35.  The Class is defined as all consumers who purchased the Products anywhere in  the United States during the Class Period (the “Class”).   36.  Plaintiff also seeks certification, to the extent necessary or appropriate, of a  subclass of individuals who purchased the Products in the State of New York at any time during  the Class Period (the “New York Subclass”).   37.  The Class and New York Subclass shall be referred to collectively throughout the  Complaint as the Class.   38.  The Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class action under  Rule 23(a), satisfying the class action prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and  adequacy because:   39.  Numerosity: Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable.  Plaintiff believes that there are thousands of consumers who are Class Members  described above who have been damaged by Defendant’s deceptive and misleading practices.     41.  Typicality: Plaintiff is a member of the Class.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the  claims of each Class Member in that every member of the Class was susceptible to the same  deceptive, misleading conduct and purchased the Defendant’s Products.  Plaintiff is entitled to  relief under the same causes of action as the other Class Members.   43.  Predominance: Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), common issues of law and fact  identified above predominate over any other questions affecting only individual members of the  Class.  The Class issues fully predominate over any individual issue because no inquiry into  individual conduct is necessary; all that is required is a narrow focus on Defendant's deceptive  and misleading marketing and labeling practices.     45.  Accordingly, this Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class  action under Rule 23(b)(3) because questions of law or fact common to Class Members  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and because a class action is  superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this controversy.  49.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all the  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.    50.  New York General Business Law Section 349 (“GBL § 349”) declares unlawful  “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce or in the  furnishing of any service in this state . . .”   51.  The conduct of Defendant alleged herein constitutes recurring, “unlawful”  deceptive acts and practices in violation of GBL § 349, and as such, Plaintiff and the New York  Subclass Members seek monetary damages and the entry of preliminary and permanent  injunctive relief against Defendant, enjoining them from inaccurately describing, labeling,  marketing, and promoting the Products.   52.  There is no adequate remedy at law.   54.  Defendant’s improper consumer-oriented conduct—including labeling and  advertising the Products as being “Certified Natural” and/or “Natural” —is misleading in a  material way in that it, inter alia, induced Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members to  purchase and pay a premium for Defendant’s Products and to use the Products when they  otherwise would not have. Defendant made their untrue and/or misleading statements and  representations willfully, wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the truth.     55.  Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members have been injured inasmuch as  they paid a premium for products that were—contrary to Defendant’s representations— not  “Certified Natural” and/or “Natural”. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the New York Subclass  Members received less than what they bargained and/or paid for.   56.  Defendant’s advertising and Products’ packaging and labeling induced the  Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members to buy Defendant’s Products and to pay a  premium price for them.   57.  Defendant’s deceptive and misleading practices constitute a deceptive act and  practice in the conduct of business in violation of New York General Business Law §349(a) and  Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members have been damaged thereby.   59.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all the  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   60.  N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350 provides, in part, as follows:  False advertising in the conduct of any business, trade or  commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state is hereby  declared unlawful.   61.  N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350a(1) provides, in part, as follows:  The term ‘false advertising, including labeling, of a commodity, or  of the kind, character, terms or conditions of any employment  opportunity if such advertising is misleading in a material respect.   In determining whether any advertising is misleading, there shall  be taken into account (among other things) not only  representations made by statement, word, design, device, sound or  any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the  advertising fails to reveal facts material in the light of such  representations with respect to the commodity or employment to  which the advertising relates under the conditions proscribed in  said advertisement, or under such conditions as are customary or  usual . . .    62.  Defendant’s labeling and advertisements contain untrue and materially misleading  statements concerning Defendant’s Products inasmuch as they misrepresent that the Products are  “Certified Natural” and/or “Natural”.    64.  Defendant’s advertising, packaging and products’ labeling induced the Plaintiff  and the New York Subclass Members to buy Defendant’s Products.   65.  Defendant made their untrue and/or misleading statements and representations  willfully, wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the truth.     66.  Defendant’s conduct constitutes multiple, separate violations of N.Y. Gen. Bus.  Law § 350.   67.  Defendant made the material misrepresentations described in this Complaint in  Defendant’s advertising, and on the Products’ packaging and labeling.    68.  Defendant’s material misrepresentations were substantially uniform in content,  presentation, and impact upon consumers at large.  Moreover, all consumers purchasing the  Products were and continue to be exposed to Defendant’s material misrepresentations.    69.  As a result of Defendant’s recurring, “unlawful” deceptive acts and practices,  Plaintiff and New York Subclass Members are entitled to monetary, compensatory, treble and  punitive damages, injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement of all moneys obtained by  means of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.  71.  Plaintiff and Class Members have been injured as a result of Defendant’s  violations of the following state consumer protection statutes, which also provide a basis for  redress to Plaintiff and Class Members based on Defendant’s fraudulent, deceptive, unfair and  unconscionable acts, practices and conduct.     73.  Defendant violated the aforementioned states’ unfair and deceptive acts and  practices laws by representing that the Products are “Certified Natural” and/or “Natural”.    74.  Contrary to Defendant’s representations, the Products are not “Certified Natural”  and/or “Natural”.      75.  Defendant’s misrepresentations were material to Plaintiff’s and Class Members’  decision to pay a premium for the Products.     76.  Defendant made their untrue and/or misleading statements and representations  willfully, wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the truth.     77.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of the aforementioned states’ unfair and  deceptive practices laws, Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the Products.   78.  As a result of Defendant’s violations, Defendant has been unjustly enriched.   80.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   81.  Defendant provided the Plaintiff and Class Members with an express warranty in  the form of written affirmations of fact promising and representing that the Products are  “Certified Natural” and/or “Natural”.    82.  The above affirmations of fact were not couched as “belief” or “opinion,” and  were not “generalized statements of quality not capable of proof or disproof.”   83.  These affirmations of fact became part of the basis for the bargain and were  material to the Plaintiff’s and Class Members’ transactions.   84.  Plaintiff and Class Members reasonably relied upon the Defendant’s affirmations  of fact and justifiably acted in ignorance of the material facts omitted or concealed when they  decided to buy Defendant’s Products.   85.  Within a reasonable time after they knew or should have known of Defendant’s  breach, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and Class Members, placed Defendant on notice of their  breach, giving Defendant an opportunity to cure their breach, which they refused to do.   87.  Defendant thereby breached the following state warranty laws:  a.  Code of Ala. § 7-2-313;  b.  Alaska Stat. § 45.02.313;  c.  89.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the  foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.    90.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of all members of the Class.  Upon certification, the Class will consist of more than 100 named Plaintiffs.   92.  The Products are “consumer products” within the meaning of the Magnuson-Moss  Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(1).   93.  Plaintiff and other members of the Class are “consumers” within the meaning of  the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3).   94.  Defendant is “supplier” and “warrantor” within the meaning of the Magnuson- Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301(4) & 2301(5).   95.  Defendant represented in writing that the Products are “Certified Natural” and/or  “Natural”.    96.  These statements were made in connection with the sale of the Products and relate  to the nature of the Products and affirm and promise that the Products are as represented and  defect free and, as such, are “written warranties” within the meaning of the Magnuson-Moss  Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(6)(A).   97.  As alleged herein, Defendant breached the written warranty by selling consumers  Products that are not “Certified Natural” and/or “Natural”.    BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTIBILITY  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)   BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)   VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GBL § 349  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and New York Subclass Members)   VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GBL § 350  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members)   VIOLATION OF STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION STATUTES  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)   VIOLATION OF THE MAGNUSON-MOSS   WARRANTY ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)  