(Breach of Contract – By Plaintiff on behalf of the Class, against Defendant   and Does 1-100)   (Negligent Misrepresentation – By Plaintiff on behalf of the Class, against Defendant  and Does 1-100)   (Unjust Enrichment/Quasi Contract – By Plaintiff on behalf of the Class, against  Defendant and Does 1-100)   (Violation of District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C. Code  Ann. §§ 28-3901, et seq. – By Plaintiff on behalf of District of Columbia Subclass, against  Defendant and Does 1-100)   (Violation of California Business and Professions Code, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code  §§ 17200, et seq. – By Plaintiff on behalf of California Subclass, against Defendant and  Does 1-100)   (Violation of Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 13- 101, et seq. – By Plaintiff on behalf of Maryland Subclass, against Defendant   and Does 1-100)  115.  Plaintiff and the Maryland Subclass repeat and reallege each and every allegation  above as if set forth in full herein.  116. Defendant represented through advertising, marketing, packaging and by educating  the consuming public about the then-emerging Smart TV product segment, that its Affected Smart  TVs would have access to YouTube for the life of the product.  That material representation to  Plaintiff and the Maryland Subclass represented characteristics, uses and benefits that Defendant’s  Affected Smart TVs did not possess in violation of law.   117. Defendant intended that consumers would rely on the characteristics, uses and  benefits it represented regarding its Affected Smart TVs.  118. Defendant’s unfair and deceptive representations occurred in trade or commerce.  119. Defendant’s representation was unfair and deceptive resulting in an ascertainable  economic injury to Plaintiff and the Maryland Subclass.   (Violation of Delaware’s Consumer Fraud Act, Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, §§ 2511, et seq. –  By Plaintiff on behalf of Delaware Subclass, against Defendant and Does 1-100)   (Violation of West Virginia’s Consumer Credit and Protection Act, W.Va. Code Ann.  §§ 46A-1-101, et seq. – By Plaintiff on behalf of West Virginia Subclass, against  Defendant and Does 1-100)  184.   Plaintiff and the West Virginia Subclass repeat and reallege each and every  allegation above as if set forth in full herein.  185.   Defendant represented through advertising, marketing, packaging and by educating  the consuming public about the then-emerging Smart TV product segment, that its Affected Smart  TVs would have access to YouTube for the life of the product.  That material representation to  Plaintiff and the West Virginia Subclass represented characteristics, uses and benefits that  Defendant’s Affected Smart TVs did not possess in violation of law.   186.  Defendant intended that consumers would rely on the characteristics, uses and  benefits it represented regarding its Affected Smart TVs.  187.   Defendant’s unfair and deceptive representations occurred in trade or commerce.  188.   Defendant’s representation was unfair and deceptive resulting in an ascertainable  economic injury to Plaintiff and the West Virginia Subclass.   (Violation of Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 42- 110a, et seq. – By Plaintiff on behalf of Connecticut Subclass, against Defendant and  Does 1-100)   (Violation of Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Ann. Stat. §§ 407.010, et  seq. – By Plaintiff on behalf of Missouri Subclass, against Defendant and Does 1-100)  135. Plaintiff and the Missouri Subclass repeat and reallege each and every allegation  above as if set forth in full herein.  136.  Defendant represented through advertising, marketing, packaging and by educating  the consuming public about the then-emerging Smart TV product segment, that its Affected Smart  TVs would have access to YouTube for the life of the product.  That material representation to  Plaintiff and the Missouri Subclass represented characteristics, uses and benefits that Defendant’s  Affected Smart TVs did not possess in violation of law.   137. Defendant intended that consumers would rely on the characteristics, uses and  benefits it represented regarding its Affected Smart TVs.  138.  Defendant’s unfair and deceptive representations occurred in trade or commerce.  139.  Defendant’s representation was unfair and deceptive resulting in an ascertainable  economic injury to Plaintiff and the Missouri Subclass.   (Violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750,  et seq. – By Plaintiff on behalf of California Subclass, against Defendant and Does 1-100)   (Violation of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 Ill.  Comp. Stat. 505/1, et seq. – By Plaintiff on behalf of Illinois Subclass, against Defendant  and Does 1-100)  105. Plaintiff and the Illinois Subclass repeat and reallege each and every allegation  above as if set forth in full herein.  106. Defendant represented through advertising, marketing, packaging and by educating  the consuming public about the then-emerging Smart TV product segment, that its Affected Smart  TVs would have access to YouTube for the life of the product.  That material representation to  Plaintiff and the Illinois Subclass represented characteristics, uses and benefits that Defendant’s  Affected Smart TVs did not possess in violation of law.   107. Defendant intended that consumers would rely on the characteristics, uses and  benefits it represented regarding its Affected Smart TVs.  108. Defendant’s unfair and deceptive representations occurred in trade or commerce.  109. Defendant’s representation was unfair and deceptive resulting in an ascertainable  economic injury to Plaintiff and the Illinois Subclass.  (Violation of Rhode Island’s Unfair Trade Practices & Consumer Protection Act, Ri.  Gen. Laws §§ 6-13.1-1, et seq. – By Plaintiff on behalf of Rhode Island Subclass, against  Defendant and Does 1-100)  164.   Plaintiff and the Rhode Island Subclass repeat and reallege each and every  allegation above as if set forth in full herein.  165.   Defendant represented through advertising, marketing, packaging and by educating  the consuming public about the then-emerging Smart TV product segment, that its Affected Smart  TVs would have access to YouTube for the life of the product.  That material representation to  Plaintiff and the Rhode Island Subclass represented characteristics, uses and benefits that  Defendant’s Affected Smart TVs did not possess in violation of law.   166.  Defendant intended that consumers would rely on the characteristics, uses and  benefits it represented regarding its Affected Smart TVs.  167.   Defendant’s unfair and deceptive representations occurred in trade or commerce.  168.   Defendant’s representation was unfair and deceptive resulting in an ascertainable  economic injury to Plaintiff and the Rhode Island Subclass.   (Violation of Vermont’s Consumer Fraud Law, 9 Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 9, §§ 2451, et seq. –  By Plaintiff on behalf of Vermont Subclass, against Defendant and Does 1-100)  174.   Plaintiff and the Vermont Subclass repeat and reallege each and every allegation  above as if set forth in full herein.  175.   Defendant represented through advertising, marketing, packaging and by educating  the consuming public about the then-emerging Smart TV product segment, that its Affected Smart  TVs would have access to YouTube for the life of the product.  That material representation to  Plaintiff and the Vermont Subclass represented characteristics, uses and benefits that Defendant’s  Affected Smart TVs did not possess in violation of law.   176.  Defendant intended that consumers would rely on the characteristics, uses and  benefits it represented regarding its Affected Smart TVs.  177.   Defendant’s unfair and deceptive representations occurred in trade or commerce.  178.   Defendant’s representation was unfair and deceptive resulting in an ascertainable  economic injury to Plaintiff and the Vermont Subclass.   (Violation of Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Alaska  Stat. Ann. §§ 45.50.471, et seq. – By Plaintiff on behalf of Alaska Subclass, against  Defendant and Does 1-100)   (Violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann.  §§ 501.201, et seq. – By Plaintiff on behalf of Florida Subclass, against Defendant   and Does 1-100)   (Violation of Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§  445.901, et seq. – By Plaintiff on behalf of Michigan Subclass, against Defendant  and Does 1-100)  125. Plaintiff and the Michigan Subclass repeat and reallege each and every allegation  above as if set forth in full herein.  126. Defendant represented through advertising, marketing, packaging and by educating  the consuming public about the then-emerging Smart TV product segment, that its Affected Smart  TVs would have access to YouTube for the life of the product.  That material representation to  Plaintiff and the Michigan Subclass represented characteristics, uses and benefits that Defendant’s  Affected Smart TVs did not possess in violation of law.   127. Defendant intended that consumers would rely on the characteristics, uses and  benefits it represented regarding its Affected Smart TVs.  128. Defendant’s unfair and deceptive representations occurred in trade or commerce.  129. Defendant’s representation was unfair and deceptive resulting in an ascertainable  economic injury to Plaintiff and the Michigan Subclass.   (Violation of North Dakota’s Consumer Fraud statute, N.D. Cent. Code §§ 51-15-01, et  seq. – By Plaintiff on behalf of North Dakota Subclass, against Defendant   and Does 1-100)  154.   Plaintiff and the North Dakota Subclass repeat and reallege each and every  allegation above as if set forth in full herein.  155.  Defendant represented through advertising, marketing, packaging and by educating  the consuming public about the then-emerging Smart TV product segment, that its Affected Smart  TVs would have access to YouTube for the life of the product.  That material representation to  Plaintiff and the North Dakota Subclass represented characteristics, uses and benefits that  Defendant’s Affected Smart TVs did not possess in violation of law.   156. Defendant intended that consumers would rely on the characteristics, uses and  benefits it represented regarding its Affected Smart TVs.  157.  Defendant’s unfair and deceptive representations occurred in trade or commerce.  158.  Defendant’s representation was unfair and deceptive resulting in an ascertainable  economic injury to Plaintiff and the North Dakota Subclass.   (Violation of Arizona’s Consumer Fraud Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 44-1521, et seq. –  By Plaintiff on behalf of Arizona Subclass, against Defendant and Does 1-100)   (Violation of Georgia’s Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ga. Code Ann. §§ 10- 1-370, et seq. – By Plaintiff on behalf of Georgia Subclass, against Defendant   and Does 1-100)   (Violation of New Jersey’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:8-19, et  seq. – By Plaintiff on behalf of New Jersey Subclass, against Defendant and Does 1-100)  139.   Plaintiff and the New Jersey Subclass repeat and reallege each and every allegation  above as if set forth in full herein.  140.  Defendant represented through advertising, marketing, packaging and by educating  the consuming public about the then-emerging Smart TV product segment, that its Affected Smart  TVs would have access to YouTube for the life of the product.  That material representation to  Plaintiff and the New Jersey Subclass represented characteristics, uses and benefits that  Defendant’s Affected Smart TVs did not possess in violation of law.   141. Defendant intended that consumers would rely on the characteristics, uses and  benefits it represented regarding its Affected Smart TVs.  142.  Defendant’s unfair and deceptive representations occurred in trade or commerce.  143.  Defendant’s representation was unfair and deceptive resulting in an ascertainable  economic injury to Plaintiff and the New Jersey Subclass.   18.  Plaintiff purchased a new, 2012 model Samsung Smart TV, an Affected Smart TV,  in the state of California, for family or household purposes.     19.  Defendant manufactured the television purchased by Plaintiff and used advertising  and marketing to educate the consuming public, including Plaintiff, about Smart TV technology.   That technology included but was not limited to smart televisions’ new and unique ability to  access video streaming apps, including YouTube, directly on its Smart TVs.     37.  Plaintiff and the Class repeat and reallege each and every allegation above as if set  forth in full herein.    38.  Defendant offered its specific models of Affected Smart TVs to consumers for  specific prices.  Those prices were based on the complete product and functionality the consumer  would purchase.  Defendant’s offer promised, as evinced by Defendant’s advertising, packaging,  promoting, etc., that the Affected Smart TV being purchased included access to the YouTube app  via the Affected Smart TV for the life of the product.   39.  Defendant intended Plaintiff and the Class to be the beneficiary of the promised  performance of its Affected Smart TVs; namely, that Affected Smart TVs would provide access to  YouTube without additional expense for the life of the product.   40.  Plaintiff and the Class accepted Defendant’s offer by purchasing Affected Smart  TVs and paying Defendant’s requested price.   41.  Defendant breached its contract with Plaintiff and the Class on June 26, 2017, when  its Affected Smart TVs stopped providing access to YouTube.   42.  Defendant further breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by  failing to offer any no-cost solution to restore access to YouTube on Plaintiff’s and the Class’s  Affected Smart TVs.   43.  Plaintiff and the Class incurred damages resulting from Defendant’s breach  including but not limited to a diminution of value of each and every Affected Smart TV due to the  loss of YouTube functionality on those devices.  44.  Plaintiff and the Class repeat and reallege each and every allegation above as if set  forth in full herein.   49.  Plaintiff and the Class repeat and reallege each and every allegation above as if set  forth in full herein.   50.  Defendant made multiple, uniform material misrepresentations to Plaintiff and the  Class; specifically, that one of the world’s most popular video streaming apps, YouTube, would be  available on Affected Smart TVs for the life of the products.  YouTube functionality for the life of  the product was a material misrepresentation not only due to the popularity of YouTube as a video  streaming app, but especially because, unlike other video streaming apps available on Affected  Smart TVs, YouTube app functionality on Affected Smart TVs came without the additional  subscription expenditure required to access similar video streaming apps such as Netflix and Hulu.   55.  Plaintiff and the Alaska Subclass repeat and reallege each and every allegation  above as if set forth in full herein.   56.  Defendant represented through advertising, marketing, packaging and by educating  the consuming public about the then-emerging Smart TV product segment, that its Affected Smart  TVs would have access to YouTube for the life of the product.  That representation to Plaintiff and  the Alaska Subclass represented characteristics, uses and benefits that Defendant’s Affected Smart  TVs did not possess in violation of Alaska Stat. Ann. § 45.50.471(b)(4).    60.  Plaintiff and the Arizona Subclass repeat and reallege each and every allegation  above as if set forth in full herein.   61.  Defendant represented through advertising, marketing, packaging and by educating  the consuming public about the then-emerging Smart TV product segment, that its Affected Smart  TVs would have access to YouTube for the life of the product.  That representation to Plaintiff and  the Arizona Subclass represented characteristics, uses and benefits that Defendant’s Affected  Smart TVs did not possess in violation of law.    62.  Defendant intended that consumers would rely on the characteristics, uses and  benefits it represented regarding its Affected Smart TVs.   63.  Defendant’s unfair and deceptive representations occurred in trade or commerce.   64.  Defendant’s representation was unfair and deceptive resulting in an ascertainable  economic injury to Plaintiff and the Arizona Subclass.   65.  Plaintiff and the California Subclass repeat and reallege each and every allegation  above as if set forth in full herein.   70.  Plaintiff and the California Subclass repeat and reallege each and every allegation  above as if set forth in full herein.   71.  Defendant represented through advertising, marketing, packaging and by educating  the consuming public about the then-emerging Smart TV product segment, that its Affected Smart  TVs would have access to YouTube for the life of the product.  That material representation to  Plaintiff and the California Subclass represented characteristics, uses and benefits that Defendant’s  Affected Smart TVs did not possess which was unfair.    72.  Defendant intended that consumers would rely on the characteristics, uses and  benefits it represented regarding its Affected Smart TVs.   73.  Defendant’s unfair and deceptive representations occurred in trade or commerce.   74.  Defendant’s representation was unfair and deceptive resulting in an ascertainable  economic injury to Plaintiff and the California Subclass requiring restitution.  75.  Plaintiff and the Connecticut Subclass repeat and reallege each and every allegation  above as if set forth in full herein.   80.  Plaintiff and the Delaware Subclass repeat and reallege each and every allegation  above as if set forth in full herein.   81.  Defendant represented through advertising, marketing, packaging and by educating  the consuming public about the then-emerging Smart TV product segment, that its Affected Smart  TVs would have access to YouTube for the life of the product.  That representation to Plaintiff and  the Delaware Subclass represented characteristics, uses and benefits that Defendant’s Affected  Smart TVs did not possess in violation of law.    82.  Defendant intended that consumers would rely on the characteristics, uses and  benefits it represented regarding its Affected Smart TVs.   83.  Defendant’s unfair and deceptive representations occurred in trade or commerce.   84.  Defendant’s representation was unfair and deceptive resulting in an ascertainable  economic injury to Plaintiff and the Delaware Subclass.   85.  Plaintiff and the District of Columbia Subclass repeat and reallege each and every  allegation above as if set forth in full herein.   90.  Plaintiff and the Florida Subclass repeat and reallege each and every allegation  above as if set forth in full herein.   91.  Defendant represented through advertising, marketing, packaging and by educating  the consuming public about the then-emerging Smart TV product segment, that its Affected Smart  TVs would have access to YouTube for the life of the product.  That representation to Plaintiff and  the Florida Subclass represented characteristics, uses and benefits that Defendant’s Affected Smart  TVs did not possess in violation of law.    92.  Defendant intended that consumers would rely on the characteristics, uses and  benefits it represented regarding its Affected Smart TVs.   93.  Defendant’s unfair and deceptive representations occurred in trade or commerce.   94.  Defendant’s representation was unfair and deceptive resulting in an ascertainable  economic injury to Plaintiff and the Florida Subclass.  