(Conversion – On behalf of Plaintiffs and the Subclasses)   (For Violations of CUTPA (Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 42-110a, et seq.) – On behalf of Plaintiff  Vasquez and the CUTPA Class)7   (For Violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act – On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the  Subclasses)   (Money Had and Received – On behalf of Plaintiffs and the Subclasses)   (Unjust Enrichment – On Behalf of the Subclasses)   24.  Prior to obtaining Rovinelli’s consent to the free trials, Defendants failed to  clearly and conspicuously disclose the material terms, including but not limited to: the amounts  that would be charged to Rovinelli’s credit card, the dates of those future charges, the  membership and subscription auto-renewal features, the cancellation policies, the refund  policies, and that the magazine subscription was with, and would be charged by, Trans World’s  marketing partner, Synapse.   25.  Rovinelli accepted the “free” offers but was not informed that the offers were  actually free-to-pay conversions for which his credit card would be automatically billed and the  paid subscriptions/membership would auto-renew until he affirmatively and separately cancelled  each subscription/membership.  Trans World’s VIP Backstage Pass membership and Synapse’s  magazine subscriptions were unwanted, worthless and not authorized by Rovinelli or the  Subclasses’ members.   26.  If Defendants had adequately disclosed the material terms of the magazine  subscriptions and VIP Backstage Pass membership, Rovinelli would not have accepted the “free”  offers.   27.  On or about February 25, 2018, Rovinelli’s credit card was charged a total of  $42.00 for an “online, mail or telephone transaction” for magazines by Synapse without  Rovinelli’s authorization, knowledge or consent.     29.  Sometime between November 2017 and February 25, 2017, Trans World  transmitted Rovinelli’s personal and confidential financial information to its marketing partner,  Synapse, without Rovinelli’s knowledge, authorization or consent.   30.  Trans World derived a financial gain from its marketing partner, Synapse,  charging Rovinelli for unwanted magazine subscriptions, but Rovinelli derived no benefit from  the subscriptions.     31.  In or around March 2018, Rovinelli contacted FYE to complain about the  unauthorized membership and magazine charges.  Trans World later refunded Rovinelli $11.99  for one month of VIP Backstage Pass membership fees, but Defendants failed to refund  Rovinelli interest or issue any refund for any of the unauthorized magazine charges.  II.  51.  Trans World’s in-store solicitation of “free” and “loyalty” memberships and  magazine subscriptions and unauthorized enrollment of unsuspecting consumers into worthless  memberships and subscriptions was unfair, deceptive and failed to provide Plaintiffs and the  Subclasses with all material terms of the “Free-To-Pay” conversions.  The only “loyalty” aspect  of the membership was Trans World’s “loyalty” to maximize profits in a declining retail market.   52.  Defendants failed to disclose to Plaintiffs and the Subclasses all the material terms of  the free-to-pay conversions in an effort to induce consumers to accept the “free trials.”  Despite  failing to disclose the material terms, Trans World and its marketing partner, Synapse, charged  consumers’ credit cards, debit cards and/or bank accounts for bogus memberships and unwanted  magazines without consumers’ express consent, and continued to do so until consumers  affirmatively, and separately, cancelled each membership subscription.  These practices resulted  in millions of dollars of profit for Defendants through their direct billing and lucrative revenue  sharing agreement.   55.  Defendants’ failure to disclose the material terms, or intentional concealment of  material terms, prevented consumers, including Plaintiffs and the Subclasses’ members, from  acquiring material information.   56.  Defendants failed to clearly and conspicuously disclose to Plaintiffs and the  Subclasses’ members all material terms before obtaining their billing information.  For example,  even if all of the material terms were disclosed and they were disclosed in a clear and  conspicuous manner, Defendants disclosed those terms only after obtaining their billing  information.   58.  Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated  members of the Subclasses pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  This  class action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and  superiority requirements of Rule 23 and the provisions therein.   60.  Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify the Subclasses’ definitions before moving for  class certification, including a reservation of the right to seek certification of additional  subclasses, if discovery reveals that modifying the definitions and/or seeking additional  subclasses would be appropriate.   61.  The Class Period is limited to the applicable statute of limitations for claims at issue  and runs until the date of entry of final judgment in this action.     64.  Plaintiff Vasquez’s bank account was debited on a recurring basis by Trans World,  and Plaintiffs Rovinelli’s and Carlos’ accounts were debited on a recurring basis by Synapse  without Defendants obtaining signed written authorization, or similar authentication, for  preauthorized electronic fund transfers.  As such, Plaintiffs are asserting claims that are typical of  the Subclasses.  Moreover, Plaintiffs asserted claims are typical of the claims of the other  members of the Subclasses in that all members have been harmed in substantially the same way  by Defendants’ acts and omissions.     65.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of the  Subclasses.  Plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic or adverse to other members of the  Subclasses.  Plaintiffs have retained counsel who are competent and experienced in class action  litigation.   67.  Plaintiffs and the Subclasses have suffered injury and damages as a result of  Defendants’ wrongful conduct as alleged herein.  Absent a class action, the Subclasses will  continue to suffer injury, thereby allowing these alleged violations of law to proceed without  remedy, and allowing Defendants to retain the proceeds of their ill-gotten gains.   68.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.  The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of  the Subclasses would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to  individual members of the Subclasses.  Moreover, litigation on an individual basis could be  dispositive of the interests of absent members of the Subclasses and substantially impair or  impede their ability to protect their interests.   69.  In view of the complexity of the issues presented and the expense that an individual  plaintiff would incur if he or she attempted to obtain relief from Defendants, the individual  claims of the Subclasses’ members are monetarily insufficient to support separate actions.   Because of the size of the individual Subclasses’ members’ claims, few, if any, members of the  Subclasses could afford to seek legal redress for the wrongs complained of in this Complaint.   70.  Plaintiffs do not anticipate any difficulty in managing this action as a class action.   The identities of the Subclasses’ members are known by Defendants, and the measure of  monetary damages can be calculated from Defendants’ records.  This action poses no unusual  difficulties that would impede its management by the Court as a class action.  72.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693e(a), (Section 907(a) of the EFTA), a “preauthorized  electronic transfer from a customer’s account may be authorized by the consumer only in  writing, and a copy of such authorization shall be provided to the consumer when made.”   73.  “Preauthorized electronic fund transfer” is defined as “an electronic fund transfer  authorized in advance to recur at substantially regular intervals.” 15 U.S.C. § 1693a(10), Section  903(10) of the EFTA.   74.  Pursuant to 12 C.F.R. § 205.10(b), Section 205.10(b) of Regulation E,  “[p]reauthorized electronic fund transfers from a customer’s account may be authorized only by  a writing signed, or similarly authenticated, by the customer.  The person that obtains the  authorization shall provide a copy to the consumer.”   75.  “The authorization process should evidence the consumer’s identity and assent to the  authorization” and “[a]n authorization is valid if it is readily identifiable as such and the terms of  the preauthorized transfer are clear and readily understandable.” Section 205.10(b), Supp I.of the  Federal Reserve Board’s Official Staff Commentary to Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. § 205.10(b),  Comments 5 and 6 (emphasis added).   77.  Thus, Defendants failed to comply with 15 U.S.C. § 1693e(a) (EFTA) and 12 C.F.R.  § 205.10(b) (Regulation E) when they debited Plaintiffs’ and Subclasses’ members’ credit cards,  debit cards and/or bank accounts on a recurring basis but failed to provide a copy of a written  authorization signed, or similarly authenticated, by Plaintiffs or the Subclasses’ members for  preauthorized electronic fund transfers.   78.  Based upon Defendants’ EFTA and Regulation E violations, Defendants are liable to  Plaintiffs and the Subclasses for actual damages, statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §  1693m, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.  79.  Plaintiff Vasquez realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in  the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   80.  Plaintiff Vasquez and members of the proposed CUTPA Class are consumers within  the meaning of the CUTPA, and Defendants’ memberships and subscriptions are goods within  the meaning of the CUTPA. Defendants, through their conduct, are engaged in trade or  commerce within the meaning of the CUTPA, and the “free-to-pay” membership/subscriptions  offered by Defendants to Plaintiff Vasquez and Class members constitutes consumer transactions  within the meaning of the CUTPA.   82.  Defendants knew or should have known that these acts and omissions violated the  CUTPA and public policy, and were unfair, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and caused  substantial injury to consumers, including Plaintiff Vasquez and other members of the CUTPA  Class.    83.  Defendants’ actions, misrepresentations and omissions were done in willful or  knowing violation of the CUTPA.    84.  As a result of Defendants’ unfair and deceptive conduct, Plaintiff Vasquez and  members of the CUTPA Class have suffered ascertainable losses under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42- 110g(a) in the form money or property.  Those ascertainable losses include the loss of monies  taken from Plaintiff Vasquez and the CUTPA Class members’ bank accounts or charged to their  credit cards or debit cards for the memberships/subscriptions.  Plaintiff and members of the  CUTPA Class have also otherwise been damaged by Defendants’ unfair and deceptive conduct.   85.  Plaintiff Vasquez and members of the proposed Connecticut Class are entitled to  compensatory damages from Defendants for the economic and non-economic damages identified  herein, together with equitable and declaratory relief and other appropriate damages, including  punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit.  87.  As a result of Defendants’ fraudulent, deceptive and wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs and  members of the Subclasses have conferred benefits upon Defendants in the form of payment for  Defendants’ memberships and subscriptions.  Defendants received and accepted from Plaintiffs,  and members of the Subclasses, benefits in the form of unauthorized fees and charges for VIP  Backstage Pass memberships and magazine subscriptions, which were not authorized or  consented to by Plaintiffs and the Subclasses’ members, and have little, if any, value.   88.  Defendants were at all times aware that the benefits conferred upon them by  Plaintiffs and members of the Subclasses were the result of Defendants’ fraudulent, deceptive  and wrongful conduct.  Defendants voluntarily accepted and retained the benefits conferred upon  them.   89.  Plaintiffs and the Subclasses’ members sustained damages when Defendants  assessed unauthorized fees and charges for VIP Backstage Pass and magazine subscriptions.   90.  Allowing Defendants to retain these unjust profits and other benefits would offend  traditional notice of justice and fair play.  Under these circumstances, it would be inequitable for  Defendants to retain the benefits and allowing them to do so would induce companies to  fraudulently conceal, mislead, and/or misrepresent key characteristics and obligations of their  products to increase sales and profits.   91.  Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, seek restitution  from Defendants and an order of this Court proportionally disgorging all profits, benefits, and  other compensation obtained by Defendants from their wrongful conduct.  93.  Defendants received monies from consumers to which they were not legally entitled.   94.  Consumers have a claim for the monies Defendants collected in credit card, debit  card and/or bank account charges via the VIP Backstage Pass membership and/or magazine  subscriptions.   95.  Equity and good conscience requires that Defendants pay back those monies.   96.  Defendants’ practices caused Plaintiffs and the Subclasses’ members to suffer injury.  They are entitled to reimbursement, restitution, and disgorgement in the amount necessary to  restore them to the position they would have been in if Defendants had not improperly collected  and retained the abovementioned monies.  97.  Plaintiffs reassert and incorporate herein each and every allegation in the preceding  paragraphs of this Complaint (excluding ¶¶ 79-85) as if set forth fully herein.   98.  Consumers have a right to retain the money Defendants took from consumers’ credit  card, debit card and/or bank accounts.    I.  ROVINELLI  