16.  Defendants manufacture, distribute, market, and sell the IGF-1 Plus line of  health supplements on a nationwide basis.    17.  Defendants presently offer six forms of the IGF-1 Plus products: (a) Super  Max 200,000ng; (b) Maximum 100,000ng; (c) Ultra Plus 25,000ng; (d) Ultra 10,000ng;  (e) Starter Plus 5,000ng; and (f) Starter 3,000ng. The products are nearly identical in their  chemical composition: they each contain deer antler velvet (cervidae parvum comu) and  stevia extract (leaves).  The only differences are the amounts of deer antler velvet and  stevia extract, and that the Super Max and Maximum IGF-1 Plus products come in a  dropper form rather than a spray.  The advertising and marketing messages for the  products are nearly identical.  See Exhibit A.  All IGF-1 Plus products claim to have  clinically tested components, and all products claim they build lean muscle mass, speed  recovery time, promote healthy joints, and increase libido.  Id.  Plaintiff alleges that the  actual quantity of deer antler velvet in any of the products is irrelevant because it is  completely ineffectual when delivered to the human body in the droplet form.    18.  The IGF-1 Plus products are sold throughout California and the United States  via the Nutronics website.   19.  Since the launch of the IGF-1 Plus products, Defendants have consistently  conveyed the message to consumers throughout California and nationwide that the IGF-1  Plus products ingredients will help “build lean muscle mass and speed[] their recovery  time,” “boost your energy levels,” and “promote sexual performance and function by  raising libido.”  While the main component of the IGF-1 Plus products, IGF-1, has been  Case No.  6  39.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly  situated pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  and seeks certification of the following Class:  All persons who purchased the IGF-1 Plus products in California.  Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers,  and directors, those who purchased the IGF-1 Plus products for the purpose of resale, and  those who assert claims for personal injury.   40.  Numerosity. 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.     41.  Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact.   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:  Case No.  14  46.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in  the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.   47.  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.   48.  Unless a Class is certified, Defendants will retain monies that were taken  from Plaintiff and Class members as a result of their conduct.  Unless a Class-wide  injunction is issued, Defendants will continue to commit the violations alleged, and the  members of the Class and the general public will continue to be misled.   49.  This cause of action is brought under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act,  California Civil Code § 1750, et seq. (the “Act”).  Plaintiff and the proposed Class are  consumers as defined by California Civil Code § 1761(d).  Defendants’ IGF-1 Plus  products are goods within the meaning of the Act.  Case No.  16  57.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in  the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.   58.  As alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact and lost money or  property as a result of Defendants’ conduct because he purchased the IGF-1 Plus  products.   59.  In the course of conducting business, Defendants committed unlawful  business practices by, inter alia, making the representations (which also constitute  advertising within the meaning of § 17200) and omissions of material facts, as set forth  more fully herein, and violating Civil Code §§ 1572, 1573, 1709, 1711, 1770, Business &  Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq., 17500, et seq., and the common law.   60.  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.   61.  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,  Case No.  18  67.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in  the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.   68.  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 IGF-1 Plus  products.  The terms of that contract include the promises and affirmations of fact made  Case No.  19  Breach of Express Warranty   The IGF-1 Plus products   Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.   Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act –Civil Code § 1750, et seq.  