12.  Samsung is one of the largest manufacturers of “Smart TVs,” which offer  built-in internet connectivity, allow for web browsing, the installation of applications, and  other advanced features. Samsung’s Smart TVs command a premium price of up to $200  over TVs without any “smart” capabilities.2   13.  In step with their added features, Samsung’s Smart TVs became harder to  control with traditional television remotes. In response, Samsung developed an advanced  remote control for its line of Smart TVs. But in Samsung’s haste to design a new remote, it  developed a product plagued with a potentially hazardous defect.   14.  Starting in at least 2011, Samsung began selling the BN59-01134B remote  (“Qwerty Remote”) with some of its Smart TVs, such as the $3,799.99 Samsung  UN60D7000 60-inch Smart TV.3 Samsung increased the price of its Smart TVs that included  the Qwerty Remote, meaning consumers paid a premium over other televisions to obtain the  Remote.4   2   Smart TVs: Not Such A Smart Idea | Techdirt, https://www.techdirt.com/blog/  innovation/articles/20120221/03352017827/smart-tvs-not-such-smart-idea.shtml (last visited  Feb. 26, 2015) (stating that “the ‘smart’ factor” of Smart TVs “runs between $70 and  $200.”).   3   Amazon.com: Samsung UN60D7000 60-Inch 1080p 240Hz 3D LED HDTV (Silver):  Electronics, http://web.archive.org/web/20111029165746/http://www.amazon.com/  Samsung-UN60D7000-60-Inch-1080p-Silver/dp/B004QFGGTY (last visited Feb. 26, 2015).  4   For example, Samsung’s UN60D6400 60-inch Smart TV did not include the Qwerty  remote and had a price of $2,697.99 in January 2012—$300 less than the Samsung  UN60D7000 that included the remote at a price of $2,997. See UN60D6500 - Samsung 60”  Series 6 LED Black Flat Panel LCD HDTV at Abt, http://web.archive.org/web/  20120113111612/http://www.abt.com/product/55144/Samsung-UN60D6500.html (last  visited Feb. 26, 2015); UN60D7000 - Samsung 60” 3D Series 7 LED Silver Flat Panel  HDTV at Abt, http://web.archive.org/web/20120116131349/http://www.abt.com/product  /53498/Samsung-UN60D7000.html (last visited Feb. 26, 2015). Some time later, Samsung  Case3:15-cv-00885   Document1   Filed02/26/15   Page4 of 25 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  45.  Class Definition: Plaintiff Bravo brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule  of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of himself and a Class and Subclass  of similarly situated individuals defined as follows:   Class: All individuals and entities in the United States who purchased a BN59- 01134B remote control or who purchased a Samsung television packaged with a  BN59-01134B remote control.  Case3:15-cv-00885   Document1   Filed02/26/15   Page12 of 25 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  53.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set  forth herein.   54.  The Qwerty Remotes are consumer products as defined in 15 U.S.C.  § 2301(1) because they are tangible personal property distributed in commerce and are  normally used for personal or household purposes.   55.  Plaintiff and members of the Class are consumers as defined in 15 U.S.C.  § 2301(3).   56.  Defendant is a supplier and warrantor as defined in 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301(4) and  (5) because it is in the business of making consumer products (e.g., its Qwerty Remotes and  Smart TVs) directly or indirectly available to consumers, and because it has issued written  Case3:15-cv-00885   Document1   Filed02/26/15   Page15 of 25 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  63.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set  forth herein.   64.  The Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) applies to Defendant’s  actions and conduct as described herein because it extends to transactions that are intended to  result, or which have resulted, in the sale of goods or services to consumers.   65.  Defendant is a “person” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(c).   66.  Plaintiff and each member of the Subclass are “consumers” as defined by Cal.  Civ. Code § 1761(a).    67.  Defendant’s Qwerty Remotes are “goods” within the meaning of Cal. Civ.  Code § 1761(a).   68.  As described herein, Defendant failed to disclosed the Qwerty Remote’s  Battery Defect to Plaintiff and the members of the Subclass in violation of Cal. Civ. Code  §§ 1750, et seq.   69.  Defendant, acting with knowledge, intentionally and unlawfully brought harm  upon Plaintiff and the Subclass by omitting from its advertisements, marketing, and  documentation any statement that it designed and/or manufactured the Qwerty Remotes with  the Battery Defect that created a safety risk by creating excessive heat which then caused  batteries to leak hazardous substances.   70.  Defendant knew that its Qwerty Remotes suffered from an inherent defect,  were defectively designed and manufactured, would fail prematurely, and were not suitable  for their intended use.    71.  Further, Plaintiff’s Qwerty Remote began exhibiting symptoms resulting from  the Battery Defect within Samsung’s one-year warranty.   72.  Defendant was in a superior position to know the true state of facts about and  the existence of the safety defect found in the Qwerty Remotes (i.e., the Battery Defect),  Case3:15-cv-00885   Document1   Filed02/26/15   Page17 of 25 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  83.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set  forth herein.   84.  California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal Bus. & Prof. Code  §§ 17200, et seq., protects both consumers and competitors by promoting fair competition in  commercial markets for goods and services.   85.  The UCL prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice,  including the employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise,  misrepresentation, or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact. A  business practice need only meet one of the three criteria to be considered unfair competition.    86.  The existence of a safety defect in a product is a material term of any  transaction because it directly affects a consumer’s choice of, or conduct regarding, whether  to purchase a product.    87.  As described herein, Defendant has engaged in deceptive business practices,  as defined by the UCL, by failing disclose that the Qwerty Remote contains a material defect  that causes a safety hazard (by creating excessive heat which then causes batteries to leak  hazardous substances) and premature failure despite knowing that the Qwerty Remotes  Case3:15-cv-00885   Document1   Filed02/26/15   Page19 of 25 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Breach of Express Warranty  Cal. Com. Code § 2313  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Subclass)  113.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set  forth herein.  114.  Samsung included an express warranty with every Samsung Smart TV that  included a Qwerty Remote, warranting the Smart TV and Qwerty Remote against  manufacturing defects in workmanship and materials for a period of one year.   115.  Samsung breached the express warranty by selling Qwerty Remotes with the  Battery Defect (a safety hazard stemming from the remotes creating excessive heat which  then causes batteries to leak hazardous substances) that required repair or replacement within  the warranty period and by refusing to honor the express warranty by repairing or replacing,  free of charge, the defective Qwerty Remotes.  116.  Plaintiff notified Samsung of the breach within a reasonable time by calling  Samsung’s within the Qwerty Remote’s warranty period. Samsung was also on notice of the  Battery Defect from the complaints and/or repair or replacement requests from members of  the Subclass that it received or reviewed, and from its testing, diagnostic, maintenance,  repair, and/or replacement records.   117.  Nevertheless, Plaintiff and the Subclass were not required to notify Samsung  of the breach because affording Samsung a reasonable opportunity to cure its breach of  written warranty would have been futile. Indeed, even after Plaintiff notified Samsung of the  breach, it refused to acknowledge the safety defect and would not repair or replace the  remote.   Case3:15-cv-00885   Document1   Filed02/26/15   Page23 of 25 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability  Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act  Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1792, 1792.1,    (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Subclass)  102.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations.  103.  As the designer, manufacturer, marketer, and/or distributor of the Qwerty  Remotes, Defendant impliedly warranted that the Qwerty Remotes were fit for their intended  and ordinary purpose.   104.  The intended and ordinary purpose of the Qwerty Remote was to operate as a  television remote control with a QWERTY keyboard (e.g., allowing purchasers to control  Case3:15-cv-00885   Document1   Filed02/26/15   Page21 of 25 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  I.  A Brief Overview of Samsung and its Qwerty Remotes.   Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act  15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   Violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act  Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq.  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Subclass)   Violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Subclass)  