18.  Defendant owns, operates, or otherwise controls several discount  department store chains, doing business throughout the United States under the names T.J.  Maxx, HomeGoods, and Marshalls.   19.  According to Defendant’s most recent 10-K filing for fiscal year ending  January 31, 2015, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“10-K”), TJX  operates its “business in four major divisions: Marmaxx and HomeGoods . . ., TJX Canada  and TJX Europe.”   See 10-K at 3.   20.  Marmaxx is comprised of T.J. Maxx and Marshalls, which “are collectively  the largest off-price retailer in the United States . . .”  Id.   21.  HomeGoods is described as “the leading off-price retailer of home fashions  in the U.S.”  Id.   22.  According to the 10-K, New York state has the third highest number of  stores for Defendant in the United States, containing 71 T.J. Maxx stores, 74 Marshalls  stores, and 38 HomeGoods stores.     23.  Upon information and belief, many of Defendant’s 183 locations in New  York are located within this district.   24.  At each of its stores Defendant sells consumer goods, including clothing,  shoes, home products and accessories.   26.  Defendant promotes this idea by affixing to each product it sells a price tag  containing the sale price of the item along with a “Compare At” price which is generally  significantly higher than the actual sale price.    27.  The “Compare At” price is not explained in any way to the consumers  shopping at its stores.    28.  Rather, consumers believe that the “Compare At” price is what they would  have to pay in order to purchase the item at another retail location.   29.  The disparity between the sale price and the significantly higher “Compare  At” price is intended to, and does, entice consumers to make a purchase by leading them  to believe that they are saving the difference between the two prices.   30.  While that is the logical interpretation of the “Compare At” price, that is not  how Defendant defines the term internally.   31.  At the extreme bottom of each of the T.J. MAXX, HOMEGOODS and  MARSHALLS websites, in fine print, and surrounded by several other hyperlinks,  Defendant has included a hyperlink entitled “compare at pricing.”    32.  Upon information and belief, it is only through this hyperlink that it is  disclosed to consumers what Defendant means by the use of “Compare At.”     34.  Despite that definition on Defendant’s websites, there is no indication on  the price tags and other price advertising that, far from being the price that consumers  would pay elsewhere, the “Compare At” price is simply Defendant’s buying staff’s  “estimate” of what a “comparable” item “may have” sold for.   35.  Nor do Defendant’s price tags or price advertising indicate in any way that,  per the online definition, the “Compare At” price may have never been offered by another  retailer at any time or location.   36.  Defendant’s price tags and other price advertising also do not provide any  warning that consumers should conduct their own comparison shopping before relying on  Defendant’s “Compare At” prices.   37.  Even if a consumer were savvy enough to access Defendant’s websites and  locate the “compare at pricing” link before purchasing an item, the “Compare At”  definition found there would still not clarify what Defendant’s “Compare At” price actually  represents.   39.  Indeed, based on Defendant’s amorphous definition of “compare at  pricing,” a “comparable” item may have never been offered for sale at the specific  “Compare At” price by another retailer at any time.   40.  Further, there is no indication whether the comparison was made to the  specific item Defendant is offering to the public or just a comparable item.     41.  Accordingly, Defendant’s price tags and price advertising which contained  “Compare At” prices are untrue, deceptive, and misleading advertising claims.    42.  Defendant’s deceptive use of “Compare At” pricing falsely represents to  consumers that the “Compare At” price was the price at which the product typically sold  in the marketplace, from which Defendants offered a discount.   43.  There can be no reason, aside from deception, for Defendant to use the term  “Compare At” on its sales tags and advertising, and then provide an amorphous definition  for that term in an obscure section of its website without ever disclosing that definition to  consumers.   44.  Defendant knew, or should have known, that the “Compare At” price  contained on its price tags and sales advertising was false and misleading.   53.  Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule  23(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  In particular, Plaintiff brings this action on  behalf of herself and all members of the following class (the “Class”):  All individual consumers who reside in the State of New York who, within  the Class Period, purchased one or more items from a TJ MAXX,  HOMEGOODS or MARHALLS store with a price tag that contained a  “Compare At” price and who have not received a refund or credit for their  purchase(s).   54.  Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or amend the definition of the Class  after having an opportunity to conduct further discovery.   55.  Numerosity. Rule 23(a)(1).  The members of the Class are so numerous that  their individual joinder is impracticable.  Plaintiff is informed and believes that the  proposed Class contains at least thousands of purchasers of products from T.J. MAXX,  HOMEGOODS or MARSHALLS who have been damaged by Defendant’s conduct as  alleged herein.   57.  Typicality. Rule 23(a)(3). All members of the Class have been subject to  and affected by the same conduct by Defendant.  The claims alleged herein are based on  the same violations by Defendant that harmed Plaintiff and members of the Class.     58.  By purchasing items from Defendant during the applicable Class Period, all  members of the Class were subjected to the same wrongful conduct.  Accordingly,  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class’s claims and do not conflict with the interests of  any other members of the Class.     59.  Defendant’s unlawful, unfair, deceptive, and/or fraudulent actions concern  the same business practices described herein irrespective of where they occurred or were  experienced.   60.  Adequacy. Rule 23(a)(4).  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the  interests of the members of the Class.  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.   62.  Predominance and Superiority of Class Action. Rule 23(b)(3).  Questions  of law or fact common to the Class predominate over any questions affecting only  individual members and a class action is superior to other methods for the fast and efficient  adjudication of this controversy, for at least the following reasons:  a. Absent a class action, members of the Class as a practical matter will be  unable to obtain redress, Defendant’s violations of its legal duties will  continue without remedy, additional consumers will be harmed, and  Defendant will continue to retain its ill-gotten gains;  b. It would be a substantial hardship for most individual members of the Class  if they were forced to prosecute individual actions;  c. When the liability of Defendant has been adjudicated, the Court will be able  to determine the claims of all members of the Class;  d. A class action will permit an orderly and expeditious administration of each  Class member’s claims and foster economies of time, effort, and expense;  e. A class action regarding the issues in this case does not create any problems  of manageability; and  f. Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the members of the  Class, making class-wide monetary and equitable relief appropriate.  63.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations contained in the  paragraphs above, as if fully set forth herein.   64.  This cause of action is brought pursuant to New York General Business Law  §349 (“GBL § 349”), which prohibits deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any  business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in New York State.   65.  The conduct of Defendant alleged herein violates GBL § 349 in that  Defendant engaged in the unfair acts and deceptive practices as described herein, by  representing comparative prices which were deceptive, false and misleading given that they  were inflated, estimated, or fabricated to lead consumers to believe that they were receiving  a discounted price.  Such conduct is inherently and materially deceptive and misleading in  a material respect which was known, or by the exercise of reasonable care, should have  been known, to be untrue, deceptive or misleading by Defendant.    66.  The materially misleading conduct of Defendant alleged herein was  directed at Plaintiff and the Class and the public at large.   67.  Defendant’s acts and practices described above are likely to mislead a  reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.   68.  Defendant has willfully and knowingly violated GBL §349 because, in  order to increase its own profits, Defendant intentionally engaged in deceptive and false  advertising.     70.  The “Compare At” prices contained on the price tags of merchandise at T.J.  MAXX, HOMEGOODS, and MARSHALLS played a substantial role in Plaintiff’s  decision to purchase the products she purchased from Defendant, and Plaintiff would not  have purchased those items in the absence of Defendant’s misrepresentations.    71.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct in violation of GBL § 349, Plaintiff and  the Class have been injured as alleged herein in amounts to be proven at trial.   72.  As a result of the Defendant’s false or misleading advertising, Plaintiff and  Class Members are entitled to monetary damages, injunctive relief, restitution and  disgorgement of all monies obtained by means of Defendants' unlawful conduct, interest,  and attorneys' fees and costs.  73.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations contained in the  paragraphs above, as if fully set forth herein.   74.  This cause of action is brought pursuant to New York General Business Law  §350 (“GBL § 350”), which prohibits false advertising in the conduct of any business, trade  or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state is hereby declared unlawful.    76.  Defendant’s price tags and advertisements contain untrue and materially  misleading statements concerning Defendant’s products inasmuch as they misrepresent the  true value of the products.   77.  The false and misleading advertising of Defendant alleged herein was  directed at Plaintiff and the Class and the public at large.   78.  Defendant’s “Compare At” pricing and advertising induced the Plaintiff and  Class Members to buy Defendant’s products.   79.  Plaintiff and the Class Members have been injured inasmuch as they relied  upon the “Compare At” pricing on the price tags and advertising and purchased products  that they would not have purchased, or paid a higher amount than they would have paid, in  the absence of Defendant’s conduct.   80.  Had Plaintiff and the Class known that Defendant’s advertising and labeling  with regard to “Compare At” pricing was false and misleading, they would not have  purchased the products from Defendant.   81.  As a result of the Defendant’s conduct alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Class  are entitled to damages to be proven at trial.   82.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations contained in the  paragraphs above, as if fully set forth herein.   84.  Defendant made the representations herein with the intention of inducing  the public, including Plaintiff and the Class, to purchase its products.   85.  Defendant intentionally made such misrepresentations by printing  “Compare At” prices prominently and conspicuously on its product’s price tag and in its  advertising.     86.  Defendant knew that its “Compare At” pricing was false and misleading,  but nevertheless made such representations through its advertising and product labeling.   Defendant did so with the intention and belief that consumers would rely on Defendant’s  misrepresentations.   87.  Plaintiff and Class members, at the time the representations were made by  Defendant, and at the time Defendant took the actions herein alleged, were ignorant of the  falsity of the representations and believed them to be true.  In reliance on these  representations, Plaintiff and the Class were induced to and did pay monies to purchase  products from Defendant.   88.  Had Plaintiff and the Class known the truth about Defendant’s “Compare  At” pricing, they would not have purchased the product.    89.  As a proximate result of the fraudulent conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff and the Class  paid monies to Defendant, to which Defendant is not entitled, and have been damaged in an amount  to be proven at trial.  Intentional Misrepresentation   Violation of New York General Business Law  (N.Y. GBL Law § 350)  