41.  Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil  Procedure 23 on behalf of a Class consisting of all persons in the United States who,  within the relevant statute of limitations period, purchased GT’s Kombucha  Beverages.   42.  Plaintiff Manire also seeks to represent a subclass defined as all  members of the Class who purchased GT’s Kombucha Beverages in California (the  “California Subclass”).   43.  Plaintiffs Manire and Retta also seek to represent a subclass defined as  all members of the Class who purchased GT’s Kombucha Beverages in New York  (the “New York Subclass”).   44.  Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or modify the Class definition with  greater specificity or further division into subclasses or limitation to particular issues  as discovery and the orders of this Court warrant.   45.  Excluded from the Class are the Defendant, the officers and directors of  the Defendant at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their  legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendant  has or had a controlling interest.   46.  Also excluded from the Class are persons or entities that purchased  GT’s Kombucha Beverages for purposes of resale.   53.  Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in  all preceding paragraphs of this complaint.   54.  Plaintiffs Retta, Schofield, and Manire bring this claim individually and  on behalf of members of the proposed Class against Defendant.  Plaintiff Manire also  brings this claim individually and on behalf of members of the proposed California  Subclass.   55.  Plaintiffs and Class members are consumers who purchased GT’s  Kombucha Beverages for personal, family or household purposes.  Plaintiffs and the  Class are “consumers” as that term is defined by the CLRA in Cal. Civ. Code §  1761(d).  Plaintiffs and the Class members are not experts with the independent  knowledge of the character, effectiveness, nature, level, or amount of antioxidants  found in GT’s Kombucha Beverages or kombucha beverages generally.   66.  Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in  all preceding paragraphs of this complaint.   67.  Plaintiffs Retta, Schofield, and Manire bring this claim individually and  on behalf of the members of the proposed Class against Defendant.   68.  Plaintiff Manire also brings this claim individually and on behalf of  members of the proposed California Subclass against Defendant.   69.  Defendant is subject to California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus.  & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.  The UCL provides, in pertinent part: “Unfair  competition shall mean and include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices  and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising ….”   76.  Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in  all preceding paragraphs of this complaint.   85.  Plaintiffs Retta and Manire hereby incorporate by reference the  allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs of this complaint.   86.  Plaintiffs Retta and Manire bring this claim individually and on behalf  of the members of the proposed New York Subclass against Defendant.   87.  Any person who has been injured by reason of any violation of the NY  GBL § 349 may bring an action in her own name to enjoin such unlawful act or  practice, an action to recover her actual damages or fifty dollars, whichever is  greater, or both such actions.  The court may, in its discretion, increase the award of  damages to an amount not to exceed three times the actual damages up to one  thousand dollars, if the court finds the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this  section.  The court may award reasonable attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff.   Millennium’s Unlawful and Misleading Characterization of Antioxidants   Violation Of California’s False Advertising Law,  California Business & Professions Code §§ 17500, et seq.   Violation Of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act,  California Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq.   Violation of New York’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,  New York General Business Law § 349, et seq.   Violation Of California’s Unfair Competition Law,  California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.  