  64. Additionally, Defendant has breached its promises to “fix the problem” or “replace it with a new one” and has refused to offer an acceptable cure. The “solutions” offered by Defendant are wholly inconsistent with its warranties. The first option of blocking the DC docket with a mechanical cap will diminish the value of the lock and cause burden to Plaintiffs. The lock would have to be disassembled every time one needs to use the docket for ordinary purposes, including for emergency access to a guestroom. Moreover, physical cover-up does not “fix” the fundamental defect in the Lock system; it only makes it slightly more difficult for the hackers to hack in. The second option, which requires the customers to pay for the replacement of a defective product, does not amount to a “fix” or “replace” as promised; it is equal to selling a new product to defect victims.  66. Any language in Onity’s warranty that may purport to exclude the exact types of defect that affects Plaintiffs’ and the Class Members’ Onity products is unilaterally imposed in a contract of adhesion that is typically provided after the sale, and is therefore unconscionable and causes the entire warranty to fail of its essential purpose.  67. Defendant has been put on notice of the breach of express warranties by Plaintiffs and the Class through notice provided by Plaintiffs and the Class prior to the filing of this Complaint, as described herein. Moreover, Defendant has been on notice at least since July 23, 2012 due to the wide press coverage on this issue.  68. Plaintiffs and the Class are in privity of contract with Defendant as direct purchasers, recipients of express warranties, and/or third party beneficiaries. In addition, Plaintiffs and their agents have entered into written contracts with Defendant for the purchase and/or repair of Onity Locks.  69. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breaches of its express warranties, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered damages – an economic loss equal to the total purchase price of these unfit products, as well as monies spent and to be spent to fix or alleviate the defect. 71. Defendant is a merchant as defined by applicable U.C.C. provisions and sold Onity Locks directly and indirectly to Plaintiffs and the Class.  72. Defendant impliedly warranted to Plaintiffs and the Class that Onity Locks were fit for the ordinary purpose of locking doors and preventing unauthorized openings.  73. Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability because Onity Locks are incapable of preventing unauthorized openings. As discussed above in detail, Onity Locks lack even the basic protective measures and can be compromised by a simple hacking device, allowing unauthorized intruders to enter at will.  74. Defendant’s Onity Locks failed to conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on their label.  75. Plaintiffs and the Class are in privity of contract with Defendant as direct purchasers, recipients of express warranties, and/or third party beneficiaries. In addition, Plaintiffs and their agents have entered into written contracts with Defendant for the purchase and/or repair of Onity Locks.  76. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of implied warranty, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered damages, including an economic loss equal to the total purchase price of these unfit products, as well as monies spent and to be spent to fix or alleviate the defect. 77. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein and further allege as follows.  78. The Magnuson-Moss Consumer Products Warranties Act, 15 U.S.C.§§ 2301, et seq., provides a private right of action by purchasers of consumer products against manufacturers or retailers who, inter alia, fail to comply with the terms of an express or implied warranty. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1). As demonstrated above, Defendant has failed to comply with the terms of its express and implied warranties with regard to the defective Onity Locks it has sold.  79. Onity Locks are consumer products as that term is defined in § 2301(1) of the Magnuson-Moss Act.  80. Plaintiffs and the members of the Class are consumers, as that term is defined in § 2301(3) of the Magnuson-Moss Act.  82. Plaintiffs and members of the Class notified Defendant of its breach of express warranties prior to the filing of this Complaint, including through attempting to obtain fixes for the defect from Defendant. Moreover, Defendant has been on notice at least since July 2012 due to the wide press coverage on this issue.  83. Defendant was given a reasonable opportunity to cure its failure to comply with express and implied warranties. However, Defendant’s “cures” were inadequate and did not address the defect and injuries complained of herein, either because they did not fix the problem or because Defendant required its customers to pay for them.  84. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breaches of the Magnuson- Moss Act, Plaintiffs and the Class have suffered damages, including economic loss equal to the total purchase price of these unfit products, as well as monies spent and to be spent to fix or alleviate the defects. 85. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein and further allege as follows.  87. Defendant’s misconduct caused Plaintiffs and the Class to purchase Onity Locks to maintain the safety of lodging guests and their property without knowing the locks could be easily picked.  88. The money paid by Plaintiffs and the Class to Defendant for Onity Locks and for fixes for the locks’ defects conferred substantial benefits upon Defendant. Defendant wrongfully accepted and retained these benefits.  89. Under the circumstances described in this Complaint, it would be inequitable and unjust for the Defendant to retain the benefits conferred upon by Plaintiffs and the Class. Defendant should return any ill-gotten gains to Plaintiffs and the Class.  90. Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to receive equitable relief in the form of appropriate restitution and disgorgement of all wrongfully obtained earnings, profits, compensation and benefits obtained by Defendant.