25. Defendant manufactures, markets and sells “Maker’s Mark Kentucky Straight  Bourbon Whiskey” (i.e., “Maker’s Mark”). See below, ¶¶ 30, 31.    26. Defendant manufactures all of its whisky at its distillery, located in the City of  Loretto, State of Kentucky.    27. Defendant manufactures and sells millions of bottles each year. In 2013,  Defendant sold approximately 1.4 million cases, each containing 6 bottles.6  That is a total of approximately 8.4 million bottles. A 750-milliliter bottle of  Maker’s Mark sells for approximately $31.99.7    28. Defendant has faced continual production shortages and has attempted to  remedy those shortfalls by expanding and mechanizing its facility.  Defendant’s supply shortages have been so severe that Defendant even  proposed “watering down” its whisky’s alcohol content to meet production  demands.8      68. Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege and incorporate by reference the above allegations  as if fully stated herein.   69. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of  the putative Class.   70. Plaintiffs and Defendant are both “person[s]” as defined by California  Business & Professions Code § 17506. California Business & Professions  Code § 17535 authorizes a private right of action on both an individual and  representative basis.    71. The misrepresentations, acts, and non-disclosures by Defendant of the  material facts detailed above constitute false and misleading advertising and  therefore violate Business & Professions Code §§ 17500 et seq.   72. At all times relevant, Defendant’s advertising and promotion regarding its  whisky being “Handmade” was untrue, misleading and likely to deceive the  reasonable consumer and the public; and, in fact, has deceived the Plaintiffs  and consumers similarly situated by representing that the product was  “Handmade” when in fact Defendant knew and failed to disclose that its  whisky was made predominately or entirely made by machines through the  use of mechanized and/or automated processes.    79. Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege and incorporate by reference the above allegations  as if fully stated herein.    80. Plaintiffs and Defendant are each “person[s]” as defined by California  Business & Professions Code § 17201.  California Business & Professions  Code § 17204 authorizes a private right of action on both an individual and  representative basis.   81. “Unfair competition” is defined by Business and Professions Code Section §  17200 as encompassing several types of business “wrongs,” four of which are  at issue here: (1) an “unlawful” business act or practice, (2) an “unfair”  business act or practice, (3) a “fraudulent” business act or practice, and (4)  “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.”  The definitions in §  17200 are drafted in the disjunctive, meaning that each of these “wrongs”  operates independently from the others.   A. “Unlawful” Prong   82. Because Defendant has violated California’s False Advertising Law, Business  & Professions Code §§ 17500 et seq., Defendant has violated California’s  Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.,  which provides a cause of action for an “unlawful” business act or practice  perpetrated on members of the California public.    CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17500 ET SEQ.  [CALIFORNIA’S FALSE ADVERTISING LAW]   CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 ET SEQ.   [CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW]   NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION  102. Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege and incorporate by reference the above allegations  as if fully stated herein.   103. At a date presently unknown to Plaintiffs, but at least four years prior to the  filing of this action, and as set forth above, Defendant represented to the  public, including Plaintiffs, by packaging and other means, that Maker’s  Mark whisky was “Handmade,” as described herein.  104. Defendant made the representations herein alleged with the intention of  inducing the public, including Plaintiffs and putative class members, to  purchase Maker’s Mark whisky.  105. Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons in California saw, believed, and  relied upon Defendant’s advertising representations and, in reliance on them,  purchased the product, as described herein.  106. At all times relevant, Defendant made the misrepresentations herein alleged  when Defendant should have known these representations to be untrue, and  Defendant had no reasonable basis for believing the representations to be  true.    107. As a proximate result of Defendant’s negligent misrepresentations, Plaintiffs  and other consumers similarly situated were induced to purchase, purchase  more of, or pay more for, Maker’s Mark whisky, due to the unlawful acts of  Defendant, in an amount to be determined at trial, during the Class Period. 