23.  Defendants develop, manufacture, market, distribute and sell a line of joint  supplements under the Osteo Bi-Flex brand name.  These Products include: (1) Osteo Bi- Flex One Per Day; (2) Osteo Bi-Flex Triple Strength; (3) Osteo Bi-Flex Double Strength;  (4) Osteo Bi-Flex Triple Strength with Vitamin D; (5) Osteo Bi-Flex MSM; (6) Osteo Bi- Flex Energy Formula; (7) Osteo Bi-Flex Regular Strength; and (8) Osteo Bi-Flex  Advanced.  Defendants began manufacturing, marketing and selling the Osteo Bi-Flex  products nationwide in 1996.     25.  Since the Products’ launch, Defendants have consistently conveyed the  message to consumers throughout California that Osteo Bi-Flex will “promote mobility”,  “renew cartilage”, “maintain healthy connective tissue” and  “improve[] joint comfort”  simply by taking the recommended number of tablets each day.  These claims are not  substantiated by competent scientific evidence and are factually baseless.      26.  The primary active ingredients in all the Osteo Bi-Flex products are  glucosamine hydrochloride and chondroitin sulfate.  Glucosamine is an amino sugar that  the body produces and distributes in cartilage and other connective tissue.  Chondroitin  sulfate is a complex carbohydrate found in the body’s connective tissues. There is no  competent scientific evidence that taking any of these ingredients―let alone through oral  administration―results in the body metabolizing it into something that relieves the three  symptoms of arthritis.   28.  Contrary to the stated representations on all the Products’ labeling and  packaging, Defendants do not possess (and have not possessed) competent scientific  evidence that any of these ingredients, taken alone or in combination, are effective in  treating the three major symptoms of arthritis or any other joint related ailments.    30.  Despite the lack of competent scientific evidence, Defendants continue to  unequivocally claim that Osteo Bi-Flex provides joint health benefits to all persons.     31.  As the manufacturer and distributor of Osteo Bi-Flex, Defendants possess  specialized knowledge regarding the content and effects of the ingredients contained in  their Products and are in a superior position to learn of the effects—and have learned of  the effects—their Products have on consumers.     32.  Specifically, Defendants knew or should have known, but failed to disclose  that they have no competent scientific evidence that their Osteo Bi-Flex products are  effective in treating the three major symptoms of arthritis or other joint related ailments.   34.  Plaintiff and Class members have been and will continue to be deceived or  misled by Defendants’ deceptive representations touting the effectiveness of the Osteo  Bi-Flex products.  Plaintiff purchased and used the Osteo Bi-Flex products during the  Class period and in doing so, read, considered and based her decisions to buy the  Products on the above cited label representations.  Because the Products’ sole purpose is  to provide joint relief for the three major symptoms of arthritis, Defendants’  representations and omissions were a material factor in influencing Plaintiff’s decision to  purchase and use the Osteo Bi-Flex products.  There is no other reason for Plaintiff to  have purchased the Osteo Bi-Flex products and Plaintiff would not have purchased the  Products had she known that Defendants did not possess competent scientific evidence to  support the claims that they made about these Products.    35.   As a result, Plaintiff and the Class members have been damaged in their  purchases of these Products and have been deceived into purchasing Products that they  believed, based on Defendants’ representations, were proven to be effective in treating  the three major symptoms of arthritis and other joint related ailments when, in fact, they  are not.   36.  Defendants, by contrast, reaped enormous profits from their false  marketing and sale of these Products.  38.  Members of the Class are so numerous and geographically dispersed that  joinder of all Class members is impracticable.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on  that basis alleges, that the proposed Class contains many thousands of members.  The  precise number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff.     39.  Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and  predominate over questions affecting only individual Class members.  The common legal  and factual questions include, but are not limited to, the following:    Whether Defendants have competent scientific evidence to support  each of the claims that they made about their Products;    Whether the claims discussed herein that Defendants made about  their Products were or are misleading, or reasonably likely to deceive;    Whether Defendants’ alleged conduct violates public policy;    Whether the alleged conduct constitutes violations of the laws  asserted herein;    Whether Defendants engaged in false and misleading advertising;     Whether Plaintiff and Class members have sustained monetary loss  and the proper measure of that loss;    Whether Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to restitution,  disgorgement of Defendants’ profits, declaratory and/or injunctive relief; and    Whether Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to an award of  compensatory damages.   41.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  members of the Class.  Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in both  consumer protection and class litigation.   42.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and  efficient adjudication of this controversy.  The expense and burden of individual  litigation would make it impracticable or impossible for proposed Class members to  prosecute their claims individually.  It would thus be virtually impossible for the Class,  on an individual basis, to obtain effective redress for the wrongs done to them.   Furthermore, even if Class members could afford such individualized litigation, the court  system could not.  Individualized litigation would create the danger of inconsistent or  contradictory judgments arising from the same set of facts.  Individualized litigation  would also increase the delay and expense to all parties and the court system from the  issues raised by this action.  By contrast, the class action device provides the benefits of  adjudication of these issues in a single proceeding, economies of scale, and  comprehensive supervision by a single court, and presents no unusual management  difficulties under the circumstances here.   43.  In the alternative, the Class also may be certified because Defendants have  acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class thereby making  appropriate final declaratory and/or injunctive relief with respect to the members of the  Class as a whole.   44.  Plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive and equitable relief on  behalf of the entire Class, on grounds generally applicable to the entire Class, to enjoin  and prevent Defendants from engaging in the acts described, and requiring Defendants to  provide full restitution to Plaintiff and Class members.     46.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained  in the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.    47.  This cause of action is brought under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act,  California Civil Code §1750, et seq. (the “Act”).  Plaintiff is a consumer as defined by  California Civil Code §1761(d).  Defendants’ Osteo Bi-Flex products are goods within  the meaning of the Act.   48.  Defendants violated and continue to violate the Act by engaging in the  following practices proscribed by California Civil Code §1770(a) in transactions with  Plaintiff and the Class which were intended to result in, and did result in, the sale of  Defendants’ Osteo Bi-Flex products:  (5)  Representing that [the Osteo Bi-Flex products have] . . . characteristics, . . .  uses [or] benefits . . . which [they] do not have.  *  *  *  (7)  Representing that [the Osteo Bi-Flex products are] of a particular standard,  quality or grade, . . . if [they are] of another.  *  *  *  (9)  Advertising goods . . . with the intent not to sell them as advertised.  *  *  *  (16) Representing that [the Osteo Bi-Flex products have] been supplied in  accordance with a previous representation when [they have] not.   50.  Pursuant to §1782(d) of the Act, Plaintiff and the Class seek a court order  enjoining the above-described wrongful acts and practices of Defendants and for  restitution and disgorgement.   51.  Pursuant to §1782 of the Act, Plaintiff notified Defendants in writing by  certified mail of the particular violations of §1770 of the Act and demanded that  Defendants rectify the problems associated with the actions detailed above and give  notice to all affected consumers of Defendants’ intent to so act.  Copies of the letters are  attached hereto as Exhibit B.     52.  If Defendants fail to rectify or agree to rectify the problems associated with  the actions detailed above and give notice to all affected consumers within 30 days of the  date of written notice pursuant to §1782 of the Act, Plaintiff will amend this complaint to  add claims for actual, punitive and statutory damages, as appropriate.   53.  Defendants’ conduct is malicious, fraudulent and wanton, and provides  misleading information.   54.  Pursuant to §1780(d) of the Act, attached hereto as Exhibit C is the  affidavit showing that this action has been commenced in the proper forum.  55.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained  in the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.    56.  As alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact and lost money or  property as a result of Defendants’ conduct because she purchased the Osteo Bi-Flex  products.      58.  Plaintiff and the Class reserve the right to allege other violations of law,  which constitute other unlawful business acts or practices.  Such conduct is ongoing and  continues to this date.   59.  Defendants’ acts, omissions, misrepresentations, practices and non- disclosures as alleged herein also constitute “unfair” business acts and practices within  the meaning of Business and Professions Code §17200 et seq., in that their conduct is  substantially injurious to consumers, offends public policy, and is immoral, unethical,  oppressive, and unscrupulous as the gravity of the conduct outweighs any alleged  benefits attributable to such conduct.   60.  As stated in this complaint, Plaintiff alleges violations of consumer  protection, unfair competition and truth in advertising laws resulting in harm to  consumers.  Plaintiff asserts violations of the public policy of engaging in false and  misleading advertising, unfair competition and deceptive conduct towards consumers.   This conduct constitutes violations of the unfair prong of Business & Professions Code  §17200 et seq.    61.  There were reasonably available alternatives to further Defendants’  legitimate business interests, other than the conduct described herein.   62.  Defendants’ claims, nondisclosures and misleading statements, as more  fully set forth above, are also false, misleading and/or likely to deceive the consuming  public within the meaning of Business & Professions Code §17200 et seq.   63.  Defendants’ labeling and packaging as described herein, also constitute  unfair, deceptive, untrue and misleading advertising.   65.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, and all other similarly situated California  residents, seeks restitution of all money obtained from Plaintiff and the members of the  Class collected as a result of unfair competition, an injunction prohibiting Defendants  from continuing such practices, corrective advertising and all other relief this Court  deems appropriate, consistent with Business & Professions Code §17203.  66.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained  in the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.    67.  Plaintiff, and each member of the Class, formed a contract with Defendants  at the time Plaintiff and the other members of the Class purchased the Osteo Bi-Flex  products.  The terms of that contract include the promises and affirmations of fact made  by Defendants on their Osteo Bi-Flex products’ labels and packages, as described above.   These representations constitute express warranties, became part of the basis of the  bargain, and are part of a standardized contract between Plaintiff and the members of the  Class on the one hand, and Defendants on the other.   68.  All conditions precedent to Defendants’ liability under this contract have  been performed by Plaintiff and the Class.   69.  Defendants breached the terms of this contract, including the express  warranties, with Plaintiff and the Class by not providing products that could provide the  benefits described above which was the only reason Plaintiff and Class members  purchased the Osteo Bi-Flex products.    70.  As a result of Defendants’ breach of their warranty, Plaintiff and Class  members have been damaged in the amount of the purchase price of the Osteo Bi-Flex  products they purchased.  Breach of Express Warranty   The Osteo Bi-Flex Products   Violation of Business & Professions Code §17200, et seq.   Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act –Civil Code §1750 et seq.  