(Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)  (On Behalf of the Class)   (Restitution / Unjust Enrichment)  (On Behalf of the Class)  (In the Alternative)   (Violation of New York General Business Law § 349)  (On Behalf of the New York Sub-Class)   (Violation of Various Consumer Protection Acts)  (On Behalf of the Class)   19.  On September 25, 2012, Plaintiff purchased in-flight Internet service from Gogo  for $34.95 in reliance on the representations on Gogo’s registration website that he would be  charged $34.95 for one month of service.   20.  The service could be used for up to 30 days on any airline.  After the 30 days  ended on October 25, 2012, Gogo continued to bill Plaintiff’s credit card $34.95 every month  until at least December 25, 2012, even though Plaintiff did not use the service.  Gogo obtained  no signature or affirmative authorization to charge for recurring fees.  Nor did Gogo send any  form of communication to Plaintiff on a monthly basis, as is customary with monthly bills, to  notify him of the pending charges that he would incur if he did not cancel his service.   21.  Similarly, every other Class member purchased in-flight Internet service from  Gogo prior to December 31, 2012, using a registration website that had representations about the  monthly cost of the service but had no representations about the recurring nature of charges for  the service.   22.  Defendants’ website currently indicates that the charge for “monthly” service will  be recurring, but it did not do so in 2011 or 2012.  Rather, when potential customers registered  for the service, the only representation regarding the price indicated the price per month—e.g.,  “$34.95 per month.”   23.  In contrast to the prominent representations on Gogo’s registration website  regarding the price for the service, Defendants’ representations omitted reference to the recurring  nature of the charges.  7  Berkson et al. v. Gogo LLC  30.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a proposed class (the “Class”)  consisting of all others similarly situated, defined as follows:  All persons residing in the United States who, at any time between  February 25, 2008, and December 31, 2012 (the “Class Period”),  incurred monthly fees for Gogo in-flight Internet service for  months that the customers did not use the service.  Excluded from  the Class are Defendants, any entity in which Defendants have a  controlling interest, any officers or directors of Defendants, and the  legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of Defendants.   31.  Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of a proposed subclass (the “New York  Sub-Class”) consisting of all other similarly situated New York residents, defined as follows:  All New York residents who, at any time between January 30,  2008, and December 31, 2012, incurred monthly fees for Gogo in- flight Internet service for months that the customers did not use the  service.  Excluded from the New York Sub-Class are Defendants,  any entity in which Defendants have a controlling interest, any  officers or directors of Defendants, and the legal representatives,  heirs, successors, and assigns of Defendants.   32.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure.   33.  Numerosity of the Class; Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1): The size of the Class is so large  that joinder of all Class members is impracticable.  Class members number in the thousands.   The precise number of Class members and their addresses are unknown to Plaintiff but can be  obtained from Defendants’ records.  Class members can be notified of the pendency of this  action by mail, supplemented by published notice if necessary.  9  Berkson et al. v. Gogo LLC  39.  Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and  incorporates such allegations by reference herein.   40.  Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and the New York Sub- Class, pursuant to New York General Business Law section 349.   41.  As detailed more fully herein, Defendants engaged in deceptive acts and practices  by falsely and misleadingly making representations to consumers, and by engaging in omissions,  that were material to all reasonable consumers who accessed, or contemplated accessing, Gogo’s  in-flight Internet service.  These and similar misrepresentations were broadly disseminated to all  members of the New York Sub-Class in substantially the same form via Gogo’s website and  other advertising and marketing materials.   42.  As fully alleged above, by advertising, marketing, distributing, and/or selling the  Products to Plaintiff and the other members of the New York Sub-Class, Defendants engaged in  and continues to engage in deceptive acts, practices, and omissions.   43.  By reason of the foregoing, Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, constitutes  deceptive acts and practices in violation of New York General Business Law section 349, and  Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and the other members of the New York Sub-Class for the  actual damages that they have suffered as a result of Defendants’ actions.  The amount of such  damages is to be determined at trial, but will not be less than $50.00.   44.  Therefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.  12  Berkson et al. v. Gogo LLC  45.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges all paragraphs previously alleged  herein.   46.  Implicit within any agreement that Plaintiff and the other Class members may  have entered into with respect to the service described herein is a covenant by Defendants to act  in good faith and deal fairly with Plaintiff and the other Class members.   47.  Defendants breached this implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by  intentionally, knowingly, willfully, unreasonably, recklessly, arbitrarily, frivolously, and/or  maliciously:  a.  promoting Gogo’s in-flight Internet service but omitting the payment  scheme from the materials available to customers at the time of initial  purchase;  b.  refusing to offer full refunds to customers who were charged on a  recurring basis without their authorization; and  c.  for such other conduct to be disclosed in discovery.   48.  As a result of Defendants’ conduct as described herein, Plaintiff and the other  Class members have suffered loss and damage.   49.  Therefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.  13  Berkson et al. v. Gogo LLC  50.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges all paragraphs previously alleged.   51.  Plaintiff brings his statutory fraud claims pursuant to the substantially similar  Consumer Fraud Acts3 of all United States, all of which were enacted and designed to protect  consumers against unlawful, fraudulent, and/or unfair business acts and practices.  See, e.g.,  Illinois’ Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/1 et  seq. (the “Illinois Consumer Fraud Act”).  3 The following consumer protection acts are modeled after the Federal Trade Commission’s  consumer protection provisions and are collectively referred to herein, along with Illinois’ and  New York’s consumer protection statutes, as the “Consumer Fraud Acts”: Ala. Code § 8-19-1 et  seq. (Alabama); Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471 et seq. (Alaska); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 44-1521 et  seq. (Arizona); Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-101 et seq. (Arkansas); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-105 et seq.  (Colorado); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110a (Connecticut); Del. Code Ann. Tit. 6, § 2511 et seq.  (Delaware); D.C. Code Ann. § 28-3901 et seq. (District of Columbia); Fla. Stat. Ann, § 501.201  et seq. (Florida); Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-390 et seq. (Georgia); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A-1 et seq.  and Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-1 et seq. (Hawaii); Idaho Code § 48-601 et seq. (Idaho); Kan. Stat.  Ann § 50.623 et seq. (Kansas); Ky. Rev. Stat. § 367.11.0 et seq. (Kentucky); La. Rev. Stat. Ann.  § 51:1401 et seq. (Louisiana); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit. 5, § 205-A et seq. (Maine); Md. Com.  Law Code Ann. § 13-101 et seq., Md. Corn. Law Code Ann. § 13-301 et seq., Md. Corn Law  Code Ann, § 13-408 et seq. (Maryland); Mass Gen. L. ch. 93A (Massachusetts); Mich. Stat. Ann.  § 445.901 et seq., Mich. Stat. Ann. § 19.418(1) et seq. (Michigan); Minn. Stat. § 325F.68 et seq.,  Minn. Stat. § 8.31 (Minnesota); Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-3 et seq. (Mississippi); Mo. Rev. Stat.  § 407.010 et seq. (Missouri); Mont. Code Ann. § 30- 14-101 et seq. (Montana); Neb. Rev. Stat.§  59-1601 et seq. (Nebraska); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600 and Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0903 et seq.  (Nevada); N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 358:1 et seq. (New Hampshire); N.J. Rev. Stat. § 56:8-1 et  seq., N.J. Rev. Stat. § 56:12-1 et seq. (New Jersey); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-1.2-1 et seq. (New  Mexico); N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law. § 349 et seq. (New York); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1 et seq. (North  Carolina); N. D. Cent. Code § 51-15-01 et seq. (North Dakota); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.01  et seq. (Ohio); Okla. Stat. Tit. 15, § 751 et seq. (Oklahoma); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 646.605 et seq.  (Oregon); Penn. Stat. § 201-1 et seq. (Pennsylvania); Laws of P. R. Ann. Tit. 10, § 259 et seq.  (Puerto Rico); R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-13.1:1 et seq. (Rhode Island); S.C. Code Ann. 39-5-10 et seq.  (South Carolina); S.D. Codified Laws Ann. 37-24.1 et seq. (South Dakota); Tenn. Code Ann. §  47-18-101 et seq. (Tennessee); Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code Ann. § 17.41 et seq. (Texas); Vt. Stat.  Ann. Tit. 9, § 2451 et seq. (Vermont); Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-196 et seq. (Virginia); Wash. Rev.  Code § 19.86.010 et seq. (Washington); W.Va. Code § 46A-6-101 et seq. (West Virginia); and  Wyo. Stat. § 40;12-101 et seq. (Wyoming).  14  Berkson et al. v. Gogo LLC  60.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges all paragraphs previously alleged  herein.   61.  Plaintiff brings this cause of action in the alternative to his First, Second, and  Third Causes of Action, on behalf of himself and the Class members.   62.  By selling its in-flight Internet service through unfair and deceptive practices,  Defendants have engaged in inequitable conduct and has received a benefit at the expense of  consumers, including Plaintiff and the other Class members.  16  Berkson et al. v. Gogo LLC 