11.  In or around May 2011 through December 2011, Plaintiff Frank Ortega  purchased Cobra from CVS in Reseda, Los Angeles County, California and from Rite- Aid and Target stores located in Northridge, California. The cost was approximately $16- $17 per bottle.   12.  Mr. Ortega first discovered Defendants’ unlawful acts described herein in  December 2012, when he learned that the Defendants’ Product violates the FDCA and its  implementing regulations and that the labels were untrue and/or misleading.   13.  Plaintiff Troy Lambert purchased Cobra from the Rite-Aid located at 300  East Willow Street in Long Beach, California approximately ten times. His most recent  purchase was in November 2012. The cost was approximately $16-17 per bottle.   14.  Mr. Lambert first discovered Defendants’ unlawful acts described herein in  2  98.  Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly  situated (the “Class”) in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   99.  The Class is defined as:  All persons (excluding officers, directors, and employees of NBI and  NIC) who purchased, on or after January 1, 2006, Defendants’ Cobra  Products (in all packaging sizes and iterations) in the United States for  their own use rather than resale or distribution.  100. Questions of law and fact common to Plaintiffs and the Class include:  20  Violations of the Unfair Competition Law, Unfair and Fraudulent Prongs  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.,  116. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations elsewhere in the Complaint  as if set forth in full herein.  117. California Business and Professional Code § 17200 prohibits any “unlawful,  unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.”  118. The acts, omissions, misrepresentations, practices, and non-disclosures of  Defendants as alleged herein also constitute “unfair” business acts and practices under the  UCL in that Defendants’ conduct is immoral, unscrupulous, and offends public policy by  seeking to profit from male vulnerability to false or deceptive virility or aphrodisiac  claims. Further, the gravity of Defendants’ conduct outweighs any conceivable benefit of  such conduct.  119. The acts, omissions, misrepresentations, practices, and non-disclosures of  Defendants as alleged herein constitute “fraudulent” business acts and practices under the  UCL in that Defendants’ claims are false, misleading, and have a tendency to deceive the  Class and the general public, as detailed herein.  120. In accordance with Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203, Plaintiffs seek an order  enjoining Defendants from continuing to conduct business through unlawful, unfair,  and/or fraudulent acts and practices, and to commence a corrective advertising campaign.   121. Plaintiffs further seek an order for the disgorgement and restitution of all  monies from the sale of the Defendants’ Product, which were acquired through acts of  unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent competition.  / / /  / / /  / / /  / / /  24  Violations of the Unfair Competition Law, Unlawful Prong  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.,  109. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations elsewhere in the Complaint  as if set forth in full herein.   110. California Business and Professional Code § 17200 prohibits any “unlawful,  unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.”  111. The acts, omissions, misrepresentations, practices, and non-disclosures of  Defendants as alleged herein constitute “unlawful” business acts and practices in that  Defendants’ conduct violates the False Advertising Law, the Consumer Legal Remedies  Act, and the Lanham Act.  112. Defendants’ conduct is further “unlawful” because it violates the FDCA and  its implementing regulations in the following ways:   a.  Defendants’ deceptive statements violate 21 U.S.C. §§ 343(a) and 352,  which deem a food or drug (including nutritional supplements) misbranded  when the label contains a statement that is “false or misleading in any  particular;”  b.  Defendants’ deceptive statements violate 21 C.F.R. § 101.14(b)(3)(i), which  mandates “substances” in dietary supplements consumed must contribute  and retain “nutritive value,” as defined under 21 C.F.R. § 101.14(a)(2)(3)  when consumed at levels necessary to justify a claim;  22  Violations of the False Advertising Law,  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq.  122. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations elsewhere in the Complaint  as if set forth in full herein.  123. In violation of California Business and Professional Code § 17500 et seq.,  the advertisements, labeling, policies, acts, and practices described herein were designed  to, and did, result in the purchase and use of Cobra.   124. Defendants knew and reasonably should have known that the labels on the  Defendants’ Product were untrue and/or misleading.  125. As a result, Plaintiffs, the Class, and the general public are entitled to  injunctive and equitable relief, restitution, and an order for the disgorgement of the funds  by which Defendants were unjustly enriched.  Violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,  Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.  126. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate the allegations elsewhere in the Complaint  as if set forth in full herein.  127. The CLRA prohibits deceptive practices in connection with the conduct of a  business that provides goods, property, or services primarily for personal, family, or  household purposes.  128. Defendants false and misleading labeling and other policies, acts, and  practices were designed to, and did, induce the purchase and use of the Defendants’  Products for personal, family, or household purposes by Plaintiffs and class members,  and violated and continue to violate the following sections of the CLRA:  a. § 1770(a)(5): representing that goods have characteristics, uses, or benefits  which they do not have.  25 