11.  Coca-Cola uses the term “diet” in Diet Coke, on both its label and in  advertising.   12.  Dictionary definitions of the term “diet” commonly refer to weight loss.   55.  Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, plaintiff seeks to represent a class comprised of  all persons in California who, on or after October 16, 2013 purchased, for personal or  household use, and not for resale, Diet Coke in cans or bottles.   64.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations elsewhere in the Complaint  as if fully set forth herein.   65.  The FAL prohibits any statement in connection with the sale of goods “which  is untrue or misleading,” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500.   66.  Coca-Cola’s use of the term “diet” in marketing Diet Coke is deceptive in light  of the strong evidence that aspartame causes weight gain.   67.  Coca-Cola knew, or reasonably should have known, that marketing Diet Coke  as “diet” was untrue or misleading.  68.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations elsewhere in the Complaint  as if fully set forth herein.   74.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations elsewhere in the Complaint  as if fully set forth herein.   81.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations elsewhere in the Complaint  as if fully set forth herein.   82.  Through the label of Diet Coke, Coca-Cola made affirmations of fact or  promises, and made descriptions of goods, that formed part of the basis of the bargain, in  that plaintiff and the class purchased the Diet Coke in reasonable reliance on those  statements. Cal. Com. Code § 2313(1).   83.  Specifically, Coca-Cola made statements that Diet Coke is “diet.”   84.  Coca-Cola breached its express warranties by selling products that are not  “diet,” i.e., do not assist in weight loss or healthy weight management, but which in fact  cause weight gain.   85.  That breach actually and proximately caused injury in the form of the lost  purchase price that plaintiff and class members paid for the Diet Coke.   86.  Plaintiff gave Coca-Cola notice of the breach before filing or asserting the  claim, but Coca-Cola failed to remedy the breach.   87.  As a result, plaintiff seeks, no behalf of herself and other class members, actual  damages arising as a result of Coca-Cola’s breach of express warranty.  88.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations elsewhere in the Complaint  as if fully set forth herein.   A.  Diet Coke is Marketed to Assist in Weight Loss and Healthy Weight  Management Due to Its Non-Caloric Artificial Sweetener, Aspartame   BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY, CAL. COM. CODE § 2313(1)   BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY,   CAL. COM. CODE § 2314   VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW,   CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 ET SEQ.   VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT,  CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 1750 ET SEQ.   VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA FALSE ADVERTISING LAW,   CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17500 ET SEQ.  