(In the Alternative to Count I)  UNJUST ENRICHMENT  On Behalf of the National Class   24.  Throughout the period of March 3, 2012, through the present, Defendant  systematically marketed and advertised the Products as “All Natural” on the Products packaging.    25.  Defendant prominently placed the words “All Natural” on the front of every  package of the Products, as illustrated in the representative image in Figure 1.   Figure 1.  6   26.  Defendant prominently features the “All Natural” representation on each of the  Great Value pita chips in a central location and in all capitalized letters.    27.  Additionally, Defendant prominently features an “All Natural” stamp on each of  its Great Value pita chip labels, as illustrated (and magnified) in the representative image in  Figure 2.                  Figure 2.    28.  By consistently and systematically marketing and advertising the Product as “All  Natural” on the Product’s packaging throughout the period of March 3, 2012, through the present  and throughout the United States, Defendants ensured that all consumers purchasing the Product  would be, and all consumers purchasing the Product were, exposed to Defendant’s  misrepresentation that the Product is “All Natural”.  Defendant’s Product Contain Other Synthetic, Artificial and/or Highly Processed  Ingredients, All of Which Are Not Natural     29.  The Product contain a variety of other synthetic, artificial, and or heavily  processed, unnatural ingredients, including, enriched wheat flour, niacin, thiamine mononitrate  and folic acid.    30.  Enriched Wheat Flour is a highly processed form of wheat flour that has been  rendered into an artificial, unnatural ingredient.  Enriched wheat flour is formed when wheat  seeds are ground to remove the outer layer of the seed and rend a fine light brown or yellowish  7  flour.  During this process, almost all nutrients are removed from the flour, leaving a product that  is void of its natural nutritional properties.  The flour is then synthetically bleached with  chemical additives, such as benzoyl peroxide or chlorine, to give it an artificial, unnatural white  color.  After bleaching, the flour then has synthetic substances added to it in an attempt to restore  nutritional value to the product.  Several of these synthetic substances, all of which are included  in the Products contain enriched wheat flour, and are described in more detail below:   a. Niacin is a synthetic form of vitamin B3 formed from 3-methylpyridine.   b. Thiamine Mononitrate (C12H17N5O4S) is a mononitrate salt of thiamine. It  is chemically distinct from thiamine (vitamin B1), C12H17N5O4OS.  Thiamine  Mononitrate is a synthetic substance prepared from thiamine hydrochloride (also  synthetic) by dissolving the hydrochloride salt in alkaline solution followed by  precipitation of the nitrate half-salt with stoichiometric amount of nitric acid.4   c. Folic Acid is the chemical N-[4-[[(2-amino-1, 4-dihydro-4-oxo-6- pteridinyl)methyl]amino]benzoyl]-Lglutamic acid.5  Folic Acid is synthetically  created.  Folic acid differs from natural folate in numerous respects, including shelf  life and bio-availability.  The molecular structure of folic acid is also different from  that of natural folate.    31.  Discovery is necessary to uncover the true nature of other ingredients in  Defendant’s Product.    32.  Despite the presence of all of the above-listed unnatural artificial and synthetic  ingredients in Defendant’s Product, Defendant markets the Product as “All Natural”.   Defendant Deceptively Markets the Products as “ALL NATURAL” to Induce Consumers,  Including Plaintiff and the Class Members, to Purchase the Product   33.  According to Consumers Union, “Eighty-six percent of consumers expect a  ‘natural’ label to mean processed foods do not contain any artificial ingredients.”6  51.  Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on  behalf of a National Class defined as:   All persons who, between March 3, 2012 and the present purchased one  or more bags of “Great Value All Natural PITA CHIPS” at a Walmart  store located in the United States or online at www.walmart.com.    52.  Plaintiff also brings this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on  behalf of all Illinois Sub-Class defined as:   All persons who, between March 3, 2014 and the present purchased one  or more bags of “Great Value All Natural PITA CHIPS” at a Walmart  store located in Illinois or online at www.walmart.com while in Illinois.     53.  The members of the class and sub-class for whose benefit this action is brought  are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.   11   54.  Upon information and belief, the proposed National Class and the proposed  Illinois Sub-Class are each composed of many thousands of persons.    55.  No violations alleged in this complaint are a result of any oral communications or  individualized interaction of any kind between class members and Defendant.    56.  Rather, all claims in this matter arise from the identical, false, written affirmative  statements on the Product label as outlined in detail herein.    57.  There are common questions of law and fact affecting the rights of all National  Class members and Illinois Sub-Class members, including, inter alia, the following:  a. Whether the Product is All-Natural;  b. Whether Defendant’s act in labeling the Product “ALL NATURAL” was a false,  affirmative statement of fact;   c. Whether Defendant was aware that the Product contained unnatural artificial and  synthetic ingredients; and   d. The date Defendant became aware that the Product contained unnatural artificial  and synthetic ingredients.   58.  In addition, there are common questions of law and fact affecting the rights of all  Illinois Sub-Class members, including, inter alia, the following:    a. Whether Defendant’s actions, as outlined herein, violated the Illinois Consumer  Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act; 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.;  b. Whether, by the facts alleged herein, Defendant breached an express or implied  warranty under Illinois common law;   c. Whether an implied contract for the purchase of goods existed between Defendant  and each member of the Illinois Sub-Class under Illinois common law; and  d. Whether Defendant’s actions, as outlined herein, breached that implied contract  and/or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that was part of such  contract under Illinois common law.    59.  Plaintiff is a member of the class and sub-class she seeks to represent.   12   60.  The claims of Plaintiff are not only typical of all class and sub-class members,  they are identical.   61.  All claims of Plaintiff and the class and sub-class arise from the same identical,  false, written statement of affirmative fact on the Product label as described herein.    62.  All claims of Plaintiff and the class and sub-class are based on the same legal  theories.    63.  Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the class or sub-class.    64.  Plaintiff will thoroughly and adequately protect the interests of the class and sub- class, having retained qualified and competent legal counsel to represent herself and the class  and sub-class.     65.  Defendant has acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  class and sub-class, thereby making appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief for the class as  a whole.    66.  The prosecution of separate actions by individual class members would create a  risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications.    67.  A class action is the only practical, available method for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy since, inter alia, the damages suffered by each class member  were less than $4.00 per bag of the Product purchased and, as such, individual actions are not  economically feasible.    68.  Common questions will predominate, and there will be no unusual manageability  issues.   13  69.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-68 of this  complaint as if set forth fully herein.    70.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the National Class.   Plaintiff and each member of the National Class formed a contract with Defendant at the time  Plaintiff and the other members of the National Class purchased Defendant’s Product.    71.  Defendant sold the Product in its regular course of business.    72.  Plaintiff and the members of the National Class purchased the Product.    73.  The written, capitalized and uniformly-worded label on the Product, along with  the stamped written label on the Product constituted an express warranty provided to all  purchasers of the Product under the law of each state in the United States in which the Product  was sold.    74.  Defendant’s written affirmation of fact, promises, and/or descriptions on the  Product label were part of that express warranty under the laws of each state in the United States  in which the Product was sold.    75.  By the acts alleged herein, Defendant breached that warranty because the Product  cannot and does not conform to the properties Defendant represented on the label.    76.  All conditions precedent to seeking liability under this claim for breach of  warranty have been performed by or on behalf of Plaintiff and the members of the National Class  in terms of paying for the goods at issue.    77.  Defendant had actual and/or constructive notice of the false labeling information  and to date has taken no action to remedy its breaches of warranty.   14   78.  By placing the Product into the stream of commerce, by operation of law in each  state in the United States, Defendant also impliedly warranted to Plaintiff and the members of the  National Class that the Product was accurately labeled in conformance with the law.    79.  Defendant’s breaches of warranty have caused Plaintiff and the members of the  National Class to suffer injuries by paying for falsely labeled products. As a direct and proximate  result of Defendant’s breaches of warranty, Plaintiff and the members of the National Class have  suffered damages and continue to suffer damages, including economic damages in terms of the  difference between the value of the Product as promised and the value of the Product as  delivered.    80.  As a result of the breach of these warranties, Plaintiff and the members of the  National Class are entitled to legal and equitable relief including damages, costs, attorneys’ fees,  rescission, and/or other relief as deemed appropriate, for an amount to compensate them for not  receiving the benefit of their bargain.    81.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-68 of this  complaint as if set forth fully herein.   82.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the National Class.    83.  Plaintiff and the members of the National Class have conferred substantial  benefits on Defendant by purchasing the Product, and Defendant has knowingly and willingly  accepted and enjoyed these benefits.    84.  Defendant received these benefits as a result of its uniform deceptive marketing of  the Product.   15   85.  Defendant either knew or should have known that the payments rendered by  Plaintiff and the members of the National Class were given and received with the expectation  that the Product would be as represented and warranted, free of any artificial or synthetic  ingredients.    86.  Under the common law of unjust enrichment in every state in the United States  where the Product was sold, it would be inequitable for Defendant to retain the benefit of  payments under these circumstances and such retention constitutes unjust enrichment.    87.  Under the law of every state in the United States where the Product was sold, both  law and equity demand disgorgement of Defendant’s ill-gotten gains.    88.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct and unjust  enrichment, Plaintiff and the members of the National Class are entitled to restitution from  Defendant and institution of a constructive trust disgorging all profits, benefits, and other  compensation obtained by Defendant.   89.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-68 of this  complaint as if set forth fully herein.   90.  Plaintiff asserts this claim on behalf of herself and on behalf of the Illinois Sub- Class, pursuant to the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS  505/1 et seq. (the “ICFA”).    91.  Section 2 of the ICFA provides in pertinent part:   Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including  but not limited to the use or employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense,  16  false promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or omission of  any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression  or omission of any such material fact, or the use or employment of any practice  described in Section 2 of the “Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act,” approved  August 5, 1965, in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared  unlawful whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged  thereby.  In construing this section consideration shall be given to the  interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission and the federal courts relating to  Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act.  815 ILCS 505/2 (footnotes  omitted).   92.  Under the ICFA, the term “consumer” means “any person who purchases or  contracts for the purchase of merchandise not for resale in the ordinary course of his trade or  business but for his use or that of a member of his household.”  815 ILCS 505/1(e).    93.  Under the ICFA, the terms “trade” and “commerce” mean “the advertising,  offering for sale, sale, or distribution of any services and any property, tangible or intangible,  real, personal or mixed, and any other article, commodity, or thing of value wherever situated,  and shall include any trade or commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of this State.”   815 ILCS 505/1(f).   94.  Plaintiff and the Illinois Sub-Class members have standing to assert this claim  because they are “consumers” within the meaning of the IFCA, and Defendant addresses its  practices to the market generally and otherwise implicates consumer protection concerns.  At all  relevant times, Defendant conducted “trade” and “commerce” within the meaning of 815 ILCS  505/1(f).   95.  As fully alleged above, by advertising, marketing, distributing, and/or selling the  Products with claims that they were “All Natural” to Plaintiff and the Illinois Sub-Class  members, Defendant violated the ICFA by engaging in, and it continues to violate the ICFA by  continuing to engage in, unfair and deceptive acts or practices, since the Products, which are  made from artificial and synthetic ingredients, are not natural.  17   96.  Defendant’s unlawful, unfair and/or deceptive practices described herein are  continuing in nature and are widespread practices.   97.  Defendant’s actions, which were willful and wanton, constitute intentional  violations of the ICFA.   98.  Defendant intended that Plaintiff and the Illinois Sub-Class members rely on the  unfair and deceptive acts and omissions alleged herein so that they would buy, and/or continue to  buy, Defendant’s Products.   BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY   On Behalf of the National Class   ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT  815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.  On Behalf of the Illinois Sub-Class  