19.  Yet, while consumption of other beverages such as carbonated beverages has been  shrinking, consumption of bottled water has steadily increased for years, with the sharpest  increases coming in consumption of spring water versus other types of bottled water.  For  instance, according to the International Bottled Water Association, bottled water volumes hit a  new record high in 2014, whereas soft drinks suffered its tenth consecutive year of volume  reduction in 2014.3  Further, “bottled water added more gallons to its per-person consumption  rate in 10 years than either ready-to-drink tea or sports beverages even reached by the end of that  same period.”4   20.  Bottled water’s commercial success is attributable to several factors, including  consumers’ perceptions about taste, healthfulness, convenience, safety, and value as compared to  other bottled beverages.  B.  Overview of Spring Water   21.  Per regulations set forth by the United States Food and Drug Administration  (“FDA”) and analogous state requirements, “bottled water” is water “that is intended for human  consumption and that is sealed in bottles or other containers with no added ingredients[.]”  21  C.F.R. § 165.110(a).   23.  Because of geological and other technical requirements, substantial time and  resources are required to identify, develop, and maintain natural spring water sites.   24.  Because of these and other associated costs, spring water typically sells at a  premium compared to other bottled water, such as “well water” or “tap water,” both of which are  sometimes sold as “purified water,” i.e., non-spring water which has undergone a purification  process prior to being sold at wholesale or retail.  See, e.g., 21 C.F.R. § 165.110(a)(2)(iv).  By  contrast, a distinguishing feature of “spring water” is that it does not undergo the same level or  type of purification as “purified water.”   25.  Because of geological and other technical requirements, spring water site  development requires substantial resources to identify, develop, and maintain the natural springs  from which spring water comes.   26.  Spring water extraction is also a relatively localized process, with most sources  being within reasonable transportation distance to bottling facilities due to the transportation  costs associated with hauling water over distances.   27.  Customers recognize the distinction between spring water and other types of  bottled water.  In addition to customers’ paying a premium, customers also generally recognize  and prefer the taste of spring water to other types of bottled water.   29.  Defendant Land d/b/a MC Resource Development a/k/a Pine Valley Farms  Springs obtained a Public Water Supply Permit from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s  Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to extract raw water for the purposes of bottling  and selling to wholesale and/or retail customers.  Defendant formed this business with the  intention to serve customers throughout the northeast United States, particularly throughout  Pennsylvania.   30.  Defendant Land d/b/a MC Resource Development a/k/a Pine Valley Farms  Springs owns and operates the bulk water hauling system and necessary equipment to extract raw  water for the purposes of bottling.  The bulk water facility at issue is located in New Ringgold,  Pennsylvania, under the name “Pine Valley Farms Springs” or “Pine Valley.”    31.  Defendant Land d/b/a MC Resource Development a/k/a Pine Valley Farms  Springs markets this site’s raw water as “spring water” for bottling and consumption.   32.  However, the water sourced at Pine Valley Farms Springs is not spring water.  For  one, raw water extracted at Pine Valley Farms Springs does not satisfy the FDA definition of  “spring water” discussed above.   34.  DEP does not recognize Pine Valley Farms Springs as a “spring water” source  either.  Pine Valley Farms Springs has never been permitted as a “spring water” site.  For  instance, the most recent DEP permit for Pine Valley Farms Springs clearly identifies the site as  a “well water” site, not a “spring water” site.  Here is an excerpt (the full permit is attached as  Exhibit A hereto):   36.  Pine Valley Farms Springs is not, and has never been, permitted by the DEP as an  extractor of raw water from a “spring” source.   37.  In addition, water extracted from Pine Valley Farms Springs has been extracted,  handled, or treated with equipment or techniques that are inconsistent with “spring water”  classification criteria.   38.  Further, water sourced from Pine Valley Farms Springs intended to be marketed  and sold as “spring water” has tested as containing more particulates or trace elements than are  otherwise permissible or recommended under industry standards for “spring water.”   39.  In spite of all of this, Defendant Land d/b/a MC Resource Development a/k/a Pine  Valley Farms Springs nonetheless fraudulently and deceptively markets and sells the raw water  extracted at Pine Valley Farms Springs as “spring water.”  C.  The Bottler Defendants’ False, Misleading, and Deceptive Advertising and Sale of  So-Called “Spring Water”   41.  All three bottling Defendants source raw water from Defendant Land d/b/a MC  Resource Development a/k/a Pine Valley Farms Springs.  Bottling Defendants then bottle,  market, and sell this water as “spring water,” despite the fact that Pine Valley Farms Springs’  water is not properly classified by DEP or otherwise as “spring water.”     43.  Defendants’ bottling and sale of water sourced from Pine Valley Farms Springs  and labeled as “spring water” is incorrect, false, and misleading, and intended to give consumers  the impression that the water is derived from an appropriate “spring water” source, when in fact  that is not the case.     44.  Defendants’ marketing and sale of their deceptively marketed “spring water” is  damaging to the reputation and goodwill of Plaintiff, other Class members, and the consuming  public.  These false and misleading misrepresentations are designed to entice purchasers (both  retail outlets and consumers) to buy Defendants’ products, and wrongfully cause purchasers to  falsely believe that Defendants’ “spring water” products are at least equal if not superior to  Plaintiff’s and other Class members’ true spring water, which is not the case.   45.  Defendants’ wrongful conduct has resulted in increased sales of their own  deceptively labeled “spring water,” hindering sales of Plaintiff’s and other Class members’ true  spring water.  Plaintiff and other Class members have sustained and will sustain damages as a  result of Defendants’ continuing course of wrongful conduct.  47.  The proposed classes are defined as:  All persons in the United States who, within the applicable statute of  limitations preceding the filing of this action through class certification,  extract and/or bottle spring water for sale in the United States (the  “National Class”).  All persons in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who, within the  applicable statute of limitations preceding the filing of this action through  class certification extract and/or bottle spring water for sale in the  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the “Pennsylvania State Subclass”).  The National Class and the Pennsylvania State Subclass are collectively referred to as the  “Classes.”   48.  Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or amend the definition of the proposed  Classes before the Court determines whether certification is appropriate.   49.  Excluded from the Classes are Defendants, their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates,  officers and directors, any entity in which a Defendant has a controlling interest, all persons who  make a timely election to be excluded, governmental entities, and all judges assigned to hear any  aspect of this litigation, as well as their immediate family members.   50.  Said definition may be further defined or amended by additional pleadings,  evidentiary hearings, a class certification hearing, and orders of this Court.   51.  The members of the Classes are so numerous that joinder is impractical. The  Classes consist of many members, the identities of whom are within the knowledge of and can be  ascertained by resort to Defendants’ and other records.   53.  As set forth in detail below, common issues of fact and law predominate because  all of Plaintiff’s claims are based on common conduct.  Among the questions of law and fact  common to the Classes are whether Defendants:  a. Falsely advertised and sold their water as spring water;  b. mislead consumers by advertising and selling their water as spring water;  c. deprive consumers of truthful and non-misleading information about the water  Defendants advertise and sell; and  d. violated Pennsylvania law.   54.  Other questions of law and fact common to the classes include:  e. The proper method or methods by which to measure damages; and  f. the declaratory and injunctive relief to which the Classes are entitled.   55.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other Class members, in that they  arise out of the same wrongful conduct committed by Defendants as a result of their false and  misleading advertising and sale of so-called “spring water.” Plaintiff has suffered the harm  alleged and has no interests antagonistic to the interests of any other Class member.   57.  Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to all Class members,  thereby making final injunctive relief and/or corresponding declaratory relief appropriate with  respect to the Classes as a whole.  The prosecution of separate actions by individual Class  members would create the risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual  members of the Class that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants.   58.  Injunctive relief is necessary to prevent further false, misleading, and deceptive  conduct by Defendants.  Money damages alone will not afford adequate and complete relief, and  injunctive relief is necessary to restrain Defendants from continuing to engage in false,  misleading, and deceptive conduct in the United States and Pennsylvania concerning their  advertising and sale of so-called “spring water.”   59.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.  Since the amount of each individual Class member’s claim is  small relative to the complexity of the litigation, and due to the financial resources of  Defendants, no Class member could afford to seek legal redress individually for the claims  alleged herein.  Absent a class action, the Class members will continue to suffer losses and  Defendants’ misconduct will proceed without remedy.   61.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth above, and incorporates the  same as if set forth herein at length.   62.  Defendants have intentionally, knowingly, or otherwise made and distributed, in  interstate commerce and in this District, advertisements or related materials that contain false or  misleading statements of fact regarding their products.  These advertisements contain actual  misstatements and/or misleading statements insofar as they state that Defendants’ water is  “spring water,” but fail to disclose, among other things, that said water is not in fact “spring  water,” but rather is “well water” or other inferior non-spring water.   63.  These false and misleading statements actually deceive, or have a tendency to  deceive, a substantial segment of Plaintiff’s customers and potential customers. This deception is  material in that it is likely to influence the purchasing decisions of Plaintiff’s or other National  Class members’ customers.   64.  Defendants’ false and misleading advertising statements and omissions injure  both Plaintiff, other members of the National Class, and/or consumers.   66.  Defendants have caused, and will continue to cause, immediate and irreparable  injury to Plaintiff and other members of the National Class, including to their business,  reputation, and goodwill, for which there is no adequate remedy at law.  As such, Plaintiff and  the National Class are entitled to an injunction under 15 U.S.C. § 1116 restraining Defendants,  their agents, employees, representatives, assigns, and all persons acting in concert with them  from engaging in further acts of false advertising or labeling, and ordering removal of all of  Defendants’ false advertisements or labeling.   67.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Plaintiff and the National Class are entitled to  recover from Defendants the damages sustained by Plaintiff, and other members of the National  Class, as a direct and/or proximate result of Defendants’ acts in violation of the Lanham Act  § 43(a).  Plaintiff is at present unable to ascertain the full extent of the monetary damages  suffered by Plaintiff, or other members of the National Class, by reason of Defendants’ wrongful  conduct.   68.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, Plaintiff and other members of the National Class  are further entitled to recover from Defendants the gains, profits and advantages that they have  obtained as a result of their wrongful acts.  Plaintiff is at present unable to ascertain the full  amount of the gains, profits and advantages Defendants have obtained by reason of their acts.   70.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth above, and incorporates the  same as if set forth herein at length.   71.  Pennsylvania law protects against “unfair competition” which includes injury that  may arise from false or misleading marketing and advertising.   72.  Defendants’ wrongful conduct alleged herein as violations of the Lanham Act,  also constitutes unfair competition under Pennsylvania law.   73.  Defendants have intentionally, knowingly, or otherwise caused, and will continue  to cause, immediate and irreparable injury to Plaintiff and other members of the Pennsylvania  State Subclass, including to their business, reputation, and goodwill, for which there is no  adequate remedy at law.  As such, Plaintiff and the Pennsylvania State Subclass are entitled to an  injunction restraining Defendants, their agents, employees, representatives, assigns, and all  persons acting in concert with them from engaging in further acts of misleading advertising, and  ordering removal of all of Defendants’ misleading advertisements and related materials.   74.  Plaintiff and the Pennsylvania State Subclass are entitled to recover from  Defendants the damages sustained by Plaintiff, and other members of the Pennsylvania State  Subclass, as a direct and/or proximate result of Defendants’ acts in violation of Pennsylvania  law.  Plaintiff is at present unable to ascertain the full extent of the monetary damages suffered  by Plaintiff, or other members of the Pennsylvania State Subclass, by reason of Defendants’  wrongful conduct.   76.  Plaintiff and other members of the Pennsylvania State Subclass are further  entitled to recover attorney’s fees and the costs of this action pursuant to Pennsylvania law, as  well as punitive damages.  A.  Overview of the Bottled Water Industry   False Advertising Under Lanham Act § 43(a)  (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) Against All Defendants  (On Behalf of the National Class)   Unfair Competition Under Pennsylvania Law  Against All Defendants  (On Behalf of the Pennsylvania State Subclass)  