Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 1 of 26 PageID #:1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`
`
`GENNARO ROCCO AND LORETTA
`SCHWEINSBURG, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs Gennaro Rocco and Loretta Schweinsburg (“Plaintiffs”), individually and on
`
`behalf of all others similarly situated, bring this action against Defendant Kraft Heinz Foods
`
`Company (“Kraft Heinz” or “Defendant”). Plaintiffs make the following allegations pursuant to
`
`the investigation of their counsel and based upon information and belief, except as to the
`
`allegations specifically pertaining to themselves, which are based on personal knowledge.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Maxwell House
`
`coffee products (collectively, the “Coffee Products”) against Defendant for manufacturing,
`
`distributing, and selling underfilled Coffee Products.
`
`2.
`
`Kraft Heinz is the fifth-largest food and beverage company in the world.1 Kraft
`
`Heinz nets nearly $25 billion in annual sales by manufacturing, distributing, and marketing an
`
`extensive line of processed food products through supermarkets, restaurants, and on-the-go
`
`establishments in 200 countries. Kraft Heinz brands include Kraft, Heinz, Maxwell House,
`
`ABC, Capri Sun, Classico, Jell-O, Kool-Aid, Lunchables, Ore-Ida, Oscar Meyer, Philadelphia,
`
`
`1 https://www.investopedia.com/news/history-behind-kraft-heinz-co/ (last accessed June 22,
`2020).
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`))))))))))
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 2 of 26 PageID #:2
`
`Planters, Plasmon, Quero, Weight Watchers, Smart Ones, and Velveeta. Maxwell House is the
`
`second-largest coffee brand in the United States, with U.S. sales totaling $475 million in 2019.2
`
`3.
`
`Kraft Heinz engages in widespread false and deceptive advertising on its Maxwell
`
`House Coffee Products. In a practice that offends reasonable consumer expectations, Defendant
`
`employs a classic bait-and-switch scheme that causes unsuspecting consumers to spend more
`
`money for less than the advertised amount of coffee they believe they are purchasing. The
`
`packaging and labeling of the Coffee Products prominently advertise that they will produce a
`
`certain number of servings when, in fact, they do not.
`
`4.
`
`In this case, Plaintiffs purchased Maxwell House Coffee Products that
`
`prominently advertise on their front labels that they “MAKE[] UP TO 240 6 FL OZ CUPS.”
`
`One serving of Maxwell House Coffee consists of one (1) tablespoon of ground coffee and one
`
`(1) serving of water (“6 FL OZ (3/4 CUP)”). To make the advertised 240 servings, the Coffee
`
`Products would have to contain approximately 240 tablespoons of ground coffee. But the Coffee
`
`Products purchased by Plaintiffs contained only approximately ~170 tablespoons of ground
`
`coffee.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant’s other Maxwell House Coffee Products feature the same deceptive
`
`advertising. These include Defendant’s 100% Colombian Roast, Breakfast Blend, Dark Roast,
`
`French Roast, Gourmet Roast, Vanilla, Half Caff. On each of these Coffee Products, the bottom
`
`of the front label prominently and conspicuously states the number of six-fluid-ounce servings of
`
`coffee the cannister will produce. As shown below, for example, the front label of the Maxwell
`
`House 100% Colombian Medium Roast states that the 24.5-ounce cannister “MAKES UP TO
`
`210 6 FL OZ CUPS.”
`
`
`2 https://www.statista.com/statistics/188315/top-ground-coffee-brands-in-the-united-states/ (last
`accessed June 25, 2020).
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 3 of 26 PageID #:3
`
`
`
`One serving of Maxwell House Coffee consists of one (1) tablespoon of ground coffee and one
`
`(1) serving of water (“6 FL OZ (3/4 CUP)”). This yields one (1) six-fluid-ounce serving of
`
`coffee. To make the advertised 210 servings, therefore, the 100% Colombian Roast would have
`
`to contain approximately 210 tablespoons of ground coffee. But it contains only approximately
`
`134 tablespoons of ground coffee.”
`
`6.
`
`As explained above, and detailed in the chart below, the Coffee Products do not
`
`yield the number of cups advertised by Defendant. Consumers reasonably expect that the Coffee
`
`Products will produce the number of cups promised on the label. However, they do not.
`
`Defendant uniformly and systematically misrepresents the actual contents of its Coffee Products.
`
`Independent testing has revealed that the Coffee Products do not, and cannot, yield the advertised
`
`amount of coffee. Plaintiffs’ counsel commissioned an independent laboratory to perform
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 4 of 26 PageID #:4
`
`testing of Defendant’s Coffee Products. The testing showed that the Coffee Products are
`
`significantly underfilled:
`
`Product Weight Advertised
`Cups
`
`Measured
`Cups (1)
`
`%
`Underfill
`(1)
`
`Measured
`Cups
`(10)3
`
`%
`Underfill
`(10)
`
`Original
`Roast
`Original
`Roast
`Original
`Roast
`Original
`Roast
`Wake Up
`Roast
`
`869 g
`
`326 g
`
`1.20 kg
`
`1.04 kg
`
`869 g
`
`240
`
`90
`
`325
`
`288
`
`240
`
`174.12
`
`27.45%
`
`217.65
`
`67.27
`
`25.25%
`
`84.09
`
`9.3%
`
`6.5%
`
`222.66
`
`31.4%
`
`278.33
`
`14.36%
`
`190.80
`
`33.75%
`
`238.5
`
`17.18%
`
`168.57
`
`29.7%
`
`209.46
`
`12.7%
`
`7.
`
`P
`
`
`
`laint
`
`iffs
`
`and
`
`Clas
`
`s
`
`and
`
`Subclass Members relied to their detriment on Defendant’s representations regarding the number
`
`of servings each Coffee Product would yield. Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members would
`
`not have paid to purchase Defendant’s Coffee Products – or would not have paid as much as they
`
`did to purchase them – had they known the truth about the products’ actual serving yields.
`
`Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members thus suffered monetary damages as a result of
`
`Defendant’s deceptive and false representations.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1332(d) in that: (1) this is a class action involving more than 100 Class Members; (2)
`
`Plaintiff Rocco is a citizen of the State of New York, Plaintiff Schweinsburg is a citizen of the
`
`
`3 The directions for many Maxwell House Coffee Products include two different manners of
`preparation: single serving or ten servings. For a single serving, Defendant directs the consumer
`to use one tablespoon of coffee. For ten servings, Defendant directs the consumer to use eight
`tablespoons of coffee. Regardless of the preparation method utilized, Defendant’s Coffee
`Products are underfilled and do not provide the advertised number of cups of coffee.
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 5 of 26 PageID #:5
`
`State of California, and Defendant is a citizen of the State of Illinois; and (3) the amount in
`
`controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs.
`
`9.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has its
`
`corporate headquarters and principal place of business in this judicial district.
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant is
`
`headquartered in this judicial district and, therefore, a substantial part of the decisions that led to
`
`the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this judicial district.
`
`PARTIES
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Gennaro Rocco resides in Manhattan, New York. On or about December
`
`10, 2019, Mr. Rocco purchased a cannister of Maxwell House Original Roast, 30.65 oz, for
`
`approximately $6.00 from a ShopRite grocery store located in Yonkers, New York. Mr. Rocco
`
`read the Coffee Product’s labeling stating that the cannister “makes up to 240” six-fluid-ounce
`
`cups of coffee before purchasing the Coffee Product. In reliance on this representation, Mr.
`
`Rocco purchased the Coffee Product for his own personal use.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff Loretta Schweinsburg resides in Costa Mesa, California. On or about
`
`May 15, 2020, Ms. Schweinsburg purchased a cannister of Maxwell House Wake Up Roast,
`
`30.65 oz, for approximately $4.99 from an 99 Cents Store located in Costa Mesa, California.
`
`Ms. Schweinsburg read the Coffee Product’s labeling stating that the cannister “makes up to
`
`240” six fluid-ounce cups of coffee before purchasing the Coffee Product. In reliance on this
`
`representation, Ms. Schweinsburg purchased the Coffee Product for her own personal use.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Maxwell House Coffee Products – or
`
`would not have paid as much as they did for such products – had they known that Defendant
`
`misrepresented the number of servings each cannister would produce. Plaintiffs were further
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 6 of 26 PageID #:6
`
`damaged in their purchases of Maxwell House Coffee Products because Defendant’s false
`
`advertisements increased consumer demand, which in turn led to an artificial price increase.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiffs are susceptible to this reoccurring harm because they cannot be certain
`
`that Defendant has corrected this deceptive and false advertising scheme, and they want to
`
`continue to purchase Defendant’s Coffee Products. Plaintiffs greatly enjoy Maxwell House
`
`coffee and purchase it regularly in different varieties, but they currently cannot trust that
`
`Defendant will label and/or advertise its Coffee Products truthfully and accurately. Plaintiffs
`
`simply do not have the resources to ensure that Defendant is complying with state and federal
`
`law with respect to the labeling and advertising of its Maxwell House Coffee Products.
`
`15.
`
`Additionally, because of the large number of Coffee Products involved in
`
`Defendant’s deceit, and the likelihood that Defendant may yet develop and market additional
`
`Coffee Products that also misrepresent the actual serving yield, Plaintiffs may again, by mistake,
`
`purchase a falsely-advertised product from Defendant under the mistaken impression that
`
`Defendant has corrected its deceptive and false advertising scheme.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant Kraft Heinz Foods Company is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the state of Delaware, with corporate co-headquarters at 200 East Randolph
`
`Street, Suite 7600, Chicago, Illinois 60601 and at One PPG Place, Suite 3200, Pittsburgh,
`
`Pennsylvania 15222. Defendant is the fifth-largest food and beverage company in the world,
`
`with annual net sales of $25 billion. Sales of Maxwell House Coffee Products totaled $475
`
`million in 2019.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`17.
`
`Defendant’s advertising and marketing of Maxwell House Coffee Products is
`
`false and misleading and omits material information. The Coffee Products prominently advertise
`
`on the front label that each cannister “Makes Up To ____ Cups.” One serving of Maxwell
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 7 of 26 PageID #:7
`
`House Coffee consists of (1) tablespoon of ground coffee per one (1) six-fluid-ounce serving.
`
`Consumers reasonably expect that the Coffee Product will yield the number of cups advertised
`
`on the front label. Nowhere on the Coffee Product packaging does Defendant inform consumers
`
`that the cannister will not produce the number of cups advertised on the front label. Defendant’s
`
`misrepresentations and/or omissions violate consumers’ reasonable expectations and, as alleged
`
`herein, California’s and New York’s consumer protection statutes. The number of servings each
`
`Maxwell House Coffee Product actually produces per tablespoon is objective factual proof that
`
`the Coffee Products are falsely advertised.
`
`18.
`
`Throughout the class period defined below, Defendant has engaged in, and
`
`continues to engage in, an advertising and marketing campaign that misrepresents its Maxwell
`
`House Coffee Products. Defendant has engaged in, and continues to engage in, a pattern of
`
`willful conduct, through affirmative misrepresentations and/or material omissions, designed to
`
`mislead and lure consumers into purchasing Coffee Products they would not have otherwise
`
`purchased. As a result of this deception, Defendant has sold thousands, if not millions, of Coffee
`
`Products to unsuspecting consumers across the country, including in New York and California.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant’s advertising claims are false, misleading, and deceptive because
`
`Defendant willfully misrepresents and omits from the labeling and packaging of its Coffee
`
`Products information that is material to consumers’ purchasing decision – the number of servings
`
`of coffee that each cannister will produce. Defendant, thus, intentionally misleads consumers
`
`into purchasing its Coffee Products based on false, misleading, and deceptive advertising that
`
`portrays the Coffee Products as having characteristics that they do not, in fact, have.
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 8 of 26 PageID #:8
`
`20.
`
`In making the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions
`
`described above, Defendant knew and/or intended that consumers would purchase its Coffee
`
`Products and pay more for them under the false – but reasonable – belief that each cannister
`
`would produce more cups of coffee than it actually does. By advertising so prominently that the
`
`Coffee Products produce more cups than they actually do, Defendant proves that information
`
`about serving yield is material to consumers. If such information were not material, Defendant
`
`would not feature it in capital letters on the front label of every Maxwell House Coffee Product.
`
`21.
`
`Any reasonable consumer would rely on Defendant’s false, misleading, and
`
`deceptive representations and/or omissions about serving yield when deciding whether to
`
`purchase a Maxwell House Coffee Product. Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members did so to
`
`their detriment. Defendant’s representations and/or omissions misled Plaintiffs and Class and
`
`Subclass Members and are likely to mislead the broader consuming public.
`
`22.
`
`As an immediate, direct, and proximate result of Defendant’s false, misleading,
`
`and deceptive representations and/or omissions, Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members were
`
`injured that they: (1) paid money for Coffee Products that were not what Defendant represented;
`
`(2) were deprived of the benefit of the bargain because the Coffee Products they purchased were
`
`different than what Defendant advertised; and (3) were deprived of the benefit of the bargain
`
`because the Coffee Products they purchased had less value than what Defendant represented.
`
`23.
`
`Had Defendant not made the false, misleading, and deceptive representations
`
`and/or omissions alleged herein, Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members would not have
`
`purchased the Coffee Products or would not have paid as much as they did for such products.
`
`Thus, each Plaintiff and Class and Subclass member suffered an injury in fact and lost money or
`
`property as result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct.
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 9 of 26 PageID #:9
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference and re-allege herein the allegations
`
`contained in all preceding paragraphs of this complaint.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as all people who purchased any
`
`Maxwell House Coffee Product falsely advertising the number of coffee cups that the product
`
`would purportedly produce during the applicable statute of limitations and who have not
`
`received a refund or credit for their purchase(s) (the “Class”). Specifically excluded from the
`
`Class are Defendant, Defendant’s officers, directors, agents, trustees, parents, children,
`
`corporations, trusts, representatives, employees, principals, servants, partners, joint ventures, or
`
`entities controlled by Defendant, and their heirs, successors, assigns, or other persons or entities
`
`related to or affiliated with Defendant and/or Defendant’s officers and/or directors, the judge
`
`assigned to this action, and any member of the judge’s immediate family.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff Gennaro Rocco also seeks to represent a subclass consisting of Class
`
`Members who reside in New York (the “New York Subclass”).
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff Loretta Schweinsburg also seeks to represent a subclass consisting of
`
`Class Members who reside in California (the “California Subclass”).
`
`28.
`
`Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and
`
`discovery, the foregoing definitions of the Class and Subclasses may be expanded or narrowed
`
`by amendment or amended complaint.
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 10 of 26 PageID #:10
`
`29.
`
`Numerosity. The Class and Subclasses Members are geographically dispersed
`
`throughout the United States and are so numerous that individual joinder is impracticable. Upon
`
`information and belief, Plaintiffs reasonably estimate that there are hundreds of thousands of
`
`Members in the Class and in each Subclass. Although the precise number of Class and Subclass
`
`Members is unknown to Plaintiffs, it is known by Defendant and may be determined through
`
`discovery.
`
`30.
`
`Existence and predominance of common questions of law and fact. Common
`
`questions of law and fact exist as to all Members of the Class and Subclasses and predominate
`
`over any questions affecting only individual Class or Subclass members. These common legal
`
`and factual questions include, but are not limited to, the following:
`
`(a) Whether Defendant made false and/or misleading statements to the
`
`consuming public concerning the serving yield in the Coffee Products;
`
`(b) Whether Defendant omitted material information to the consuming public
`
`concerning the actual serving yield in the Coffee Products;
`
`(c) Whether Defendant’s labeling and packaging for the Coffee Products is
`
`misleading and/or deceptive;
`
`(d) Whether Defendant engaged in unfair, fraudulent, or unlawful business
`
`practices with respect to the advertising and sale of the Coffee Products;
`
`(e) Whether Defendant’s representations concerning the Coffee Products were
`
`likely to deceive a reasonable consumer;
`
`(f) Whether Defendant’s omissions concerning the Coffee Products were
`
`likely to deceive a reasonable consumer;
`
`(g) Whether Defendant represented to consumers that the Coffee Products
`
`have characteristics, benefits, or qualities that they do not have;
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 11 of 26 PageID #:11
`
`(h) Whether Defendant advertised the Coffee Products with the intent to sell
`
`them not as advertised;
`
`(i) Whether Defendant falsely advertised the Coffee Products;
`
`(j) Whether Defendant made and breached express and/or implied warranties
`
`to Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members about the Coffee Products;
`
`(k) Whether Defendant’s representations, omissions, and/or breaches caused
`
`injury to Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members; and
`
`(l) Whether Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members are entitled to
`
`damages.
`
`31.
`
`Typicality. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the other Members of
`
`the Class and Subclasses in that, among other things, all Class and Subclass Members were
`
`deceived (or reasonably likely to be deceived) in the same way by Defendant’s false and
`
`misleading advertising claims about the serving yield of its Maxwell House Coffee Products. All
`
`Class and Subclass Members were comparably injured by Defendant’s wrongful conduct as set
`
`forth herein. Further, there are no defenses available to Defendant that are unique to Plaintiffs.
`
`32.
`
`Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the
`
`interests of the Members of the Class and Subclasses. Plaintiffs have retained counsel that is
`
`highly experienced in complex consumer class action litigation, and Plaintiffs intend to
`
`vigorously prosecute this action on behalf of the Class and Subclasses. Furthermore, Plaintiffs
`
`have no interests that are antagonistic to those of the Class or Subclasses.
`
`33.
`
`Superiority. A class action is superior to all other available means for the fair
`
`and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The damages or other financial detriment suffered
`
`by individual Class and Subclass Members are relatively small compared to the burden and
`
`expense of individual litigation of their claims against Defendant. It would, thus, be virtually
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 12 of 26 PageID #:12
`
`impossible for Class or Subclass Members to obtain effective redress on an individual basis for
`
`the wrongs committed against them. Even if Class or Subclass Members could afford such
`
`individualized litigation, the court system could not. Individualized litigation would create the
`
`danger of inconsistent or contradictory judgments arising from the same set of facts. It would
`
`also increase the delay and expense to all parties and the court system from the issues raised by
`
`this action. The class action device provides the benefits of adjudication of these issues in a
`
`single proceeding, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court, and
`
`presents no unusual management difficulties under the circumstances.
`
`34.
`
`In the alternative, the Class and Subclasses may also be certified because:
`
`(a)
`
`the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class and Subclass
`
`Members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with
`
`respect to individual Class or Subclass Members that would establish
`
`incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant;
`
`(b)
`
`the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class and Subclass
`
`Members would create a risk of adjudications with respect to them that
`
`would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other Class
`
`and Subclass Members not parties to the adjudications, or substantially
`
`impair or impede their ability to protect their interests; and/or
`
`(c)
`
`Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to
`
`the Class and to each Subclass as a whole, thereby making appropriate
`
`final declaratory and/or injunctive relief with respect to the Members of
`
`the Class and to the Members of each Subclass as a whole.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 13 of 26 PageID #:13
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Violation Of Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”)
`Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.
`(On Behalf Of The California Subclass)
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference and re-allege herein the allegations
`
`contained in all preceding paragraphs of this complaint.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff Loretta Schweinsburg brings this claim individually and on behalf of the
`
`Members of the proposed California Subclass against Defendant.
`
`37.
`
`Defendant violated California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (the “CLRA”)
`
`by engaging in the following unfair and deceptive business practices, as alleged above and
`
`herein:
`
`(a)
`
`Defendant violated Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(5) by representing that the
`
`Coffee Products have characteristics that they do not have.
`
`(b)
`
`Defendant violated Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(9) by advertising the Coffee
`
`Products with the intent not to sell them as advertised.
`
`38.
`
`The CLRA was enacted to protect consumers against such practices. The CLRA
`
`applies to Defendant’s conduct because the statute covers all sales of goods to consumers.
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiff Schweinsburg and other Members of the California Subclass are
`
`“consumers” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(d). By purchasing Defendant’s
`
`Maxwell House Coffee Products, Plaintiff Schweinsburg and other Members of the California
`
`Subclass engaged in “transactions” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1761(e) and 1770.
`
`40.
`
`Defendant is a “person” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(c).
`
`Defendant’s Coffee Products are “goods” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(a).
`
`41.
`
`Defendant’s unfair and deceptive business practices, as alleged above and herein,
`
`were intended to and did result in the sale of the Coffee Products.
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 14 of 26 PageID #:14
`
`42.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unfair and deceptive business
`
`practices, as alleged above and herein, Plaintiff Schweinsburg and other Members of the
`
`California Subclass suffered injury and damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
`
`43.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant’s unfair and deceptive business practices, as
`
`alleged above and herein, were willful, wanton, and fraudulent.
`
`44.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant’s officers, directors, and/or managing
`
`agents authorized the use of the false and misleading statements and material omissions
`
`regarding the serving yield of Defendant’s Coffee Products, as alleged above and herein.
`
`45.
`
`On June 16, 2020, prior to the filing of this Complaint, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent
`
`Defendant a CLRA notice letter, which complies in all respects with California Civil Code
`
`§1782(a). The letter also provided notice of breach of express and implied warranties. The letter
`
`was sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, advising Defendant that it was in violation
`
`of the CLRA and demanding that it cease and desist from such violations and make full
`
`restitution by refunding the monies received therefrom. The letter stated that it was sent on
`
`behalf of Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated purchasers.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff Schweinsburg and the California Subclass Members seek to enjoin the
`
`unlawful acts and practices described herein.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Violation Of Unfair Competition Law,
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.
`(On Behalf Of The California Subclass)
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference and re-allege herein the allegations
`
`contained in all preceding paragraphs of this complaint.
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff Loretta Schweinsburg brings this claim individually and on behalf of the
`
`Members of the proposed California Subclass against Defendant.
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 15 of 26 PageID #:15
`
`49.
`
`Defendant violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. &
`
`Prof. Code §§ 17200-17210, by engaging in unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful business practices.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff Schweinsburg has standing to pursue this claim because she has suffered
`
`an injury-in-fact and has lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s unlawful, unfair, and
`
`fraudulent conduct. Specifically, Plaintiff Schweinsburg purchased a Maxwell House Coffee
`
`Product for her own personal consumption. In doing so, Plaintiff Schweinsburg relied upon
`
`Defendant’s false representations that the Coffee Product would produce more servings of coffee
`
`than it actually did. Plaintiff Schweinsburg spent money in the transaction that she otherwise
`
`would not have spent had she known the truth about Defendant’s advertising claims.
`
`“Unfair” Prong of the UCL
`
`51.
`
`A business act or practice is “unfair” under the UCL if it offends an established
`
`public policy or is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to
`
`consumers. That unfairness is determined by weighing the reasons, justifications, and motives
`
`for the business act or practice against the gravity of the harm to the alleged victims.
`
`52.
`
`Defendant’s conduct constitutes an “unfair” business practice because, as alleged
`
`herein, Defendant has engaged, and continues to engage, in a false, misleading, and deceptive
`
`advertising campaign that misleads consumers into believing that the Coffee Products they
`
`purchase will yield a greater number of servings than each cannister actually contains.
`
`53.
`
`Defendant’s conduct, as alleged above and herein, was not motivated by any
`
`legitimate business or economic need or rationale, other than to maximize its profits at the
`
`expense of consumers. No legitimate reasons, justifications, or motives outweigh the harm and
`
`adverse impact of Defendant’s conduct on members of the general consuming public. Defendant
`
`engaged, and continues to engage, in such conduct solely to wrongfully extract monies from
`
`consumers, including Plaintiff Schweinsburg, to which Defendant is not entitled. Defendant
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 16 of 26 PageID #:16
`
`could have, but has not, used alternate means of effecting its legitimate business needs, such as
`
`by properly disclosing (1) how many servings of coffee each Coffee Product produces, and/or
`
`(2) that the Coffee Products produce fewer than the “MAKES UP TO ___ CUPS” number of
`
`servings advertised on the front label.
`
`54.
`
`Defendant’s conduct harms consumers and hurts market competition.
`
`Defendant’s conduct, as alleged herein, is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous,
`
`unconscionable, and/or substantially injurious to Plaintiff Schweinsburg and Members of the
`
`California Subclass because it violates consumers’ reasonable expectations. If Defendant had
`
`advertised its Coffee Products in a non-misleading fashion, Plaintiff and other California
`
`Subclass Members could have considered other options for purchasing coffee grounds.
`
`“Fraudulent” Prong of the UCL
`
`55.
`
`A business act or practice is “fraudulent” under the UCL if it is likely to deceive
`
`members of the consuming public.
`
`56.
`
`Defendant has engaged, and continues to engage, in a “fraudulent” business
`
`practice by knowingly representing to consumers that the Coffee Products they purchase will
`
`yield a greater number of servings than they actually do. Defendant’s conduct deceived Plaintiff
`
`Schweinsburg and other California Subclass Members who purchased the Coffee Products in
`
`reliance on the advertised serving yield, and it is highly likely to deceive members of the
`
`consuming public because, as alleged above, it violates consumers’ reasonable expectations
`
`regarding serving yield. Such a business practice lacks utility and functions only to maximize
`
`Defendant’s profits at the expense of its customers. The gravity of the harm to Plaintiff
`
`Schweinsburg and other California Subclass Members, who lost money or property by paying for
`
`the Coffee Products, far outweighs any benefit of Defendant’s conduct.
`
`16
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:20-cv-04578 Document #: 1 Filed: 08/04/20 Page 17 of 26 PageID #:17
`
`57.
`
`Further, Defendant’s fraudulent business practice will continue to mislead
`
`consumers because it will be impossible for consumers to know whether Defendant has stopped
`
`misrepresenting the serving yield of its Coffee Products until after consumers purchase such
`
`products. Accordingly, the risk of harm to Plaintiff Schweinsburg, Members of the California
`
`Subclass, and the consuming public is ongoing.
`
`“Unlawful” Prong of the UCL
`
`58.
`
`A business act or practice is “unlawful” under the UCL if it violates any other law
`
`or regulation.
`
`59.
`
`Defendant’s business practices, as alleged herein, constitute violations of
`
`California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. (the “CLRA”).
`
`Specifically, Defendant has unlawfully marketed and advertised its Maxwell House Coffee
`
`Products in violation of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1770(a)(5) and 1770(a)(9), as detailed below.
`
`60.
`
`Defendant’s business practices also constitute violations of California’s False
`
`Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq. (the “FAL”), as detailed below.
`
`61.
`
`Defendant’s unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful business practices, as enumerated
`
`and explained above, were the direct and proximate cause of financial injury to Plaintiff
`
`Schweinsburg and other Members of the California Subclass. Defendant has unjustly benefitted
`
`as a result of its wrongful conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff Schweinsburg and the California
`
`Subclass seek an order of this Court that includes, but is not limited to, requiring Defendant to:
`
`(a) provide restitution to Plaintiff and other California Subclass Members; (b) disgorge all
`
`revenues obtained as a result of its violations of the UCL; (c) pay attorneys’ fees and costs for
`
`Plaintiff and the California