10.  In or about May of 2013, Plaintiff went to Wal-Mart and purchased a  Bell+Howell-trademarked electronic/ultrasonic pest control device manufactured and marketed  by Defendant in order to expel these pests from her house.   11.  Defendant BHH licenses the Bell+Howell trademark to Van Hauser and  EMSON  for the purpose of designing, manufacturing, distributing, marketing, and selling the ultrasonic  pest control device purchased by Plaintiff.    12.  The ultrasonic pest control device’s packaging labels the device as an “electronic  pest repeller” and includes the Bell+Howell trademark, as well as Bell+Howell’s corporate logo.  The packaging further states the product is “distributed under licensing” by Van Hauser, LLC,  New York, NY 10001.   13.  The customer service and product representative contact information listed on the  Bell+Howell website at www.bellhowell.com directs consumers to phone numbers and an email  address belonging to EMSON.1   14.  The EMSON website http://www.emsoninc.com/ lists 36 different Bell+Howell  products it manages and markets via direct consumer product television and internet advertising  1 See http://www.bellhowell.com/ (last viewed March 23, 2015);  4  campaigns and in-store distribution. One of the products is a Bell+Howell trademarked  “electromagnetic ultrasonic pest repeller”.2   15.  The EMSON website states that the company is “Accustomed to strict quality  assurance” and a “Manufacturer, not just a wholesaler or rep organization. So Emson has control  over quality.”   16.  The device’s packaging states that it contains “Ultrasonic Pest Repellers” that  uses “Ultrasonic sound waves help to eliminate mice, rats, roaches, spiders and ants”. The  packaging goes on to say “Plug It In ... Drive Pests Out!” An example of the packaging is  included here immediately below:  2 See http://www.emsoninc.com/bell-howell (last viewed March 23, 2015);  5   17.  At Defendants’ website http://bellhowellpestrepeller.com/, Defendants further  state: “Get rid of mice, ants, spiders and other pests without messy traps or poisons. Ultrasonic  power using wiring within the walls to emit a signal that drives away insects and rodents. Plug in  unit protects one floor level.”3 “Uses constantly changing ultrasonic signals which most rodents  have a difficult time adapting to”.   18.  Plaintiff purchased the device based on Defendants’ representations.   19.  Indeed, the only reason Plaintiff, or any other class member, purchases this  product is to repel pests.   20.  Plaintiff used the device as instructed, expecting that it would perform as  advertised and repel pests.   21.  However, the device did not repel pests in and/or around Plaintiff’s home.     22.  The scientific literature indicates that these products have no effect on pests.4   23.  Defendants had reason to know that their claims and representations about the  essential purpose of the product were false and contrary to scientific evidence.5   24.  Upon information and belief, despite its representations, Defendants do not  possess competent and reliable scientific evidence to support its advertising claims and its sale of  these products.   25.  Even though Defendants have known that these devices do not work, they have  continued to advertise these devices as effectively controlling pests.  3See http://bellhowellpestrepeller.com/ (last viewed March 23, 2015);  4See http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=vpc14 (last viewed March 23, 2015);  http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1049&context=vpc14 (last viewed March 23, 2015);  http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/publication/NR_WD_010.pdf  (last  viewed  March  23,  2015);  http://www.birddeter.com.au/pdfs/sonicdeterrents.pdf (last viewed March 23, 2015).  5See http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2001/05/ftc-warns-manufacturers-and-retailers-ultrasonic-pest- control (last viewed March 23, 2015); See also footnote 3, supra.  6   26.  Plaintiff and the putative class members relied on these representations, forming  the entirety of the advertising, marketing and labeling of these products, that the product would  repel pests, but these representations were false, and Plaintiff and the class members have been  harmed.  27.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein all previous paragraphs of this  Complaint.    28.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and for all other persons similarly  situated (herein collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs” or “putative class members”) who:   Purchased one or more electronic pest control devices manufactured and/or  marketed by Defendants during the putative class period, including, but not  limited to, the Bell+Howell-branded Electronic/Ultrasonic Pest Repellers.   29.  This class numbers over forty (40) persons and is so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable, and it is further impracticable to bring all such persons before this  Court.   30.  The injuries and damages to these class members present questions of law and  fact that are common to each class member, and that are common to the entire class as a whole,  including:   a. Whether Defendants’ representations were based on competent and reliable  evidence;  b. Whether Defendants’ representations were fraudulent;  c. Whether Defendants breached their contract with Plaintiff when they failed to  provide a device that repelled pests;  d. Whether Defendants fraudulently represented to Plaintiff that their product would  repel pests;  7  e. Whether Defendants fraudulently represented to Plaintiff that their product was  proven to repel pests;  f. Whether Defendants was unjustly enriched in their transactions with Plaintiff.     31.  Defendants have engaged in the same conduct regarding all of the other members  of the class asserted in this suit.   32.  The claims, defenses, and injuries of the representative Plaintiff are typical of the  claims, defenses, and injuries of the entire class, and the claims, defenses, and injuries of each  class member are typical of those of the entire class.   33.  Representative Plaintiff will fully and adequately protect and represent the entire  class, and all of its putative class members.   34.  The identity of all members of this class cannot be determined at this time, but  will be so determined at a later time upon obtaining discovery from Defendants and others.   35.  The prosecution of separate actions by each member of this class would create a  substantial risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with regard to individual members of the  class that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants.   36.  The prosecution of separate actions would also create a substantial risk of  adjudication with respect to individual members of the class which, as a practical matter, would  be dispositive of the interest of other members not parties to the adjudication, thereby  substantially impairing and impeding their ability to protect these interests. Further, the  maintenance of this suit as a class action is the superior means of disposing of the common  questions which predominate herein.  37.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein all previous paragraphs of this  Complaint.   38.  This count is brought pursuant to Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act, Ohio  Revised Code § 1345, et seq. (“CSPA”). At all relevant times hereto, including at all times  during the transactions between Plaintiff and Defendant, and the consumer transactions between  the putative class members and Defendant, Plaintiff and each of the putative class members were  “consumers” as defined in the CSPA, and the transactions were “consumer transactions” as  defined in the CSPA.   39.  At all relevant times hereto, Defendant was a “supplier” as defined in the CSPA.   40.  The CSPA states that “No supplier shall commit an unfair or deceptive act or  practice in connection with a consumer transaction. Such an unfair or deceptive act or practice by  a supplier violates this section whether it occurs before, during, or after the transaction.” R.C. §  1345.02.   41.  The CSPA goes on to state it is a deceptive act or practice for a supplier to  represent that “… the subject of a consumer transaction has sponsorship, approval, performance  characteristics, accessories, uses, or benefits that it does not have.” R.C. § 1345.02(B)(1).   42.  By advertising that its pest repellant products could repel pests when they could  not and where there was no objective basis for these representations, Defendant has violated R.C.  56.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein all previous paragraphs of this  Complaint.    57.  Defendants represented to Plaintiff and all putative class members that their  electronic pest control products would repel pests.   58.  These representations as to this characteristic of the product were the essential  purpose of the product and, indeed, the only purpose.  It was the only reason anyone would buy  the subject product, and, based on these representations, Plaintiff purchased Defendants’  electronic pest control product.     59.  These representations were material to the transaction, because Plaintiff would  not otherwise have purchased the electronic pest control product.   60.  These representations were false, and Defendants made these representations with  knowledge that these claims were false, or, in the alternative, with utter disregard and  recklessness as to whether these representations were false, at the time the Defendants marketed  and advertised the product.   61.  Defendants made these representations to Plaintiff with the intention that Plaintiff  and the putative consumer class members would rely on the representations and purchase the  product.   62.  Plaintiff and the putative class members justifiably relied on these representations  in purchasing the product.    12   63.  This reliance on Defendants’ representations resulted in injury to the Plaintiff.     64.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ fraud and Plaintiff’s justifiable  reliance upon Defendants’ representations, Plaintiff has suffered injury.   65.  Defendants engaged in the same fraud against the putative class members, and  they were similarly injured.  66.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein all previous paragraphs of this  Complaint.   67.  Defendant offered its electronic pest control product for sale.   68.  Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ offer by purchasing the product.     69.  Plaintiff paid for the product and performed any other conditions precedent  required, or they were waived.   70.  A material term of that contract was for Defendants to supply a product which  repelled pests.   71.  In breach of contract, Defendants did not provide a product which repelled pests.     72.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of contract, Plaintiff has  suffered damages.   73.  Defendants engaged in the same conduct against the class members, breaching its  contracts with them, and the class members were similarly damaged.    8.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein all previous paragraphs of this  Complaint.    9.  Plaintiff had pests, including spiders and mice, in and/or around her house.    Breach of Contract   Fraud   Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act  Ohio Revised Code § 1345 et seq.  8  