1.  Maltodextrins,  GMO  Compass,  http://www.gmo- compass.org/eng/database/ingredients/148.maltodextrins.html (last visited Jan. 9, 2014).   2.  See id.    28.  Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, advertises, and sells the Products  aforementioned in paragraph one (1) throughout the State of California and in this judicial  District, which uniformly claim to be “All Natural,” when in fact, they are not, because they  contain unnatural, synthetic, and/or artificial ingredients, including but not limited to,  maltodextrin and/or dextrose.  Case3:14-cv-00136-EDL   Document1   Filed01/09/14   Page5 of 24 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  6   29.  Through a variety of advertising, including the front packaging of the Products,  Defendant has made untrue and misleading material statements and representations regarding the  Products, which have been relied upon by Plaintiff and members of the Class.   3.  Notice of the Federal Trade Commission, Comments of Consumers Union on Proposed  Guides for Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, 16 CFR § 260, Dec. 10, 2010,  http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/greenguiderevisions/00289-57072.pdf (last visited Jan. 9, 2014).  Case3:14-cv-00136-EDL   Document1   Filed01/09/14   Page7 of 24 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  8  being “All Natural” are misleading and likely to deceive reasonable consumers because the  Products are not “All Natural” due to being made with unnatural ingredients.   30.  Defendant’s “All Natural” statement prominently displayed on the front of the box  for the Products’ and on the front of each individual packaging for the Products is untrue,  misleading, and likely to deceive reasonable consumers, such as Plaintiff and members of the  Class, because the Products are not “All Natural,” due to the presence of unnatural, synthetic,  and/or artificial ingredients in the Products.   31.  Defendant unlawfully markets, advertises, sells and distributes the Products to  California purchasers in California grocery stores, food chains, mass discounters, mass  merchandisers, club stores, convenience stores, drug stores and/or dollar stores, as being “All  Natural.”   32.  All of the Products’ packaging uniformly and consistently states that the Products  are All Natural on the front of the box for each of the Products and on the front of each individual  packaging for the Products that come inside each box.   33.  As a result, all consumers within the Class, including Plaintiff, who purchased the  Products were exposed to the same “All Natural” claim in the same location on the front box and  individual packaging for the Products.    34.  Unfortunately for consumers, they were charged a price premium for these alleged  All Natural Products over Products that did not claim to be “All Natural.”    35.  Defendant’s All Natural representations convey a series of express and implied  claims which Defendant knows are material to the reasonable consumer, and which Defendant  intends for consumers to rely upon when choosing to purchase the Products.   B. Maltodextrin and Dextrose Are Not Natural   36.  Maltodextrin and dextrose are unnatural, synthetic, and/or an artificial ingredient,  and its presence in the Products causes the Products to not be “All Natural.”    Case3:14-cv-00136-EDL   Document1   Filed01/09/14   Page6 of 24 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  7   37.  Maltodextrin is a saccharide polymer that is produced through partial acid and  enzymatic hydrolysis of corn starch.1  The acid hydrolysis process is specifically deemed to be a  relatively severe process that renders an ingredient no longer “natural.”2   38.  Dextrose is enzymatically synthesized in a similar manner, crystallizing D-glucose  with one molecule of water.     39.  Synthetic chemicals are often used to extract and purify the enzymes used to  produce maltodextrin and dextrose.  The microorganisms, fungi, and bacteria used to produce  these enzymes are also often synthetically produced.   40.  Despite all these unnatural ingredients, Defendant knowingly markets the Products  as “All Natural.”  C. Defendant Deceptively Markets the Products as “All Natural” to Induce Consumers  to Purchase the Products   41.  A representation that a product is “All Natural” and/or “Natural” is material to a  reasonable consumer.  According to Consumers Union, “Eighty-six percent of consumers expect  a ‘natural’ label to mean processed foods do not contain any artificial ingredients.”3    42.  Defendant markets and advertises the Products as “All Natural” to increase sales  of the Products and Defendant is well-aware that claims of food being “All Natural” are material  to consumers.  Despite knowing that maltodextrin and/or dextrose are not natural ingredients,  Defendant has engaged in a widespread marketing and advertising campaign to portray the  Products as being “All Natural.”   43.  Defendant engaged in this misleading and deceptive campaign to charge a  premium for the Products and take away market share from other similar products.  As stated  herein, such representations and the widespread marketing campaign portraying the Products as   44.  Reasonable consumers frequently rely on food label representations and  information in making purchase decisions.     45.  Here, Plaintiff and the other Class members reasonably relied to their detriment on  Defendant’s misleading representations and omissions.  Defendant’s misleading affirmative  statements about the “naturalness” of its Products obscured the material facts that Defendant  failed to disclose about the unnaturalness of its Products.   46.  Plaintiff and the other Class members were among the intended recipients of  Defendant’s deceptive representations and omissions.     47.  Defendant made the deceptive representations and omissions on the Products with  the intent to induce Plaintiff’s and the other Class members’ purchase of the Products.     48.  Defendant’s deceptive representations and omissions are material in that a  reasonable person would attach importance to such information and would be induced to act upon  such information in making purchase decisions.  Thus, Plaintiff’s and the other Class members’  reliance upon Defendant’s misleading and deceptive representations and omissions may be  presumed.  The materiality of those representations and omissions also establishes causation  between Defendant’s conduct and the injuries sustained by Plaintiff and the Class.   49.  Defendant’s false, misleading, and deceptive misrepresentations and omissions are  likely to continue to deceive and mislead reasonable consumers and the general public, as they  have already deceived and misled Plaintiff and the other Class members.     50.  In making the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions,  Defendant knew and intended that consumers would pay a premium for “All Natural” labeled  products over comparable products that are not labeled “All Natural” furthering Defendant’s  private interest of increasing sales for its Products and decreasing the sales of products that are  truthfully offered as “All Natural” by Defendant’s competitors, or those that do not claim to be  “All Natural.”  Case3:14-cv-00136-EDL   Document1   Filed01/09/14   Page8 of 24 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  9   51.  As an immediate, direct, and proximate result of Defendant’s false, misleading,  and deceptive representations and omissions, Defendant injured Plaintiff and the other Class  members in that they:  a) paid a sum of money for Products that were not as represented;  b) paid a premium price for Products that were not as represented;   c) were deprived the benefit of the bargain because the Products they purchased were  different than what Defendant warranted;  d) were deprived the benefit of the bargain because the Products they purchased had  less value than what was represented by Defendant;  e) did not receive Products that measured up to their expectations as created by  Defendant;  f) ingested a substance that was other than what was represented by Defendant;  g) ingested a substance that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class did not  expect or consent to;  h) ingested a product that was artificial, synthetic, or otherwise unnatural;  i) ingested a substance that was of a lower quality than what Defendant promised;  j) were denied the benefit of knowing what they ingested;  k) were denied the benefit of truthful food labels;  l) were forced unwittingly to support an industry that contributes to environmental,  ecological, and/or health damage;  m) were denied the benefit of supporting an industry that sells natural foods and  contributes to environmental sustainability; and  n) were denied the benefit of the beneficial properties of the natural foods promised.   52.  Had Defendant not made the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and  omissions, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have been economically injured.     53.  Among other things, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have been  denied the benefit of the bargain, they would not have ingested a substance that they did not  expect or consent to.  Case3:14-cv-00136-EDL   Document1   Filed01/09/14   Page9 of 24 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  10   54.  Plaintiff and the other Class members did not obtain the full value of the  advertised Products due to Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions.  Plaintiff and the other  Class members purchased, purchased more of, or paid more for, the Products than they would  have done, had they known the truth about the Products’ unnaturalness.    55.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered injury in fact  and lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct.   D. Plaintiff’s Purchase and Reliance on the “All Natural” Statement   56.  Plaintiff has purchased one or more of the Products during the Class Period,  including, but not limited to, a purchase made during 2013 from a Whole Foods market located in  Alameda County, California, for the purchase price of approximately $3.00 to $4.00.   57.  The Products purchased by Plaintiff claimed to be “All Natural” on the front  packaging, which Plaintiff perceived, read, and relied on in making Plaintiff’s decision to  purchase the Products.  Plaintiff interpreted the “All Natural” claim to mean that the Tortilla  Chips did not contain any unnatural, synthetic, and/or artificial ingredients.   58.  Subsequent to purchasing the Products, Plaintiff discovered that they contain  maltodextrin and/or dextrose, which are unnatural and/or synthetic ingredients, and thus, the  Products containing these unnatural, synthetic, and/or artificial ingredients are not “All Natural.”  E. Plaintiff Has Suffered Economic Damages   59.  Plaintiff and members of the Class would not have purchased the Products had  they known that they were not “All Natural.”     60.  Likewise, if Plaintiff and members of the Class had known the Products contained  unnatural, synthetic, and/or artificial ingredients, they would not have purchased them.   61.  Defendant’s “All Natural” statement related to the Products is material to a  consumer’s purchase decision because reasonable consumers, such as Plaintiff and members of  the Class, care whether products contain unnatural, synthetic, and/or artificial ingredients, and  thus attach importance to an “All Natural” claim when making a purchasing decision.    Case3:14-cv-00136-EDL   Document1   Filed01/09/14   Page10 of 24 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  11   62.  As a result of purchasing the Products that claim to be “All Natural,” but contain  maltodextrin and/or dextrose, Plaintiff and members of the Class have suffered economic  damages.   63.  Defendant’s “All Natural” advertising for the Products was and is false,  misleading, and/or likely to deceive reasonable consumers.  Therefore, the Products are valueless,  worth less than what Plaintiff and members of the Class paid for them, and/or are not what  Plaintiff and members of the Class reasonably intended to receive.    64.  Plaintiff and the Class seek damages equal to the aggregate purchase price paid for  the Products during the Class Period because the Products are worthless due to not being “All  Natural,” due to the presence of unnatural, synthetic, and/or artificial ingredients.   65.  Moreover, Plaintiff and members of the Class paid a price premium for the “All  Natural” Products, over other similar products that do not claim to be “All Natural.”   66.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in each  of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   67.  This action is maintainable as a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   68.  Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Cal. Civil Code § 1781,  Plaintiff brings this class action and seeks certification of the claims and certain issues in this  action on behalf of a Class defined as:  all California residents who have purchased for personal use  one or more of the following products: (1) Kettle Brand TIAS  All Natural Nacho Cheddar Tortilla Chips; (2) Kettle Brand  TIAS All Natural Zesty Ranch Tortilla Chips; (3) Kettle Brand  TIAS All Natural Salsa Picante Tortilla Chips; (4) Kettle Brand  TIAS All Natural Sweet Baja Barbeque Tortilla Chips; or  Kettle Brand TIAS All Natural Chili Con Queso Tortilla Chips,  Case3:14-cv-00136-EDL   Document1   Filed01/09/14   Page11 of 24 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  12  from January 9, 2010, through and to the date notice is  provided to the Class.   69.  Excluded from the Class are governmental entities, Defendant, any entity in which  Defendant has a controlling interest, and Defendant’s officers, directors, affiliates, legal  representatives, employees, co-conspirators, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns.  Also excluded  from the Class is any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members  of their immediate families and judicial staff.    70.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Class definition if further information and  discovery indicates that the Class definition should be narrowed, expanded or otherwise modified.    71.  Numerosity: The Class comprises many thousands of persons throughout the State  of California. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, and the  disposition of their claims in a Class Action will benefit the parties and the Court.   72.  Commonality:  The questions of law and fact common to the Class have the  capacity to generate common answers that will drive resolution of this action. Common questions  of law and fact include, but are not limited to, the following:   a) Whether Defendant’s practices and representations related to the marketing,  labeling and sales of the Products in California were unfair, deceptive, fraudulent,  and/or unlawful in any respect, thereby violating Cal. Bus. & Prof. C. §§ 17200, et  seq.;  b) Whether Defendant’s practices and representations related to the marketing,  labeling and sales of the Products in California were unfair, deceptive and/or  unlawful in any respect, thereby violating Cal. Bus. & Prof. C. §§ 17500, et seq.;  c) Whether Defendant violated Cal. Civ. C. §§ 1750, et seq. with its practices and  representations related to the marketing, labeling and sales of the Products within  California;  d) Whether the Products are “All Natural;”  e) Whether the ingredients contained in the Products are “All Natural;”  Case3:14-cv-00136-EDL   Document1   Filed01/09/14   Page12 of 24 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  13  f) Whether the claim “All Natural” on the Products’ packaging and advertising is  material to a reasonable consumer;  g) Whether the claim “All Natural” on the Products’ packaging and advertising is  false to a reasonable consumer.  h) Whether the claim “All Natural” on the Products’ packaging and advertising is  likely to deceive a reasonable consumer;  i) Whether the claim “All Natural” on the Products’ packaging and advertising is  misleading to a reasonable consumer;  j) Whether a reasonable consumer is likely to be deceived by a claim that a product  is “All Natural” where the product contains unnatural, synthetic, and/or artificial  ingredients; and  k) Whether Defendant’s conduct as set forth above injured consumers and if so, the  extent of the injury.   73.  Typicality:  Plaintiff’s claims, and Defendant’s defenses thereto, are typical of the  claims of the Class, as the representations made by Defendant are consistent and uniform and are  contained in the advertisements and labels that every member of the Class was necessarily  exposed to in purchasing the Products. Thus, there exists a presumption that all Class members  relied upon said uniform and consistent advertising and representations to their detriment.  Additionally, all members of the Class have the same or similar injury (loss of purchase price)  based on Defendant’s false and misleading marketing and advertising.     74.  Adequacy: Plaintiff does not have any conflicts with any other members of the  Class, and will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the  Plaintiff Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in both consumer  protection and class action litigation.    75.  Predominance: As set forth in detail herein, common issues of fact and law  predominate because all of Plaintiff’s claims are based on a uniform false and misleading  advertising message which all class members were necessarily exposed to.  Case3:14-cv-00136-EDL   Document1   Filed01/09/14   Page13 of 24 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  14   76.  Superiority:  A class action is superior to other available methods for fair and  efficient adjudication of this controversy.  The expense and burden of individual litigation would  make it impracticable or impossible for Class members to prosecute their claims individually.  Absent a class action, Defendant will likely retain the benefits of its wrongdoing.  Because of the  small size of the individual Class members’ claims, few, if any, Class members could afford to  seek legal redress for the wrongs complained of herein.  Absent a representative action, the Class  members will continue to suffer losses and Defendant will be allowed to continue these violations  of law and to retain the proceeds of its ill-gotten gains. The trial and litigation of Plaintiff’s claims  are manageable.  Individual litigation of the legal and factual issues raised by Defendant’s  conduct would increase delay and expense to all parties and the court system.  The class action  device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of a single, uniform  adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.  The benefits  of proceeding as a class action, including providing a method for obtaining redress for claims that  would not be practical to pursue individually, outweigh any difficulties that might be argued with  regard to the management of this class action.  77.  Plaintiff re-alleges and fully incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in  the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein verbatim.   78.  Throughout the Class Period Defendant engaged in a public advertising and  marketing campaign representing that the Products are “All Natural,” despite the fact that the  Products contain unnatural, synthetic, and/or artificial ingredients.    79.  Defendant’s advertisements and marketing representations are misleading, untrue,  and likely to deceive reasonable consumers.     80.  Defendant engaged in its advertising and marketing campaign with intent to  directly induce customers to purchase the Products based on false claims.    Case3:14-cv-00136-EDL   Document1   Filed01/09/14   Page14 of 24 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  15   81.  In violation of California Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq., Defendant  disseminated, or caused to be disseminated, the deceptive Products’ labeling and advertising  representations.   82.  Defendant’s labeling and advertising representations for the Products are by their  very nature unfair, deceptive and/or unlawful within the meaning of California Bus. & Prof. Code  §§ 17500 et seq.    83.  The representations were at all material times hereto likely to deceive reasonable  consumers, including Plaintiff and members of the Class.   84.  Defendant violated California Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq., in making and  disseminating the deceptive representations alleged herein.   85.  Defendant knew or should have known that the representations were false,  misleading, and likely to deceive reasonable consumers, such as Plaintiff and members of the  Class.   86.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct, Plaintiff and  similarly situated California purchasers of the Products have suffered economic damages.   87.  Plaintiff was injured in fact and lost money as a result of Defendant’s conduct of  improperly advertising the Products as described herein.   88.  Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products but for Defendant’s misleading  statements about the Products.   89.  Pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code § 17535, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all  similarly situated California purchasers, seeks an order of this Court requiring Defendant to  restore to purchasers of the Products all monies that may have been acquired by Defendant as a  result of such false, unfair, deceptive and/or unlawful acts or practices. Plaintiff and members of  the Class seek declaratory relief, restitution for monies wrongfully obtained, disgorgement of ill- gotten revenues and/or profits, injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from disseminating its untrue  and misleading statements, and other relief allowable under California Business & Professions  Code Section 17535.  Case3:14-cv-00136-EDL   Document1   Filed01/09/14   Page15 of 24 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  16   90.  Furthermore, as a result of Defendant’s violations of the FAL, Plaintiff and  similarly situated California purchasers of the Products are entitled to restitution for out-of-pocket  expenses and economic harm.    91.  Pursuant to Civil Code § 3287(a), Plaintiff and similarly situated California  purchasers of the Products are further entitled to pre-judgment interest as a direct and proximate  result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct. The amount on which interest is to be calculated is a sum  certain and capable of calculation, and Plaintiff and similarly situated California purchasers of the  Products are entitled to interest in an amount according to proof.  92.  Plaintiff re-alleges and fully incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in  the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein verbatim.   93.  This cause of action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the general  public, pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., which provides that “unfair  competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or deceptive business act or practice and  unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter I  (commencing with Section 17500) as Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.”   94.  In its marketing and advertising, Defendant makes false and misleading statements  regarding the uses and benefits of the Products.   95.  Specifically, Defendant has represented that their Products are “All Natural,” when  in fact the Products contain unnatural, synthetic, and/or artificial ingredients.    96.  The misrepresentations Defendant makes about the Products constitutes an unfair  and fraudulent business practice within the meaning of California Business & Professions Code  section 17200, et seq.   97.  Defendant committed “unfair” and/or “fraudulent” business acts or practices by,  among other things:  (1) engaging in conduct where the utility of such conduct, if any, is  Case3:14-cv-00136-EDL   Document1   Filed01/09/14   Page16 of 24 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  17  outweighed by the gravity of the consequences to Plaintiff and members of the Class; (2)  engaging in conduct that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially  injurious to Plaintiff and members of the Class; and (3) engaging in conduct that undermines or  violates the spirit or intent of the consumer protection laws alleged herein.   98.  As detailed above, Defendant’s unfair and/or fraudulent practices include  disseminating false and/or misleading representations regarding the Products.   99.  Defendant is aware that the claims it made about the Products are false,  misleading, and likely to deceive reasonable consumers.  100.  Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products but for Defendant’s misleading  statements about the Products.  101.  Plaintiff was injured in fact and lost money as a result of Defendant’s conduct.  102.  Plaintiff has standing to pursue this claim as Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact  and has lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s actions as set forth herein.  103.  Defendant’s business practices, as alleged herein, are unfair because: (1) the injury  to consumers is substantial; (2) the injury is not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to  consumers or competition; and (3) consumers could not reasonably have avoided the information  because Defendant intentionally misled the consuming public by means of the claims made with  respect to the Products as set forth herein.   104.  Defendant’s business practices as alleged herein are fraudulent because they are  likely to deceive customers into believing the Products have characteristics, uses and benefits  they do not have.  105.  In addition, Defendant’s use of various forms of advertising media to advertise,  including the Products’ labeling, call attention to, or give publicity to, the sale of goods or  merchandise which are not as represented in any manner, which constitutes unfair competition,  unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising, and an unlawful business practice within the  meaning of Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.  Case3:14-cv-00136-EDL   Document1   Filed01/09/14   Page17 of 24 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  18  106.  Defendant’s wrongful business practices constituted a continuing course of  conduct of unfair competition since Defendant is marketing and selling the Products in a manner  likely to deceive the public.  107.  Defendant has peddled its misrepresentations through advertising in California,  including the Products’ labeling.   108.  There were reasonably available alternatives to further Defendant’s legitimate  business interests, other than the conduct described herein.  109.  Plaintiff and the putative members of the Class were misled into purchasing the  Products by Defendant’s deceptive and fraudulent conduct as alleged herein.  110.  Defendant had an improper motive (profit before accurate marketing) in its  practices related to the deceptive labeling and advertising of the Products, as set forth above.   111.  The use of such unfair and fraudulent business acts and practices was under the  sole control of Defendant, and was deceptively hidden from members of the general public in  Defendant’s marketing, advertising and labeling of the Products.  112.  As purchasers and consumers of Defendant’s Products, and as members of the  general public who purchased and used the Products, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to bring  this class action seeking all available remedies under the UCL.   113.  Pursuant to California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203, Plaintiff, individually, and on  behalf of the Class, seeks an order of this Court for injunctive relief and disgorging and restoring  all monies that have been acquired by Defendant as a result of Defendant’s business acts or  practices described herein.  Plaintiff, the Class, and the general public may be irreparably harmed  or denied an effective and complete remedy in the absence of such an order.  114.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of the UCL, Plaintiff and the Class are  entitled to restitution for out-of-pocket expenses and economic harm.   115.  Pursuant to Civil Code § 3287(a), Plaintiff and the Class are further entitled to pre- judgment interest as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unfair and fraudulent conduct.   The amount on which interest is to be calculated is a sum certain and capable of calculation, and  Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to interest in an amount according to proof.  Case3:14-cv-00136-EDL   Document1   Filed01/09/14   Page18 of 24 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  19  A. Defendant’s Advertising of the “All Natural” Products   Negligent Misrepresentation   (Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the California Class)  150.  Plaintiff re-alleges and fully incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in  the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein verbatim.  151.  Defendant has represented that their Products are “All Natural,” when in fact the  Products contain unnatural, synthetic, and/or artificial ingredients.   152.  Defendant had no reasonable grounds for believing its representations were true.  153.  Defendant should have known about the Products’ misrepresentations.  154.  In making these representations to Plaintiff and the Class, Defendant intended to  induce Plaintiff and the Class to purchase the Products.  155.  At all times herein, Plaintiff and the Class were unaware of the falsity of the  Products’ statements.  156.  Plaintiff and the Class reasonably acted in response to the statements made by  Defendant when they purchased the Products.  157.  As a proximate result of Defendant’s negligent misrepresentations, Plaintiff and  Class members purchased the Products.  158.  As a result, Plaintiff and the Class have been economically damaged in an amount  to be determined at trial.    Violation of the Unlawful Prong of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.  (Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the California Class)  116.  Plaintiff re-alleges and fully incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in  the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein verbatim.  117.  This cause of action is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class  pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq., which provides that “unfair competition  shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or deceptive business act or practice and unfair,  deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter I (commencing  with Section 17500) as Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code.”  118.  As detailed above, Defendant’s unlawful practices include disseminating false  and/or misleading representations about the Products.  119.  Specifically, Defendant has represented that their Products are “All Natural,” when  in fact the Products contain unnatural, synthetic, and/or artificial ingredients.   120.  Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products, but for Defendant’s misleading  statements about the Products.  121.  Plaintiff was injured in fact and lost money as a result of Defendant’s conduct.  122.  Plaintiff paid for the Products, but did not receive what he reasonably expected.  123.  Plaintiff has standing to pursue this claim as Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact  and has lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s actions as set forth herein.  124.  Defendant’s business practices, as alleged herein, are unfair because: (1) the injury  to consumers is substantial; (2) the injury is not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to  consumers or competition; and (3) consumers could not reasonably have avoided the information  because Defendant intentionally misled the consuming public by means of the claims made with  respect to the Products as set forth herein.   125.  In its marketing and advertising, Defendant makes false and misleading statements  regarding the uses and benefits of the Products.   Case3:14-cv-00136-EDL   Document1   Filed01/09/14   Page19 of 24 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  20  126.  Such marketing, advertising and sale of the Products by Defendant is unlawful  because (1) they are violating sections 1770(a)(5), 1770(a)(7) and 1770(a)(9) of the CLRA,  California Civil Code section 1750, et seq.; and (2) they are violating the FAL, California  Business & Professions Code section 17500, et seq.  127.  Because Defendant’s business conduct in advertising, marketing and selling the  Products using false and misleading statements, in violation of the CLRA, FAL, and/or other  federal and state laws or regulations, it constitutes a per se violation of the “unlawful” prong of  the UCL.   128.  As purchasers and consumers of Defendant’s Products, and as members of the  general public who purchased and used the Products, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to and  bring this class action seeking all available remedies under the UCL.   129.  Pursuant to California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203, Plaintiff, individually and on  behalf of the Class, seeks an order of this Court for injunctive relief and disgorging and restoring  all monies that may have been acquired by Defendant as a result of such unlawful business acts or  practices.  Plaintiff, the Class and the general public may be irreparably harmed and/or denied an  effective and complete remedy in the absence of such an order.  130.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of the UCL, Plaintiff and the Class are  entitled to restitution for out-of-pocket expenses and economic harm.   131.  Pursuant to Civil Code § 3287(a), Plaintiff and the Class are further entitled to pre- judgment interest as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful business conduct. The  amount on which interest is to be calculated is a sum certain and capable of calculation, and  Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to interest in an amount according to proof.  Violation of the Unfair and Fraudulent Prongs of California Business & Professions Code  §§ 17200 et seq.  (Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the California Class)   Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17500 et seq.  (Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the California Class)   Violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act –   Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq.    (Brought on behalf of Plaintiff and the California Class)  132.  Plaintiff re-alleges and fully incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in  the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein verbatim.  Case3:14-cv-00136-EDL   Document1   Filed01/09/14   Page20 of 24 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  21  133.  This cause of action is brought pursuant to the California Consumers Legal  Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq. (the “CLRA”).  134.  Defendant has represented that their Products are “All Natural,” when in fact the  Products contain unnatural, synthetic, and/or artificial ingredients.     135.  This cause of action seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief pursuant to  California Civil Code § 1782.    136.  Defendant’s actions, representations, and conduct have violated the CLRA,  because they extend to transactions that are intended to result, or that have resulted, in the sale of  goods to consumers.  137.  Plaintiff and all members of the Class are “consumers” as that term is defined by  the CLRA in California Civil Code § 1761(d).  138.  Defendant sold the Products, which are “goods” within the meaning of California  Civil Code § 1761(a), to Plaintiff and other members of the Class during the Class Period.  139.  Plaintiff is an individual who purchased the Products for personal use.  140.  The purchases of the Products by Plaintiff and California purchasers of the  Products were and are “transactions” within the meaning of Civil Code §1761(e).  141.  Defendant’s marketing, labeling and advertising and sales of the Product within  California violated the CLRA in at least the following respects as set forth in detail above:  a. In violation of Civil Code §1770(a)(5), Defendant represented that the  Products have characteristics, ingredients, uses, and benefits which they do not  have;   b. In violation of Civil Code §1770(a)(7), Defendant represented that the  Products are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, which they are not;  c. In violation of Civil Code §1770(a)(9), Defendant advertised the Products with  an intent not to sell the Products as advertised; and  d. In violation of Civil Code §1770(a)(16), Defendant represented that the subject  of the sale of the Products has been supplied in accordance with a previous  representation when it has not.  Case3:14-cv-00136-EDL   Document1   Filed01/09/14   Page21 of 24 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  22  142.  Defendant knew or should have known about the Products’ misrepresentations.    143.  Defendant’s actions as described herein were done with conscious disregard of  Plaintiff’s rights, and Defendant was wanton and malicious in its concealment of same.   144.  Defendant’s wrongful business practices constitute a continuing course of conduct  in violation of the CLRA.   145.  Plaintiff and other members of the putative Class have suffered injury in fact and  have lost money as a result of Defendant’s misrepresentations.    146.  Plaintiff seeks an award of restitution and actual damages in accordance with the  provisions of the CLRA.  147.  Plaintiff also seeks equitable relief in the form of an order for injunctive relief:  a) Requiring Defendant to make full restitution of all monies wrongfully obtained as  a result of the conduct described above;  b) Requiring Defendant to disgorge all ill-gotten gains flowing from the conduct  described above; and  c) Enjoining Defendant from engaging, using, or employing its advertising and  marketing tactics to sell the Products, as described above.    148.  Pursuant to the notice requirements under the CLRA, on January 9, 2014, Plaintiff  sent Defendant a letter via U.S.P.S. Certified Mail, notifying Defendant in writing of the  particular violations of the CLRA, and demanding that Defendant take certain corrective actions  within the mandated thirty (30) day time period.  In the event Defendant fails to adequately  respond within the thirty (30) day time period, Plaintiff intends to amend this Complaint to  include a request for punitive damages and statutory damages pursuant to the CLRA.    149.  Pursuant to the CLRA, Plaintiff separately seeks, and is entitled to, costs,  attorney’s fees, and any other applicable relief allowable under the CLRA.  Case3:14-cv-00136-EDL   Document1   Filed01/09/14   Page22 of 24 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  23 