15.  On August 21, 2017, the entire United States experienced a once every two  generations event: a total eclipse of the sun by the earth’s moon, also called a Solar Eclipse.3  During a Solar Eclipse, the moon moves between the sun and the earth. When the orbital planes  of both the sun and the moon are identical, the moon casts a shadow onto the earth.4    16.  There are three types Solar Eclipses. The first is a partial Solar Eclipse, which  happens when the orbital planes of the moon and the sun are not in exact alignment.  In a partial  Solar Eclipse, the sun will appear to have a shadow across a portion of its surface. The second type  of Solar Eclipse is an “annular” Solar Eclipse, which happens when the moon is farther away from  the earth. During such events, the moon in front of the sun will appear as a dark disk “on top of a  larger sun-colored disk.5   18.  During a TSE, the moon actually casts two shadows on the earth. The first shadow  is known as the “umbra” and is the dark center of the moon’s shadow, which gets smaller as it  reaches earth. The second shadow is known as the “penumbra” which get larger as it reaches earth.  People standing in the penumbra will see a partial eclipse, while those standing in the umbra will  see a TSE. Solar Eclipses only last for a few minutes in any one location.  Serious eye injury can  occur when people view either partial or TSE without certain protective eyewear.  Indeed, the  NASA website warns of this danger on its Eclipse website.6  August 21, 2017 TSE   19.  The 2017 TSE is reported to have been the most viewed in history.7  Indeed, it has  been estimated that nearly half of America’s 323 million people watched or viewed the TSE, with  an estimated 20 million watching from the totality, or umbra.8   21.  According to paper published by the Royal College of Ophthalmologists in the  United Kingdom, symptoms of solar retinopathy typically show up approximately 12 hours after  the viewing event, and can include the following symptoms:  • Blurry vision  • A central blind spot in one or both eyes  • Increased sensitivity to light  • Distorted vision  • Changes in perception of color.12  Short term issues arising from unprotected or improperly protected direct Solar Eclipse watching  can include “solar keratitis” which is similar to sunburn of the cornea (the front part of the eye)  and can cause eye pain and light sensitivity, with symptoms often occurring within 24 hours after  exposure.13   23.  The popularity of the 2017 TSE created an economic boom for Eclipse Glasses  makers. As of July 27, 2017, it was reported that American Paper Optics, located in Bartlett,  Tennessee, had produced 37 million Eclipse Glasses, and was expecting to make and sell 100  million.17 USA Today reported that approximately 10 million Eclipse Glasses manufactured by  American Paper Optics were sold to Amazon.18   24.  On or about August 1, 2017, Plaintiff Corey Thomas Payne purchased from  Amazon a three-pack of Eclipse Glasses that were delivered to his home in Charleston, South  Carolina on August 3, 2017. Corey Thomas Payne gave one pair of the Eclipse Glasses to his  fiancé, Kayla Harris. Both Plaintiffs used the Eclipse Glasses to view the TSE on August 21, 2017,  and did not view the eclipse during any time without wearing the Eclipse Glasses.    25.  Plaintiffs did not receive notice of the recall from Amazon.     26.  Later that day, both Plaintiffs began to experience pain and discomfort, headaches,  eye watering and other symptoms. Thereafter, both Plaintiffs began to see dark spots in their line  of vision, suffered vision impairment, including blurriness, a central blind spot, increased  sensitivity, changes in perception of color, and distorted vision.    27.  Amazon knew the requirements that made Eclipse Glasses safe to use for viewing  the TSE on August 21, 2017, and that providing defective Eclipse Glasses that did not meet the  requisite standards would result in eye injury and vision impairment.    29.  Amazon’s August 19, 2017 email “recall” was tragically too little, too late. Its email  notification was insufficient to timely apprise customers of the defective nature of their glasses,  and resulted in Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class using defective Eclipse Glasses to  view the August 21, 2017 TSE unknowing that the glasses were unfit for their intended purpose.    30.  Upon information and belief, many Eclipse Glasses sold by Amazon were sold in  packs of 3 and 20, and distributed to individuals, who never received a warning email.  Notwithstanding Amazon’s woefully inadequate email notification, any and all users of Eclipse  Glasses were subjected to unreasonable and foreseeable risks of severe and permanent eye injury  due to the negligence of Amazon.    31.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct in selling and distributing  unsafe Eclipse Glasses, Plaintiffs and the class have suffered a significant increased risk of injury  or disease, requiring an award of the cost of a program for medical monitoring for the early  detection of such eye injury, disease or disease resulting from exposure to the sun caused by  Defendant’s unsafe Eclipse Glasses.  Reasonable medical procedures exist for the early detection  of eye injury, disease process and disease caused by unsafe exposure to the sun resulting from  exposure to the sun from Defendant’s unsafe Eclipse Glasses.  Early detection of injury, disease  or disease process resulting from exposure to the sun caused by Defendant’s unsafe Eclipse  Glasses will benefit Plaintiffs and Class Members.   33.  A class action is the proper form to bring Plaintiffs’ claims under FRCP 23. The  potential class is so large that joinder of all members would be impracticable. Additionally, there  are questions of law or fact common to the class, the claims or defenses of the representative parties  are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and the representative parties will fairly and  adequately protect the interests of the class.    34.  This action satisfies all requirements of FRCP 23(a), (b)(1), and (b)(3), including  numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority.    35.  Numerosity and Ascertainability: The Class is so numerous that joinder of all  members is impracticable. While the exact number is unknown at this time, it is generally  ascertainable by appropriate discovery, and based upon the Defendant’s sales volume, it is  reasonable to presume that the members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members  is impracticable. The disposition of the claims of these Class Members in a single action will  provide substantial benefits to all parties and to the Court.    38.  The claims of the Class Representative Plaintiffs are furthermore typical of other  class members because Plaintiffs makes the same claims as other class members. Plaintiffs have  interest in seeking compensation from Defendant for injuries suffered due to the purchase of  defective Amazon Eclipse Glasses.    39.  Adequacy: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests  of the class because Plaintiffs have no disabling conflicts of interest that would be antagonistic to  those of the other class members. Plaintiffs seeks no relief that is antagonistic or adverse to the  members of the class and the damages Plaintiffs suffered are typical of other class members.  Further, Plaintiffs have retained counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting consumer class  actions, including actions involving unfair, false, misleading and deceptive advertising. Plaintiffs  and their counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the Class, and  have the financial resources to do so.    41.  The nature of this action and the nature of South Carolina law and consumer  protection and product liability laws available to Plaintiffs and the class members make the use of  the class action device a particularly efficient and appropriate procedure to afford relief to Plaintiffs  and the class members for the wrongs alleged because Defendant would necessarily gain an  unconscionable advantage since they would be able to exploit and overwhelm the limited resources  of each individual class member with superior financial and legal resources; the costs of individual  suits could unreasonably consume the amounts that would be recovered; proof of a common course  of conduct to which Plaintiffs were exposed to an inherently defective and extremely dangerous  product resulting in injuries and damages is representative of that experienced by class members  and will establish the right of each member of the class to recover on the cause of action alleged;  and individual actions would create a risk of inconsistent results and would be unnecessary and  duplicative of this litigation.    42.  The proposed class is described as follows:   All persons residing in South Carolina (“South Carolina Class”)  and/or the United States (“Nationwide Class”) who purchased  unsafe Eclipse Glasses from Amazon.com through its website  prior to August 21, 2017.      43.  Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify or amend the definition of the proposed class  if discovery and further investigation reveals that the class should be expanded, divided into  additional subclasses or modified in any other way.    45.  The class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy. Because of the number and nature of common questions of fact  and law, multiple separate lawsuits would not serve the interest of judicial economy.    46.  Class-wide declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief is appropriate pursuant to  Rule 23(b)(1) and/or (b)(2) because Defendant have acted on grounds that apply generally to the  Class, and inconsistent adjudications with respect to Defendant’s liability would establish  incompatible standards and substantially impair or impede the ability of Class Members to protect  their interests. Class-wide relief assures fair, consistent and equitable treatment and protection of  all Class Members, and uniformity and consistency in Defendant’s duties to perform corrective  action.    47.  Excluded from the class are:   a. Defendant and any entities in which Defendant has controlling interest;  b. Any entities in which Defendant’s officers, directors, or employees are employed  and any of the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of Defendant;   c. The Judge to whom this case is assigned and any member of the Judge’s immediate  family and any other judicial officer assigned to this case;   d. All persons or entities that properly execute and timely file a request for exclusion  from the class;   e. Any attorneys representing the Plaintiffs or the class.    49.  Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of themselves only, repeat, reallege, and  incorporate by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth  herein.   50.  At all times relevant, Defendant violated the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices  Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-10, et seq., by the use of false or misleading representations or  omissions of material fact in connection with the marketing, advertising, promotion and sale of  Eclipse Glasses.   52.  The South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act declares that unfair or deceptive  acts or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce are unlawful. Defendants violated the South  Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act in the manner described above, including by the use of false  or misleading representations or omissions of material fact in connection with the marketing,  advertising, promotion and sale of Eclipse Glasses to consumers.    53.  Plaintiffs dispute the adequacy, timeliness, and efficacy of any and all refund and/or  recall efforts implemented by Defendant. The inadequacy of Defendant’s efforts to recall the  defective Eclipse Glasses resulted in foreseeable and preventable harm to customers including  Plaintiffs.    54.  By reason of such violations and pursuant to the South Carolina Unfair Trade  Practices Act, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover all of the monies paid for the defective products, to  be compensated for the lost value arising out of the use of the product, and to recover any and all  consequential damages recoverable under the law including, but not limited to, exposure to a  dangerous and defective product, medical expense, both past and future lost wages, and other  losses.    55.  Privity existed between Plaintiffs and Defendant.   56.  In connection with the sale of the defective product to Plaintiffs, Defendant,  through its employees, agents and representatives, violated the South Carolina Unfair Trade  Practices Act by engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices, failing to disclose the dangerous  design and/or manufacturing defect of the product, and failing to adequately and fully compensate  Plaintiffs.   58.  Plaintiffs are entitled to equitable relief, including restitutionary disgorgement of  monies unfairly, deceptively and/or unlawfully collected by Defendant and an injunction  prohibiting Defendant from engaging in the same or similar practices described herein in the  future.    59.  Pursuant to the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, Plaintiffs are entitled to  compensatory damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs of this suit.   60.  Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the proposed class, repeat, reallege and  incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth herein.    61.  Defendant engaged in unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, deceptive or  fraudulent acts or practices in violation of the state consumer protection statutes listed below. The  direct and proximate result of Defendant’s misrepresentations and unlawful course of conduct was  the inducement of Plaintiffs and members of the class to purchase unsafe and/or defective Eclipse  Glasses from Defendant.    62.  In connection with the sale of the defective product to both Plaintiffs and members  of the proposed class, Defendant, through its employees, agents and representatives, violated state  consumer protection statutes by engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices, failing to disclose  the unsafe and/or defective design and/or misbranding of the product, and failing to adequately  and fully compensate consumers.   64.  Defendant intended that Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class would rely  on their materially deceptive practices; and that Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class  would purchase Eclipse Glasses from Defendant as a consequence of the deceptive practices,  including Defendant’s false advertising, misrepresentations and omissions of material facts,  including but not limited to the safety of the product for its intended use. Plaintiffs and members  of the proposed class were deceived by Defendant’s misrepresentations, which constitute unfair  and deceptive acts and practices.    65.  As a direct and proximate result of unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices,  Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class suffered an ascertainable loss, in that they paid for a  product that they would not have purchased had Defendant not engaged in unfair and deceptive  conduct. Plaintiffs were damaged and suffered injuries resulting from the dangerous design and/or  misbranding and false advertising of the product described herein. This injury is of the type the  state consumer protection statutes were designed to prevent and directly results from Defendant’s  conduct.    66.  Under the statutes listed herein to protect consumers against unfair, deceptive,  fraudulent and unconscionable trade and business practices, Defendant is the supplier, advertiser  and seller that is subject to liability for unfair, deceptive, fraudulent and unconscionable consumer  sales practices.    68.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct as alleged herein,  Plaintiffs and members of the class are entitled to compensatory damages, treble damages,  attorneys’ fees and costs of this suit.   69.  Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the proposed class, repeat, reallege and  incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth herein.    70.  Plaintiffs assert this claim for violations of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices  Act (“UDTPA”), which prohibits “[r]epresenting that goods … have sponsorship, approval,  characteristics, … uses, [or] benefits … that they do not have,” on behalf of all Class members  who reside in the twenty-three states who have enacted these provisions of the UDTPA.    71.  Defendant engaged in deceptive trade practices in violation of the twenty-three state  consumer protection statutes that incorporate the provisions of the UDTPA quoted above by, inter  alia, failing to provide a product free from inherent defect; failing to properly warn consumers of  the inherent dangers of the product; inadequately testing the product before placing the product  into interstate commerce; failing to provide a product that would meet the reasonable expectations  of the ordinary consumer as to its safety. The Eclipse Glasses were under the exclusive control of  Defendant prior to sale and Defendant had a duty to warn purchasers of the dangers posed by the  product in an effective manner.    73.  The kinds of harms that befell Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class were  foreseeable results of the defects in the product as alleged herein. Neither Plaintiffs nor members  of the proposed class had any reason to know, prior to or at the time of purchase, or at any time  prior to their injuries, that the Eclipse Glasses were defective, harmful and dangerous to  consumers.    74.  Defendant has violated the deceptive trade practices statutes of the following states  that incorporate the provisions of the UDTPA quoted above, as follows:   a. Defendants have engaged in deceptive trade practices in violation of Ala. Code § 8-19- 5, et seq.;    b. Defendants have engaged in deceptive trade practices in violation of Alaska Stat. §   76.  Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the proposed class, repeat, reallege and  incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth herein.   77.  Defendant owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs and the proposed class to distribute and  sell the Eclipse Glasses such that they were neither defective nor unreasonably dangerous when  used as intended, to inspect and ensure the glasses that it provided were in fact safe, to warn of any  post-sale defects discovered in its products, and recall dangerous products. Defendant owed duties  to Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class as purchasers to use reasonable care to provide  true, reliable, and safe information regarding the Eclipse Glasses.  Defendant undertook a duty to  reasonably communicate about the safety of the glasses to Plaintiffs and the class.     78.  Defendant knew that viewing the August 21, 2017 TSE without proper eye  protection would result in eye injuries and permanent blindness to Plaintiffs and the proposed class  members, particularly given the media coverage surrounding the August 21, 2017 TSE.    79.  Defendant knew or had reason to know that Plaintiffs and the proposed class, as  consumers and members of the general public for whom the Eclipse Glasses alleged herein was  placed into interstate commerce, would be likely to use the Eclipse Glasses in the manner described  herein.   80.  Defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the danger associated with  the manner and circumstances of Plaintiffs and the proposed class’s foreseeable use of the Eclipse  Glasses alleged herein, which danger would not be obvious to the general public.   82.  Defendant breached its duties by selling and distributing Eclipse Glasses that were  unsafe and/or defective, misbranded, and unfit for their intended use, resulting in physical injury,  including but not limited to temporary and/or permanent blindness.    83.  As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s acts and/or omissions, Plaintiffs  and members of the proposed class have suffered injuries, damages and losses as alleged in this  Complaint.   84.  Defendant’s acts and/or omissions were intentional, fraudulent, malicious, or  reckless and, thereby, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed class are entitled to an award of  exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial.  85.  Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the proposed class, repeat, reallege and  incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth herein.   86.  Defendant gave false information that the Eclipse Glasses it advertised, marketed,  distributed, and sold to customers were safe and effective for their intended use.    87.  Plaintiffs and class members relied upon Defendant’s express and implied  representations that the Eclipse Glasses were safe for use in viewing the TSE on August 21, 2017.    88.  It was reasonable for Plaintiffs and class members to rely on the representations  communicated by Defendant as to the safety and efficacy of the Eclipse Glasses, and Plaintiffs and  class members relied on Defendant’s representations and advertisements.    91.  Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the proposed class, repeat, reallege and  incorporate by reference each of the foregoing allegations as though fully set forth herein.    92.  Defendant knew or should have known that the Eclipse Glasses it advertised,  marketed, distributed, and sold to Plaintiffs and class members were not safe for the protection of  their eyes while viewing the TSE on August 21, 2017.    93.  Defendant failed to warn Plaintiffs and class members that the Eclipse Glasses they  purchased were in fact unsafe and/or defective for the protection of their eyes while viewing the  96.  Plaintiffs repeat, reallege and incorporate by reference each of the foregoing  allegations as though fully set forth herein.   97.  Defendant by and through the sale of the Eclipse Glasses, warranted to consumers  and/or foreseeable users, such as Plaintiffs and members of the class, that the glasses were fit for  their ordinary, intended and foreseeable use.    98.  Plaintiffs and class members used the Eclipse Glasses in the ordinary, intended and  foreseeable manner in which the product was to be used in reliance on said warranties.    BREACH OF WARRANTY   NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN   NEGLIGENCE   NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION   RULE 23(B)(2) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF  105.  In addition to or in the alternative to the above, Plaintiffs, individually and on  behalf of the proposed class, bring this class action under Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendant has  acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the Class as a whole, such that final  injunctive relief is appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole.  106.  Such injunctive relief includes, but is not limited to, the implementation and  funding of a medical monitoring program for the Plaintiffs and the Class for the early detection  of eye injury, disease process and disease resulting from exposure to the sun caused by  Defendant’s unsafe Eclipse Glasses; an order requiring Defendant to cease and desist from  engaging in the unlawful, unfair, and/or deceptive practices alleged in the Complaint; and  injunctive relief to remedy Defendant’s past conduct.  VIOLATIONS OF UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACTS   VIOLATION OF S.C. CODE ANN. § 39-5-10, ET SEQ.    SOUTH CAROLINA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT   VIOLATION OF STATE CONSUMER  PROTECTION STATUTES  