 (Violation of New York General Business Law Section 349)   11.”  The dog bursts into the kitchen, shouting “Yummy, crunchy, BACON! BACON!  BACON!”  After looking at an empty frying pan on the stovetop, the dog cries: “There, in that  bag” as he sees the woman of the household holding the bag of Beggin’ Strips.  She wooingly  entreats: “Who wants a Beggin’ Strip?”  The dog screams: “Me!  I’d get it myself but I don’t  have thumbs.  Yum! Yum! Yum! IT’S BEGGIN’! Mmm, I love you!”  The woman hands the  dog a strip that looks just like a bacon strip.   The thankful dog jumps on her as she kneels, and  he kisses her face.  Another male voiceover states: “Beggin’ Strips, Made with real bacon.   There’s no time like Beggin’ time!,” as a frying pan of oil sizzles in the background.   Throughout the commercial, when the word “beggin’” is used, it sounds just like “bacon.”   12.  Defendant’s Beggin’ dog treat products are sold in New York and nationwide at  leading supermarkets, pet stores, superstores, convenience stores, and other retailers, including,  among others, Walmart Stores, Petco, Target Stores, and PetSmart.  Beggin’ dog treat products  are also sold online directly by Amazon.com, Walmart.com; Target.com, Walgreens.com, and by  many other online sellers.     13.  Defendant aggressively markets its Beggin’ dog treat product line, and engages in  a long-running, popular, national television commercial campaign featuring comical videos of  dogs enthusiastically musing about their strong desire for bacon and Defendant’s Beggin’ dog  treat products.   For example, Defendant’s television commercials for its Beggin’ Strips dog treat  product plainly, but falsely, suggest that the product is made of bacon and that the prime  ingredient is bacon.  Actually, however, the real main ingredients are non-meat fillers – ground  wheat, corn gluten meal, wheat flour, water, ground yellow corn, sugar, glycerin, soybean meal,  and hydrogenated corn syrup, plus at least five artificial preservatives.  Bacon and bacon fat are  present in tiny quantities – i.e., in the Beggin’ Strips Original Bacon Flavor product, they are the  tenth and twelfth ingredients (by weight) of this highly-processed dog food.   16.  Significantly, the product packaging for Beggin’Strips contains and reinforces the  same false and misleading claim that the product consists largely of real bacon.     18.  The back packaging of the Beggin’ Strips is equally misleading.  The top half  features the image of a crazed, outstretched, salivating dog chasing what looks like a giant crispy  strip of bacon.  Immediately below that image, in huge bold type, is the caption “BacoNology  101.”  Below “BacoNology 101” on the left of the packaging is a box containing the following  text: “There’s No Time Like Beggin’ Time.  Beggin.com.”  To the right of the box is the  explanation of the meaning of the banner “BacoNology 101.” Bullet point 1 is “EXCITEMENT  = BEGGIN’ X SPEED OF SMELL².”  Bullet point 2 is “WHAT HAPPENS WHEN AN  IRRESISTIBLE AROMA MEETS AN IMMOVABLE APPETITE?  BEGGIN’ TIME!”  Bullet  point 3 states: “AN OBJECT IN MOTION STAYS IN MOTION. CHECK OUT MY TAIL!”   To the right of the bullet points is the icon of the black frying pan containing two crispy strips of  bacon.  At the very right corner of the back packaging, below a set of instructions to consumers  to “Feed as a treat to your adult dog,” is an oval containing text stating: “Baconologists standing  by,” followed by the Purina logo and the purina.com website address, the Purina call center  phone number, and its hours of operation.  The bottom left corner of the back packaging contains  a “Guaranteed Analysis” of the protein, fat, and fiber content of the product, plus a list of  ingredients, with the ingredients listed in decreasing order of predominance by weight.  United  States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulations require food product ingredients to be  listed in descending order of predominance, by weight, in nutrition labeling, 21 C.F.R. §101.4(a).     20.  Thus, the all important front PDP for the Beggin’ Strips Original Bacon Flavor, as  well as the back packaging, plainly convey the false and misleading impression that Beggin’  Strips are predominantly made out of real pork bacon.  Consumers who are looking to purchase a  real bacon treat for their dogs are deceived by Defendant’s misleading labeling into buying  Beggin’ Strips dog treat products that consist largely of processed wheat, corn, and soy, as well  as water (“moisture” constitutes fully 26 percent of the product, according to the “Guaranteed  Analysis” on the back of the packaging)  – hardly the premium real pork bacon ingredients that  are touted on the PDP and rear packaging and for which the consumers purchase the products,  and in any event, for which consumers pay a price premium.   21.  The same type of false and misleading PDPs and back panel packaging are found  on all the Beggin’ dog treat products, specifically including, but not limited to, the Bacon flavor  and Bacon & Cheese flavor Beggin’ Strips that Plaintiff purchased for his dogs’ consumption.   Moreover, once a consumer opens the Beggin’ package, she is presented with a product that is  cut, shaped, colored, and textured to look like it is real bacon, and the product is flavored to  smell just like real bacon.   23.  Plaintiff and the class members have been and will continue to be deceived or  misled by Defendant’s deceptive representations.  Plaintiff purchased the dog treat products  during the class period and in doing so, read and considered the products’ PDPs and other  packaging and based his decision to purchase the products on the representations made on the  products’ packaging, which is entirely consistent with Defendant’s nationally-run television ads  for the products which Plaintiff also has viewed.  Defendants’ representations and omissions  were a material factor in influencing Plaintiff’s decisions to purchase and have his dogs consume  the Beggin’ dog treat products.   24.  Plaintiff and the class would not have purchased the Beggin’ dog treat products,  or paid the premium price they paid, had they known Defendant’s representations on the product  packaging and in its advertising are false and misleading.   25.  As a result, Plaintiff and the class members have been injured in fact by their  purchase of the products they were deceived into purchasing and for which they paid a premium  price.   26.   Defendant, by contrast, has reaped enormous profits from its false marketing and  sale of the products.   27.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated  consumers.  Plaintiff expressly disclaims any intent to seek any recovery in this action for  personal injuries that he or any class member or their pets may have suffered.   29.  Numerosity.  This action is appropriately suited for a class action.  The members  of the class are so numerous that joinder of all members of the class is impracticable.  Plaintiff is  informed, believes, and thereon alleges, that the proposed class contains thousands of purchasers  of Beggin’ dog treat products who have been damaged by Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein.   The precise number of class members is unknown to Plaintiff.     31.  Typicality.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the  class, because, inter alia, all class members have been injured through the uniform misconduct  described above, and were subject to Defendant’s deceptive representations, including the  representations that accompany each and every label or packaging of the products (described in  detail above) and were made on Defendant’s websites and other advertising media.  Moreover,  the named Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class members’ claims.  Plaintiff is advancing the  same claims and legal theories on behalf of himself and all members of the class.     32.  Adequacy of Representation.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the  interests of the members of the class.  Plaintiff Kacocha purchased at least the following Beggin’  dog treat products:  Beggin’ Strips Bacon Flavor and Beggin’ Strips Bacon & Cheese Flavor;  and he relied upon the deceptive representations that were made in Defendant’s marketing and  advertising campaign, and on the labels on each and every package.  As a result, Plaintiff has  suffered an injury in fact as a result of Defendant’s conduct, as did all class members who  purchased the Beggin’ dog treat products.  Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in complex  consumer class action litigation, and Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action vigorously.   Plaintiff has no adverse or antagonistic interests to those of the class.     34.  Plaintiff seeks monetary damages, including statutory damages on behalf of the  entire class, and other equitable relief on grounds generally applicable to the entire class, to  enjoin and prevent Defendants from engaging in the acts described. Unless a class is certified,  Defendant will be allowed to profit from its deceptive practices, while Plaintiff and the members  of the class will have suffered damages.  Unless a class-wide injunction is issued, Defendant will  continue to commit the violations alleged, and the members of the class and the general public  will continue to be deceived.   35.  Defendant has acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  class, making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole.  37.  Representing that its Beggin’ dog treat products consist primarily of real bacon,  Defendant has made false representations about the products, and so, the representations claimed  are deceptive, and have the capacity, tendency and effect of deceiving reasonable consumers  who purchase the products. Reasonable consumers would believe that their dogs are consuming a  product primarily made of real bacon when they consume Defendant’s Beggin’ dog treat  products.  In reality, real bacon is just a miniscule ingredient in the products, which largely  consist of processed wheat, corn, and soy grains, sugar, water, and artificial preservatives.   38.  Defendant made, and makes, the false representation that its Beggin’ dog treat  products consist largely of real bacon with the intent to induce consumers, and members of the  class sought herein, to purchase the products by causing them to rely on the representation that  the products consist mostly of real bacon.   39.  Defendant has deceptively advertised, marketed, promoted, distributed, and sold  its Beggin’ dog treat products.   40.  Plaintiff and the Class have been aggrieved by and have suffered losses as a result  of Defendant’s violations of Section 349 of the New York General Business Law.  By virtue of  the foregoing unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive acts in the conduct of trade or commerce,  Plaintiff and the members of the Class have been substantially injured in the amount of the  purchase prices for the Beggin’ dog treat products that they paid, or in the alternative, have been  damaged by paying more for the Beggin’ dog treat products that they purchased than for other  products containing the same or similar ingredients.   42.  By reason of the foregoing, Defendant’s conduct, as alleged herein, constitutes  deceptive acts and practices in violation of Section 349 of the New York General Business Law,  and Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and the Class for the actual damages that they have suffered  as a result of Defendant’s actions, the amount of such damages to be determined at trial, plus  treble damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.     43.  Plaintiff further demands injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from continuing to  engage in, use, or employ any act, including advertisements, packaging, or other representations,  prohibited by Section 349 of the New York General Business Law. 