18. “Epsom salt” is a popular term for magnesium sulfate heptahydrate.  It is named for the  English town where it was discovered in 1618 bubbling up in the water from an underground  spring by Henry Wicker, a local cowherd.   20. Wicker also claimed that animals who had waded in the Epsom-salted waters seemed  to heal more quickly from wounds.  Out of this there developed numerous folktales attributing  numerous healing properties to Epsom salt, at which point Epsom became visited as a spa town  for a time, with visitors expecting all kinds of relief from various painful symptoms.   21. However, these folk stories are just that, and no more.  Whether or not Epsom salt  functions as a laxative, it cannot deliver the pain relief promised by Defendant.  Defendant exploits  the mythology that grew out of the discovery of Epsom salt four hundred years ago, in the  scientifically ignorant early 17th Century, in order to peddle a snake-oil solution to muscle pain  that adds nothing to the benefits of an ordinary hot bath.           The Products Cannot Detoxify Because “Detoxification” as Used to  Market Health and Wellness Products is a Pseudo-Scientific Concept   22. Consumers today are increasingly exposed to a wide range of products promising  extraordinary health benefits, including promises to detoxify various organs or the human body as  a whole.  However, while the concept of detoxification as used by medical professionals is  certainly legitimate, “detoxification” as now used to sell health and wellness products is a  marketing concept, not a scientific one.   24. Citing the opinions of numerous medical professionals, The Guardian confirms that  the very concept of detoxification as now marketed by purveyors of detox products is pseudo- medicine that hijacks medical terminology for a quick profit:   “Let’s be clear,” says Edzard Ernst, emeritus professor of complementary medicine  at Exeter University, “there are two types of detox: one is respectable and the other  isn’t.” The respectable one, he says, is the medical treatment of people with life- threatening drug addictions. “The other is the word being hijacked by  entrepreneurs, quacks and charlatans to sell a bogus treatment that allegedly  detoxifies your body of toxins you’re supposed to have accumulated.”  If toxins did build up in a way your body couldn’t excrete, he says, you’d likely be  dead or in need of serious medical intervention. “The healthy body has kidneys, a  liver, skin, even lungs that are detoxifying as we speak,” he says. “There is no  known way – certainly not through detox treatments – to make something that  works perfectly well in a healthy body work better.”  “It’s a scandal,” fumes Ernst. “It’s criminal exploitation of the gullible man on the  street and it sort of keys into something that we all would love to have – a simple  remedy that frees us of our sins, so to speak. It’s nice to think that it could exist but  unfortunately it doesn’t.”3   The Products Cannot Relieve Pain from Muscle Soreness   Because Magnesium Cannot Penetrate the Skin to a Meaningful Degree   26. In a comprehensive literature review of the available research, Ingraham concludes:  The case for the healing powers of Epsom salt is mostly made by people selling the  stuff, or recommending it as carelessly as an old wives’ tale. If relatively dilute  home salt baths were actually medicinal, then far more concentrated sources like  The Dead Sea would have clear health effects, which they definitely do not.5   27. This is to be expected given both the general resistance of the human skin to permeation  by ions and molecules dissolved in water and the special properties of magnesium ions in  particular:  Furthermore, the stratum corneum is generally an effective barrier to diffusion:  ions and molecules dissolved in water mostly cannot pass through the stratum  corneum, again because there is minimal water in the outer layers of skin for them  to diffuse through. This is not to say that nothing gets past the skin, just not much,  and definitely not water.   Magnesium ions have some special properties. Like tapioca, they may swell when  wet. In fact, this has been the conventional wisdom for some time, and one of the  main reasons that many experts have dismissed the possibility of magnesium  absorption.6   28. If magnesium cannot penetrate the human skin, then it cannot deliver whatever health  benefits it would otherwise offer.   30. Similar conclusions were reached in a number of experiments surveyed in a literature  review by Uwe Gröber and his colleagues in the journal Nutrients.  In one experiment, for example,  Eight normal subjects were immersed in Bath spa water for two hours and the renal,  haematological, and cardiovascular responses were compared with those in the  control periods before and after immersion… As a sign that an uptake of  magnesium by the healthy human skin while bathing is not possible or if so, only  very limited no change occurred in the plasma concentrations of electrolytes,  calcium, phosphate, or magnesium after 2 h bathing (35 °C).8    32. Moreover, Defendant’s explanation for how the Products work is physiologically  incoherent.  Defendant’s website explains:   Dr .Teal’s Epsom Salt Soaks combine pure Epsom Salt (Magnesium Sulfate U.S.P.)  with rejuvenating essential oils to naturally reduce inflammation, revitalize tired,  achy muscles, and soothe the senses, which provides relief from stress.10   33. However, Ingraham explains why Epsom Salt cannot possibly both reduce  inflammation and “revitalize tired, achy muscles”:  [T]he primary source of injury pain is inflammation — a complex and painful  physiological process intended to … wait for it … speed healing. Indeed, the only  known mechanism by which you could recover faster from an injury would be  to increase inflammation. If bathing in Epsom salts did that, it would make you  hurt more, not less. Of course, there could be other ways to speed up healing — in  an “anything’s possible” kind of way — but it’s still pretty far-fetched that a single  molecule could pull off both that miracle and reduce pain at the same time.   34. To the extent Epsom Salt baths relieve muscle pain, they are merely doing what all hot  baths do, providing temporary relief without actually accelerating the healing process.  To the  extent they actually reduce inflammation, they are impeding, not furthering, the muscles’ natural  healing process, which is something the reasonable consumer has not bargained for.  Defendant’s Misrepresentations Would Deceive A Reasonable Consumer   35. A reasonable consumer would be deceived by Defendant’s misrepresentation that the  Products detoxify and/or relieve pain from muscle soreness.     37. Interviewing psychology professor Peter Ayton, The Guardian explains the appeal of  claims like Defendant’s to ordinary consumers:   Peter Ayton, a professor of psychology at City University London, agrees. He says  that we’re susceptible to such gimmicks because we live in a world with so much  information we’re happy to defer responsibility to others who might understand  things better. “To understand even shampoo you need to have PhD in  biochemistry,” he says, “but a lot of people don’t have that. If it seems reasonable  and plausible and invokes a familiar concept, like detoxing, then we’re happy to go  with it.”  Many of our consumer decisions, he adds, are made in ignorance and supposition,  which is rarely challenged or informed. “People assume that the world is carefully  regulated and that there are benign institutions guarding them from making any  kind of errors. A lot of marketing drip-feeds that idea, surreptitiously. So if people  see somebody with apparently the right credentials, they think they’re listening to  a respectable medic and trust their advice.”11   38. Reasonable consumers lack the scientific training to understand why the Products  cannot deliver what they promise.   39. Science-Based Medicine explains why our susceptibility to detox claims in particular  may be hard-wired:  There’s a reason we fall for the marketing of detoxification – we seem hardwired  to believe we need it, perhaps related to our susceptibility to ideas of sympathetic  magic. Purification rituals date back to the earliest reaches of recorded history. The  idea that we’re somehow poisoning ourselves and we need to atone for our sins  seems to be a part of human nature, which may explain why it’s still part of the  world’s religions.12   Defendant’s Misrepresentations Were Material To A Reasonable   Consumer And Were Relied Upon By Plaintiff And The Class   41. For this reason, Plaintiff and the Class reasonably relied upon Defendant’s  misrepresentations in purchasing the Products. They did not know, that Defendant’s claims were  false, and they would not have purchased the Products had they known the truth about them.   42. Defendant intended that Plaintiff and the Class rely on its misrepresentations, which  are placed prominently on the Products’ front label and repeated wherever the Products are sold  online.   Defendant Knew that Its Representations are Deceptive and Misleading   43. Defendant knew and continues to know that its representations are false and  misleading.    44. As the manufacturer of the Products, Defendant possesses specialized knowledge  regarding the content and effects of the Products and could easily access the scientific consensus  regarding detoxification and transdermal magnesium absorption. Thus, it also knows that the  Products are of no benefit to anyone.   Plaintiff And The Class Were Injured By Defendant’s Deceptive Conduct   45. Plaintiff and the Class were injured by Defendant when Defendant failed to deliver to  them the benefit of their bargain.   46. Plaintiff and the Class paid money for the Products because they promised to detoxify  and/or alleviate pain from muscle soreness.  Defendant fails to deliver on this promise, causing  Plaintiff and the Class to pay money for something that had no value whatsoever.   48. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff OKOE  seeks to  represent the following class:   All persons or entities who made retail purchases of the Products in  the United States for personal use and not resale within the  applicable limitations period, and/or such subclasses as the Court  may deem appropriate (“the Nationwide Class”).  In the alternative, Plaintiff OKOE seeks to represent   All persons or entities who made retail purchases of the Products in  New York for personal use and not resale within the applicable  limitations period and/or such subclasses as the Court deems  appropriate (“the New York Class”)   49. Plaintiff reserves the right to revise the Class definition based upon facts learned in the  course of litigating this matter.   50. Excluded from this Class are Defendant’s current and former officers, directors, and  employees, and the judicial officer to whom this case is assigned.    51. Numerosity. While the exact number and identities of purchasers of the Products are  unknown to Plaintiff at this time, Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Class contains  thousands of purchasers and is so numerous that individual joinder of all Class members is  impracticable.     53. Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the Class members because, inter  alia, Plaintiff and the other Class members were all injured by same uniform conduct, as detailed  herein.    54. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect  the interests of the Class and has retained competent counsel experienced in prosecuting  nationwide class actions.  Plaintiff understands the nature of his claims herein, has no disqualifying  conditions, and will vigorously represent the interests of the Class.  Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff's  counsel have any interests that conflict with or are antagonistic to the interests of the Class.     56. The prerequisites to maintaining a class action for equitable relief pursuant to Rule  23(b)(2) are also met, as Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to  the Class, thereby making appropriate final equitable relief with respect to the Class as a whole.  57. Plaintiff OKOE realleges and incorporates herein by reference all allegations contained  above as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:   58. Plaintiff OKOE brings this claim individually and on behalf of the other members of  the Nationwide Class for violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”).   59. CUTPA provides that “[n]o person shall engage in unfair methods of competition and  unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” CONN. GEN.  STAT. ANN. § 42-110g(a).    61. CUTPA provides relief for “[a]ny person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money  or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or practice  prohibited by § 42-110b.” Id. § 42-110g(a).    62. A Plaintiff is not required to prove specific or actual damages but need only show that  such damages are “capable of being discovered, observed, or established.” Lentini v. Fidelity Nat.  Title Ins. Co. of New York, 479 F. Supp. 2d 292, 302 (D. Conn. 2007).    63. A deception will be found when “(1) [a] representation, omission or other practice  likely to mislead consumers; (2) [c]onsumers . . . interpret the message reasonably under the  circumstances; and (3) [t]he misleading representation, omission or practice must be material–that  is, likely to affect consumer decisions or conduct.”  Caldor, Inc. v. Heslin, 577 A.2d 1009, 1013  (Conn. 1990).    64. CUTPA also allows the court in its discretion to award punitive damages. See CONN.  GEN. STAT. ANN. § 42-110g(a). These damages are more likely to apply “if the evidence reveals  a reckless indifference to the rights of others or an intentional and wanton violation of those rights.”  Fabri v. United Tech. Int’l, Inc., 387 F.3d 109, 124 (2d Cir. 2004).    65. CUTPA permits courts to award, in their discretion, injunctive or equitable relief.  CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN. § 42-110g(d) (West 2007).   66. As a result of its violations of the CUTPA detailed above, Defendant caused actual  damage to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Nationwide Class, who were reasonable  deceived that the Products would detoxify and relieve pain from muscle soreness.      68. Plaintiffs also seek court costs and attorneys’ fees as a result of Defendant’s violation  of the CUTPA as provided in CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN. § 42-110g(d).   69. A copy of this Complaint has been mailed to the Attorney General and the  Commissioner of Consumer Protection of the State of Connecticut in accordance with CONN.  GEN. STAT. ANN. § 42-110g(c).   70. Because Defendant’s deceptive scheme originated in Connecticut, its principal place  of business, CUTPA extends to injuries which may have transpired outside Connecticut. See H &  D Wireless Limited P'ship v. Sunspot, Civil No. H-86-1026 (D. Conn. Feb. 24, 1987) (13 Conn. L.  Trib. No. 17, 22) ("CUTPA does not necessarily require that the violation occur within the state,  only that it be tied to a form of trade or commerce intimately associated with Connecticut.");  Metro. Enter. Corp. v. United Techs. Int'l, Corp., No. 3:03cv1685 (JBA), 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS  12274, at *21-22 (D. Conn. June 28, 2004) (“Examination of the statutory language and  interpretive case law reveals no reason why a straightforward application of the phrase ‘in this  State’ would exclude the conduct alleged here: a Connecticut seller, in connection with the sale or  the offering for sale of its jet engines, hatching and implementing a plan inside the borders of  Connecticut the deceptive or unfair effect of which is felt outside those borders.”)  71. Plaintiff OKOE realleges and incorporates herein by reference all allegations contained  above as if fully set forth herein and further alleges as follows:   72. Plaintiff OKOE brings this claim individually and on behalf of the other members of  the New York Class for violations of NY GBL § 349.   74. NY GBL § 349 provides that “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business,  trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state are . . . unlawful.”   75. Under GBL § 349, it is not necessary to prove justifiable reliance. (“To the extent that  the Appellate Division order imposed a reliance requirement on General Business Law [§] 349 …  claims, it was error. Justifiable reliance by the plaintiff is not an element of the statutory claim.”  Koch v. Acker, Merrall & Condit Co., 18 N.Y.3d 940, 941 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) (internal citations  omitted)).    76. Any person who has been injured by reason of any violation of the NY GBL § 349 may  bring an action in their own name to enjoin such unlawful act or practice, an action to recover their  actual damages or fifty dollars, whichever is greater, or both such actions. The court may, in its  discretion, increase the award of damages to an amount not to exceed three times the actual  damages up to one thousand dollars, if the court finds the Defendant willfully or knowingly  violated this section. The court may award reasonable attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff.   78. Under the circumstances, Defendant’s conduct in employing these unfair and deceptive  trade practices is malicious, willful, wanton and outrageous such as to shock the conscience of the  community and warrant the imposition of punitive damages.   79. Defendant’s actions impact the public interest because Plaintiff and members of the  Class were injured in exactly the same way as thousands of others purchasing the Products, as a  result of Defendant’s generalized course of deception.   80. By committing the acts alleged in this Complaint, Defendant has misled Plaintiff and  the Class into purchasing the Products on the basis of an erroneous belief that the Products detoxify  and/or relieve pain from muscle soreness.  This is a deceptive business practice that violates NY  84. Plaintiff OKOE realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations  contained in all preceding paragraphs, and further alleges as follows:   85. Plaintiff OKOE brings this claim individually and on behalf of the other members of  the Class for violations of NY GBL § 349.   86. Defendant’s business act and practices and/or omissions alleged herein constitute  deceptive acts or practices under NY GBL § 349, which were enacted to protect the consuming  public from those who engage in unconscionable, deceptive or unfair acts or practices in the  conduct of any business, trade or commerce.   87. Under the circumstances, Defendant’s conduct in employing these unfair and deceptive  trade practices are malicious, willful, wanton and outrageous such as to shock the conscience of  the community and warrant the imposition of punitive damages.   88. Defendant’s actions impact the public interest because Plaintiff and members of the  Class were injured in exactly the same way as thousands of others purchasing the Products as a  result of Defendant’s generalized course of deception.   89. The foregoing deceptive acts and practices are directed at consumers.   91. Plaintiff OKOE realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in  all preceding paragraphs and further alleges as follows:   92. Plaintiff OKOE brings this claim individually, as well as on behalf of members of the  class, for violations of NY GBL § 350.   93. Defendant has been and/or is engaged in the “conduct of … business, trade or  commerce” within the meaning of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350.   94. New York Gen. Bus. Law § 350 makes unlawful “[f]alse advertising in the conduct of  any business, trade or commerce.” False advertising includes “advertising, including labeling, of  a commodity … if such advertising is misleading in a material respect,” taking into account “the  extent to which the advertising fails to reveal facts material in light of … representations [made]  with respect to the commodity …” N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350-a(1).   95. Defendant caused to be made or disseminated throughout New York and the United  States, through advertising, marketing and other publications, statements that were untrue or  misleading.   96. Defendant’s affirmative misrepresentations as alleged herein are material and  substantially uniform in content, presentation, and impact upon consumers at large. Consumers  purchasing the Products were, and continue to be, exposed to Defendant’s material  misrepresentations.    98. Pursuant to N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350-e, Plaintiff  and members of the Class seek  monetary damages (including actual damages and minimum, punitive, or treble and/or statutory  damages pursuant to GBL § 350-a (1)), injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement of all monies  obtained by means of Defendants' unlawful conduct, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.   Background on Epsom Salt   COMMON LAW FRAUD  (Brought on behalf of the Nationwide Class under Connecticut law or, alternatively, the  New York Class under New York law)   DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 349  (DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT)   (Brought on behalf of the New York Class)   DAMAGES FOR VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 350  (FALSE ADVERTISING LAW)   (Brought on behalf of the New York Class)   INJUNCTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 349  (DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT)  (Brought on behalf of the New York Class)   VIOLATIONS OF THE CONNECTICUT UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT  (CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN. §§ 42-110g, et seq.)   (Brought on behalf of the Nationwide Class)  