21.  As explained above, the videos we watch on television are merely a series  of still photographs displayed in such rapid succession that we perceive movement.   Refresh rate refers to the number of unique images we see, as expressed in Hertz, or  cycles per second.  At this time video is not recorded at any more than 60 images per  second, with movies typically being filmed at 24 images per second. This is because our  electricity runs at the same rate.3        22.  If too few images are displayed per second, viewers can see what is  referred to as motion blur.  Motion blur refers to the apparent streaking of rapidly  moving objects.  Motion blur can be evident in fast moving sports such as basketball or  football.       36.  Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf, and on behalf of the  following Classes pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and/or 23(b)(3).   Specifically, the Classes consist of each of the following:   National Class:  All persons or entities in the United States who purchased one or more  Televisions from November 1, 2010 until the present.    Or, in the alternative,  Maine Class:   All persons or entities in Maine who purchased one or more Televisions from  November 1, 2010 until the present.    45.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained  in all preceding paragraphs of this Class Action Complaint as though set forth fully  herein.   46.  California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq. prohibits acts of  “unfair competition”, which is defined by Business & Professions Code § 17200 as  including any “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice . . . .”   47.  Defendant has engaged in unfair competition and unfair, unlawful or  fraudulent business practices by the conduct, statements, and omissions described  above, and by concealing and misleading Plaintiff and Class members concerning the  actual refresh rates of the Televisions.     48.  These acts and practices have also deceived Plaintiff and are likely to  deceive persons targeted by such statements and omissions.  In failing to disclose  material facts concerning the refresh rates of the Televisions, Defendant breached its  duties to disclose these facts, violated the UCL, and caused injuries to Plaintiff and  Class members.  The omissions and acts of concealment by Defendant pertained to  information material to Plaintiff and Class members in that statements concerning the  refresh rates would have been likely to deceive them based on a reasonable consumers’  expectations and assumptions.   51.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained  in all preceding paragraphs of this Class Action Complaint as though set forth fully  herein.   52.  In violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17500, et seq.,  Defendant has disseminated or caused to be disseminated deceptive advertising  misrepresentations, omissions and practices as described herein.  These statements are  actionable violations of § 17500 in that Defendant expressly states that the Televisions  have attributes which they do not possess.   53.  Defendant’s advertising misrepresentations, omissions, and practices made  in connection with the sale of the Televisions are unfair, deceptive and/or misleading  within the meaning of California Business & Professions Code § 17500, et seq.  These  representations are likely to, and did, deceive reasonable consumers such as Plaintiff  Larsen.   54.  In making and disseminating the statements alleged herein, Defendant  knew or should have known that the statements were and are misleading or likely to  mislead for the reasons set forth above.   58.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained  in all preceding paragraphs of this Class Action Complaint as though set forth fully  herein.   59.  This cause of action is brought pursuant to the California Consumers  Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Civil Code section 1750 et seq.  Plaintiff brings this  action on his own behalf and on behalf of the Class members, all of whom are similarly  situated consumers within the meaning of CAL. CIV. CODE. § 1781.   67.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained  in all preceding paragraphs of this Class Action Complaint as though set forth fully  herein.   68.  Plaintiff asserts this cause of action on behalf of himself and the other  members of the Class.    69.  This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Maine Unfair Trade  Practices Act, ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 5, § 205 et seq.   70.  The Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act declares unlawful all “[u]nfair  methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any  trade or commerce…”   71.  Under the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, Defendant’s misleading  representations regarding their refresh rates are unfair, deceptive and unconscionable.   72.  In the course of misrepresenting the refresh rates of the Televisions to  consumers and inflating prices to reflect these misrepresentations, Defendant has  engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and practices in trade or commerce in violation of  ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 5, § 207.   73.  Defendant violated the § 207 by inflating the prices of the Televisions  under the guise of higher quality refresh rate televisions.    74.  Defendant violated the § 207 by failing to disclose to consumers the true  refresh rates of the Televisions.   75.  Defendant violated § 207 by failing to charge consumers the fair market  value for the Televisions because of the inflated prices justified by misrepresentations of  the refresh rates.    80.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained  in all preceding paragraphs of this Class Action Complaint as though set forth fully  herein.   81.  Defendant has a duty of good faith and fair dealing with respect to their  dealings with consumers, including Plaintiff and the Class members.     82.  There is an implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in every contract,  and Defendant had an implied duty to ensure that their marketing materials and other  representations regarding the quality of its refresh rates were not false and misleading.   89.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained  in all preceding paragraphs of this Class Action Complaint as though set forth fully  herein.   90.  Defendant made material misstatements of fact to Plaintiff and Class  members regarding the refresh rates of the Televisions.  As a result, Plaintiff and the  Class were fraudulently induced to purchase the Televisions with false and inflated  refresh rates.   BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING  (On Behalf of the National Class)   COMMON LAW FRAUD  (On Behalf of the National Class)   NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION  (On Behalf of the National Class)   VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW,  BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200, et seq.  (On Behalf of the National Class)   VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA FALSE ADVERTISING LAW, BUSINESS  AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17500, et seq.  (On Behalf of the National Class)   VIOLATION OF THE CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT  CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 1750 et seq.  (On Behalf of the National Class)   VIOLATION OF THE MAINE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT  (On Behalf of the Maine Class)  