throbber
Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`KEVIN McCABE,
`
`1:22-cv-3116
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`-against-
`
`CVS HEALTH CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, Kevin McCabe (“McCabe”), resides in the Eastern District of New York and
`
`is a citizen of the State of New York.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant, CVS Health Corporation (“CVS”), is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of Delaware, and maintains its principal place of business at One CVS Drive,
`
`Woonsocket, Rhode Island 02895.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2)(A).
`
`The matter in controversy would exceed an aggregated sum or value of $5,000,000,
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`exclusive of interest and costs, if the putative class (described below) were certified.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(b)(2).
`
`At least two thirds of the members of the putative class are not citizens of the State
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`of New York.
`
`[continued on next page]
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 2 of 26 PageID #: 2
`
`FACTS
`
`7.
`
`From November 2, 2021, through November 27, 2021, CVS conducted a campaign
`
`(the “Campaign”) in which, prior to the completion of transactions at its nearly ten thousand stores
`
`in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, customers were asked on the checkout screen if they
`
`wished, as part of the checkout process, to make a donation, above and beyond the price of their
`
`purchase, to the American Diabetes Association (“ADA”).
`
`8.
`
`The only term of the Campaign that CVS provided to customers was a representation
`
`on the checkout screen that the customer could make a donation to the ADA (a “Campaign
`
`Donation”) by tapping one of several boxes on the checkout screen, each of which contained a pre-
`
`selected amount, or that the customer could tap a box stating “no” with respect to making a
`
`Campaign Donation (the “Checkout Message”).
`
`9.
`
`The Checkout Message represented that CVS was merely collecting Campaign
`
`Donations and forwarding them to the ADA.
`
`10.
`
`The Checkout Message was a material element of the Campaign.
`
`11.
`
`CVS intended that customers would rely upon the Checkout Message in deciding
`
`whether to make a Campaign Donation.
`
`12.
`
`Customers had no reason to believe that the Checkout Message was anything but true
`
`and accurate.
`
`13.
`
`CVS did not merely collect customers’ Campaign Donations and forward them to the
`
`ADA, but, instead, counted Campaign Donations toward the satisfaction of a legally binding
`
`obligation, which CVS had made to the ADA, to donate $10 million to the ADA during the three-
`
`year period of 2021 through 2023 (the “CVS Obligation”).
`
`14.
`
`CVS necessarily used Campaign Donations to reimburse itself, or pay down its debt,
`
`with respect to the CVS Obligation.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 3 of 26 PageID #: 3
`
`15.
`
`CVS’s treatment of, and benefit from, Campaign Donations were materially different
`
`than the false, deceptive, and misleading representation that CVS had given to its customers, which
`
`was that CVS was merely collecting Campaign Donations and forwarding them to the ADA.
`
`16.
`
`On or about November 15, 2021, McCabe made a Campaign Donation at the CVS
`
`store located at 1933 Victory Boulevard, Staten Island, New York 10314.
`
`INTENTION TO REPRESENT A CLASS
`
`17. McCabe intends to seek the certification of a class (the “Putative Class”) pursuant to
`
`Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`18.
`
`The Putative Class comprises McCabe and all other persons who made a Campaign
`
`Donation.
`
`19.
`
`There are thousands of other members of the Putative Class whose claims would be
`
`similar to McCabe’s claims; and, furthermore, McCabe’s claims are typical of those claims.
`
`20.
`
`The members of the Putative Class are so numerous that joinder of all of them is
`
`impracticable.
`
`21. McCabe would fairly and adequately protect the interests of the other members of the
`
`Putative Class. McCabe’s interests would be, for purposes of this litigation, coincident with the
`
`interests of the other members of the Putative Class, and McCabe would have no interests that would
`
`be antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the other members of the Putative Class.
`
`22.
`
`A class action would be superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of this controversy. Because the Putative Class is so numerous that joinder of all of its
`
`members would be impracticable, and because the damages sustained by most of the individual
`
`members would be too small to render prosecution of the claims asserted herein economically feasible
`
`on an individual basis, the expense and burden of individual litigation would make it impractical for
`
`all of the members to adequately address the wrongs complained of herein. McCabe knows of no
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 4 of 26 PageID #: 4
`
`impediments to the effective management of this action as a class action.
`
`23.
`
`Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions that affect only
`
`individual Class Members. Among these questions are:
`
`(i) whether CVS conducted the Campaign;
`
`(ii) whether, when a customer checked out of a CVS store during Campaign, he was asked
`
`on the checkout screen if he wished, as part of the checkout process, to make a Campaign
`
`Donation;
`
`(iii) whether the only term of the Campaign that was provided was the Checkout Message;
`
`(iv) whether the Checkout Message represented that CVS was merely collecting Campaign
`
`Donation and forwarding them to the ADA;
`
`(v) whether the Checkout Message was material to the Campaign;
`
`(vi) whether CVS intended that customers would rely upon the Checkout Message in deciding
`
`whether to make a Campaign Donation;
`
`(vii) whether customers had any reason to believe that the Checkout Message was anything
`
`other than true and accurate;
`
`(viii) whether, prior to the Campaign, CVS had made a legally binding commitment to donate
`
`$10 million to the ADA during the three-year period of 2021 through 2023;
`
`(ix) whether CVS counted Campaign Donations toward CVS’s satisfaction of the CVS
`
`Obligation;
`
`(x) whether CVS used Campaign Donations to reimburse itself, or pay down its debt, with
`
`respect to the CVS Obligation;
`
`(xi) whether CVS’s treatment of, and benefit from, Campaign Donations was materially
`
`different than that which CVS had represented to its customers, which was that CVS was
`
`merely collecting Campaign Donations and forwarding them to the ADA;
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 5 of 26 PageID #: 5
`
`(xii) whether CVS engaged in common-law fraud; and
`
`(xiii) whether CVS violated the consumer-protection statutes that compose the Second Claim
`
`for Relief.
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`24. McCabe incorporates, into each Claim for Relief, each and every allegation contained
`
`in paragraphs “1” through “16.”
`
`FIRST CLAIM
`
`[Common-Law Fraud]
`
`25.
`
` CVS engaged in fraud under the common law of the 50 States and the District of
`
`Columbia.
`
`26.
`
`As a result of CVS’s fraud, McCabe and the other members of the Putative Class are
`
`entitled to actual damages.
`
`SECOND CLAIM
`
`[Violations of Consumer-Protection Laws]
`
`ALABAMA
`
`ALABAMA DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
`
`(Ala. Code §§ 8-19-1 - 8-19-15)
`
`27.
`
`CVS violated the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ala. Code §§ 8-19-1 - 8-
`
`19-15, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Alabama (the “Putative Alabama
`
`Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated Ala. Code § 8-19-5(27).
`
`28.
`
`The Putative Alabama Class Members are entitled to statutory damages of $100
`
`pursuant to Ala. Code § 8-19-10(a)(1).
`
`29.
`
`The Putative Alabama Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant
`
`to Ala. Code § 8-19-10(a)(3).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 6 of 26 PageID #: 6
`
`ALASKA
`
`ALASKA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES
`AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
`
`(Alaska Stat. §§ 45.50.471 - 45.50.561)
`
`30.
`
`CVS violated the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Alaska
`
`Stat. §§ 45.50.471 - 45.50.561, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Alaska
`
`(the “Putative Alaska Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471(b)(11).
`
`31.
`
`The Putative Alaska Class Members are entitled to statutory damages of $500
`
`pursuant to Alaska Stat. § 45.50.531(a).
`
`32.
`
`The Putative Alaska Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s unlawful
`
`practices pursuant to Alaska Stat. § 45.50.535(a).
`
`33.
`
`The Putative Alaska Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant to
`
`Alaska Stat. § 45.50.537(a).
`
`ARKANSAS
`
`ARKANSAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
`
`(Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-88-101 - 4-88-117)
`
`36.
`
`CVS violated the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann. §§
`
`4-88-101 - 4-88-117, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Arkansas (the
`
`“Putative Arkansas Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-88-107(a)(10).
`
`37.
`
`The Putative Arkansas Class Members are entitled to actual damages pursuant to Ark.
`
`Code Ann. § 4-88-113(f)(1)(a).
`
`38.
`
`The Putative Arkansas Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant
`
`to Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-113(f)(3).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 7 of 26 PageID #: 7
`
`CALIFORNIA
`
`THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION ACT
`
`(Calif. Bus & Prof. Code §§ 17200 - 17210)
`
`39.
`
`CVS violated the California Unfair Competition Act, Calif. Bus & Prof. Code §§
`
`17200 - 17210, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in California (the “Putative
`
`California Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated Calif. Bus & Prof. Code § 17200.
`
`40.
`
`The Putative California Class Members are entitled to actual damages against CVS
`
`pursuant to Calif. Bus & Prof. Code § 17203.
`
`41.
`
`The Putative California Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s
`
`unlawful practices pursuant to Calif. Bus & Prof. Code § 17203.
`
`42.
`
`The Putative California Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant
`
`to Calif. Code Civ. Proc. § 1021.5.
`
`CONNECTICUT
`
`THE CONNECTICUT UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
`
`(Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 42-110a - 42-110q)
`
`43.
`
`CVS violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§
`
`42-110a - 42-110q, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Connecticut (the
`
`“Putative Connecticut Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 42-110b(a).
`
`44.
`
`The Putative Connecticut Class Members are entitled to their actual damages pursuant
`
`to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(a).
`
`45.
`
`The Putative Connecticut Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s
`
`unlawful practices pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(d).
`
`46.
`
`The Putative Connecticut Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant
`
`to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110g(d).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 8 of 26 PageID #: 8
`
`DELAWARE
`
`THE DELAWARE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT
`
`(6 Del. Code §§ 2511 - 2528)
`
`47.
`
`CVS violated the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, 6 Del. Code §§ 2511 - 2528, with
`
`respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Delaware (the “Putative Delaware Class
`
`Members”); specifically, CVS violated 6 Del. Code § 2513(a).
`
`48.
`
`The Putative Delaware Class Members are entitled to actual damages pursuant to Del.
`
`Code § 2525(a).
`
`DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
`
`THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CONSUMER
`PROTECTION PROCEDURES ACT
`
`(D.C. Code §§ 28-3901 - 3913)
`
`49.
`
`CVS violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C.
`
`Code §§ 28-3901 - 3913, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in District of
`
`Columbia (the “Putative District of Columbia Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated D.C. Code
`
`§§ 28-3904(e) and (f).
`
`50.
`
`The Putative District of Columbia Class Members are entitled to statutory damages
`
`of $1,500 pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-3901(k)(2)(A)(i).
`
`51.
`
`The Putative District of Columbia Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining
`
`CVS’s unlawful practices pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-3901(k)(2)(D).
`
`52.
`
`The Putative District of Columbia Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees
`
`pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-3901(k)(2)(B).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 9 of 26 PageID #: 9
`
`FLORIDA
`
`FLORIDA UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
`
`(Fla. Stat. §§ 501.201 - 501.213)
`
`53.
`
`CVS violated the Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §§
`
`501.201 - 501.213, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Florida (the “Putative
`
`Florida Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1).
`
`54.
`
`The Putative Florida Class Members are entitled to actual damages pursuant to Fla.
`
`Stat. § 501.211(2).
`
`55.
`
`The Putative Florida Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s unlawful
`
`practices pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 501.211(1).
`
`56.
`
`The Putative Florida Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant to
`
`Fla. Stat. § 501.2105(1).
`
`GEORGIA
`
`GEORGIA FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT
`
`(Ga. Code Ann. §§ 10-1-390 - 10-1-408)
`
`57.
`
`CVS violated the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, Ga. Code Ann. §§ 10-1-390 -
`
`10-1-408, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Georgia (the “Putative Georgia
`
`Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated Ga. Code Ann. §§ 10-1-393(a).
`
`58.
`
`The Putative Georgia Class Members are entitled to actual damages pursuant to Ga.
`
`Code. Ann. § 10-1-399(a).
`
`59.
`
`The Putative Georgia Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s
`
`unlawful practices pursuant to Ga. Code. Ann. § 10-1-399(a).
`
`60.
`
`The Putative Georgia Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant to
`
`Ga. Code. Ann. § 10-1-399(d).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 10 of 26 PageID #: 10
`
`HAWAII
`
`PROHIBITION AGAINST UNFAIR AND
`DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES
`
`(Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 480-1 - 480-24)
`
`61.
`
`CVS violated Hawaii’s prohibition against unfair and deceptive acts or practices, Haw.
`
`Rev. Stat. §§ 480-1 - 480-24, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in District of
`
`Columbia (the “Putative District of Columbia Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated Haw. Rev.
`
`Stat. § 480-2(a).
`
`62.
`
`The Putative Hawaii Class Members are entitled to statutory damages of $1,000
`
`pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-13(b)(1).
`
`63.
`
`The Putative Hawaii Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s unlawful
`
`practices pursuant to Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-13(b)(2).
`
`64.
`
`The Putative Hawaii Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant to
`
`Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-13(b)(1).
`
`ILLINOIS
`
`ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND
`DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT
`
`(815 ILCS §§ 505/1 - 505/12)
`
`65.
`
`CVS violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815
`
`ILCS §§ 505/1 - 505/1, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Illinois (the
`
`“Putative Illinois Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated 815 ILCS 505/2.
`
`66.
`
`The Putative Illinois Class Members are entitled to actual damages pursuant to 815
`
`ILCS 505/10a(a).
`
`67.
`
`The Putative Illinois Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s unlawful
`
`practices pursuant to 815 ILCS 505/10a(c).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 11 of 26 PageID #: 11
`
`68.
`
`The Putative Illinois Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant to
`
`815 ILCS 505/10a(c).
`
`INDIANA
`
`INDIANA DECEPTIVE CONSUMER SALES ACT
`
`(Ind. Code Ann. §§ 24–5–0.5–0.1 - 24–5–0.5–12)
`
`69.
`
`CVS violated the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, Ind. Code Ann. §§
`
`24–5–0.5–0.1 - 24–5–0.5–12, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Indiana (the
`
`“Putative Indiana Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated Ind. Code Ann. § 24-5-0.5-3(a).
`
`70.
`
`The Putative Indiana Class Members are entitled to statutory damages of $500
`
`pursuant to Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-4(a).
`
`71.
`
`The Putative Indiana Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant to
`
`Ind. Code Ann. § 24-5-0.5-4(a).
`
`IOWA
`
`IOWA CONSUMER FRAUD ACT
`
`(Iowa Code Ann. §§ 714h.1 - 714h.8)
`
`72.
`
`CVS violated the Iowa Consumer Protection Act, Iowa Code Ann. §§ 714h.1 -
`
`714h.8, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Iowa (the “Putative Iowa Class
`
`Members”); specifically, CVS violated Iowa Code Ann. § 714h.3(1).
`
`73.
`
`The Putative Iowa Class Members are entitled to actual damages pursuant to Iowa
`
`Code Ann. § 714h.5(1)
`
`74.
`
`The Putative Iowa Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s unlawful
`
`practices pursuant to Iowa Code Ann. § 714h.5(1)
`
`75.
`
`The Putative Iowa Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant to to
`
`Iowa Code Ann. § 714h.5(2).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 12 of 26 PageID #: 12
`
`KANSAS
`
`KANSAS CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
`
`(Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 50-623 - 50-643)
`
`76.
`
`CVS violated the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 50-623 -
`
`50-643, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Kansas (the “Putative Kansas
`
`Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 50-636(b)(2) and (3).
`
`77.
`
`The Putative Kansas Class Members are entitled to statutory damages of $10,000
`
`pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-634(b).
`
`78.
`
`The Putative Kansas Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s unlawful
`
`practices pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-634(a)(2).
`
`79.
`
`The Putative Kansas Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant to
`
`Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-634(e)(1).
`
`LOUISIANA
`
`LOUISIANA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES
`AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW
`
`(La. Rev. Stat. §§ 51:1401 - 51:1430)
`
`80.
`
`CVS violated the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law,
`
`La. Rev. Stat. §§ 51:1401 - 51:1430, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in
`
`Louisiana (the “Putative Louisiana Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated La. Rev. Stat. §
`
`51:1405(A).
`
`81.
`
`The Putative Louisiana Class Members are entitled to actual damages pursuant to La.
`
`Rev. Stat. § 51:1409(A).
`
`82.
`
`The Putative Louisiana Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant
`
`to La. Rev. Stat. § 51:1409(A).
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 13 of 26 PageID #: 13
`
`MARYLAND
`
`MARYLAND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
`
`(Md. Code Com. Law §§ 13-101 - 13-501)
`
`83.
`
`CVS violated the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Com. Law §§
`
`13-101 - 13-501, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Maryland (the “Putative
`
`Maryland Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated Md. Code Com. Law § 13-101(1), (3).
`
`84.
`
`The Putative Maryland Class Members are entitled to actual damages pursuant to Md.
`
`Code Com. Law §§ 13-408(a).
`
`85.
`
`The Putative Maryland Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant
`
`to Md. Code Com. Law §§ 13-408(b).
`
`MASSACHUSETTS
`
`MASSACHUSETTS CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
`
`(Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93a, §§ 1-11)
`
`86.
`
`CVS violated the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93a,
`
`§§ 1-11, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Massachusetts (the “Putative
`
`Massachusetts Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93a, § 2(a).
`
`87.
`
`The Putative Massachusetts Class Members are entitled to statutory damages of $25
`
`pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93a, § 9(3).
`
`88.
`
`The Putative Massachusetts Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s
`
`unlawful practices pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93a, § 9(3).
`
`89.
`
`The Putative Massachusetts Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees
`
`pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93a, § 9(4).
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 14 of 26 PageID #: 14
`
`MICHIGAN
`
`MICHIGAN CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
`
`(Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 445.901 - 445.922)
`
`90.
`
`CVS violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 445.901
`
`- 445.922, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Michigan (the “Putative
`
`Michigan Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.903(1)(s).
`
`91.
`
`The Putative Michigan Class Members are entitled to statutory damages of $5,000
`
`pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.911(3).
`
`92.
`
`The Putative Michigan Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s
`
`unlawful practices pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.911(1)(b).
`
`93.
`
`The Putative Michigan Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant
`
`to Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.911(3).
`
`MINNESOTA
`
`MINNESOTA PREVENTION OF CONSUMER FRAUD ACT
`
`(Minn. Stat. §§ 325f.68 - 325f.694)
`
`94.
`
`CVS violated the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, Minn. Stat. §§
`
`325f.68 - 325f.694, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Michigan (the
`
`“Putative Minnesota Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated Minn. Stat. §§ 325f.69(1).
`
`95.
`
`The Putative Minnesota Class Members are entitled to actual damages pursuant to
`
`Minn. Stat. § 8.31(3)(a).
`
`96.
`
`The Putative Minnesota Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s
`
`unlawful practices pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 8.31(3)(a).
`
`97.
`
`The Putative Minnesota Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant
`
`to Minn. Stat. § 8.31(3)(a).
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 15 of 26 PageID #: 15
`
`MONTANA
`
`MONTANA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES
`AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
`
`(Mont. Code Ann. §§ 30-14-101 - 30-14-157)
`
`98.
`
`CVS violated the Montana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act,
`
`Mont. Code Ann. §§ 30-14-101 - 30-14-157, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations
`
`in Montana (the “Putative Montana Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated Mont. Code Ann.
`
`§ 30-14-103.
`
`99.
`
`The Putative Montana Class Members are entitled to statutory damages of $500
`
`pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. § 30-14-133(1)(a).
`
`100.
`
`The Putative Montana Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s
`
`unlawful practices pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. § 30-14-133(1)(a).
`
`101.
`
`The Putative Montana Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant
`
`to Mont. Code Ann. § 30-14-133(3).
`
`NEBRASKA
`
`NEBRASKA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
`
`(Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 59-1601 - 59-1623)
`
`102. CVS violated the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 59-1601 -
`
`59-1623, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Nebraska (the “Putative
`
`Nebraska Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1602.
`
`103.
`
`The Putative Nebraska Class Members are entitled to actual damages pursuant to Neb.
`
`Rev. Stat. § 59-1609.
`
`104.
`
`The Putative Nebraska Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s
`
`unlawful practices pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1609.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 16 of 26 PageID #: 16
`
`105.
`
`The Putative Nebraska Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant
`
`to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1609.
`
`NEVADA
`
`NEVADA DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
`
`(Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598.0903 - 598.0999)
`
`106. CVS violated the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 598.0903
`
`- 598.0999, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Nevada (the “Putative Nevada
`
`Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915(15).
`
`107.
`
`The Putative Nevada Class Members are entitled to actual damages pursuant to Nev.
`
`Rev. Stat. § 41.600(3)(a).
`
`108.
`
`The Putative Nevada Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s unlawful
`
`practices pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600(3)(b).
`
`109.
`
`The Putative Nevada Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant to
`
`Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.600(3)(c).
`
`NEW HAMPSHIRE
`
`NEW HAMPSHIRE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
`
`(N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 358-A:1 - 358-A:13)
`
`110. CVS violated the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.
`
`§§ 358-A:1 - 358-A:13, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in New Hampshire
`
`(the “Putative New Hampshire Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §
`
`358-A:2.
`
`111.
`
`The Putative New Hampshire Class Members are entitled to statutory damages of
`
`$1,000 pursuant to N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 358-A:10(I).
`
`112.
`
`The Putative New Hampshire Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 17 of 26 PageID #: 17
`
`unlawful practices pursuant to N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 358-A:10(I).
`
`113.
`
`The Putative New Hampshire Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees
`
`pursuant to N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 358-A:10(I).
`
`NEW JERSEY
`
`NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT
`
`(N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:8-1 - 56:8-227)
`
`114. CVS violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:8-1 -
`
`56:8-227, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in New Jersey (the “Putative New
`
`Jersey Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-2.
`
`115.
`
`The Putative New Jersey Class Members are entitled to threefold actual damages
`
`pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-19.
`
`116.
`
`The Putative New Jersey Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s
`
`unlawful practices pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-19.
`
`117.
`
`The Putative New Jersey Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant
`
`to N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-19.
`
`NEW MEXICO
`
`NEW MEXICO UNFAIR PRACTICES ACT
`
`(N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 57-12-1- 57-12-26)
`
`118. CVS violated the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 57-12-1-
`
`57-12-26, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in New Mexico (the “Putative
`
`New Mexico Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-3.
`
`119.
`
`The Putative New Mexico Class Members are entitled to statutory damages of $100
`
`pursuant to N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-10(B).
`
`120.
`
`The Putative New Mexico Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 18 of 26 PageID #: 18
`
`unlawful practices pursuant to N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-10(A).
`
`121.
`
`The Putative New Mexico Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees
`
`pursuant to N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-10(C).
`
`NEW YORK
`
`NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 349
`
`(N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349)
`
`122. CVS violated the N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349, with respect to persons who made
`
`Campaign Donations in New York (the “Putative New York Class Members”); specifically, CVS
`
`violated N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a).
`
`123.
`
`The Putative New York Class Members are entitled to statutory damages of $50
`
`pursuant to N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(h).
`
`124.
`
`The Putative New York Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s
`
`unlawful practices pursuant to N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(h).
`
`125.
`
`The Putative New York Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant
`
`to N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(h).
`
`NORTH CAROLINA
`
`NORTH CAROLINA UNFAIR AND
`DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
`
`(N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 75-1 - 75-43)
`
`126. CVS violated the North Carolina Unfair And Deceptive Trade Practices Act, N.C.
`
`Gen. Stat. Ann.§§ 75-1 - 75-43, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in North
`
`Carolina (the “Putative North Carolina Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated N.C. Gen. Stat.
`
`Ann.§ 75-1.1(a).
`
`127.
`
`The Putative North Carolina Class Members are entitled to treble actual damages
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 19 of 26 PageID #: 19
`
`pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann.§ 75-16.
`
`128.
`
`The Putative North Carolina Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees
`
`pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann.§ 75-16.1(1).
`
`NORTH DAKOTA
`
`NORTH DAKOTA UNLAWFUL SALES
`OR ADVERTISING PRACTICES ACT
`
`(N.D. Cent. Code §§ 51-15-01- 51-15-12)
`
`129. CVS violated the North Dakota Unlawful Sales or Advertising Practices Act, N.D.
`
`Cent. Code §§ 51-15-01- 51-15-12, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in North
`
`Dakota (the “Putative North Dakota Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated N.D. Cent. Code
`
`§ 51-15-02.
`
`130.
`
`The Putative North Dakota Class Members are entitled to actual damages pursuant
`
`to N.D. Cent. Code § 51-15-09.
`
`131.
`
`The Putative North Dakota Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees
`
`pursuant to N.D. Cent. Code § 51-15-09.
`
`OHIO
`
`OHIO CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES ACT
`
`(Ohio Rev. Code §§ 1345.01 - 1345.13)
`
`132. CVS violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, Ohio Rev. Code §§ 1345.01 -
`
`1345.13, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Ohio (the “Putative Ohio Class
`
`Members”); specifically, CVS violated Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.02(A).
`
`133.
`
`The Putative Ohio Class Members are entitled to actual damages pursuant to Ohio
`
`Rev. Code § 1345.09(A).
`
`134.
`
`The Putative Ohio Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s unlawful
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 20 of 26 PageID #: 20
`
`practices pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.09(D).
`
`135.
`
`The Putative Ohio Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant to
`
`Ohio Rev. Code § 1345.09(F)(2).
`
`OKLAHOMA
`
`OKLAHOMA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
`
`(15 Okla. St. Ann. §§ 751 - 764.1)
`
`136. CVS violated the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act, 15 Okla. St. Ann. §§ 751 -
`
`764.1, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Oklahoma (the “Putative Oklahoma
`
`Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated 15 Okla. St. Ann. § 753(20).
`
`137.
`
`The Putative Oklahoma Class Members are entitled to actual damages pursuant to 15
`
`Okla. St. Ann. § 761.1(A).
`
`138.
`
`The Putative Oklahoma Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant
`
`to 15 Okla. St. Ann. § 761.1(A).
`
`OREGON
`
`OREGON UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES ACT
`
`(Ore. Rev. Stat. §§ 646.605 - 646.691)
`
`139. CVS violated the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, Ore. Rev. Stat. §§ 646.605 -
`
`646.691, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Oregon (the “Putative Oregon
`
`Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated Ore. Rev. Stat. § 646.607(1).
`
`140.
`
`The Putative Oregon Class Members are entitled to statutory damages of $200
`
`pursuant to Ore. Rev. Stat. § 646.638(1).
`
`141.
`
`The Putative Oregon Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s unlawful
`
`practices pursuant to Ore. Rev. Stat. § 646.638(1).
`
`142.
`
`The Putative Oregon Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant to
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 21 of 26 PageID #: 21
`
`Ore. Rev. Stat. § 646.638(3).
`
`SOUTH CAROLINA
`
`SOUTH CAROLINA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
`
`(S.C. Code Ann. §§ 39-5-10 - 39-5-180)
`
`143. CVS violated the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§
`
`39-5-10 - 39-5-180, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in South Carolina (the
`
`“Putative South Carolina Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-20(a).
`
`144.
`
`The Putative South Carolina Class Members are entitled to actual damages pursuant
`
`to S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-140(a).
`
`145.
`
`The Putative South Carolina Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s
`
`unlawful practices pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-140(a).
`
`146.
`
`The Putative South Carolina Class Members are entitled to reasonable legal fees
`
`pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-140(a).
`
`SOUTH DAKOTA
`
`SOUTH DAKOTA DECEPTIVE TRADE
`PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
`
`(S.D. Codified Laws §§ 37-24-1 - 37-24-58)
`
`147. CVS violated the South Dakota Deceptive Trade Practices and Consumer Protection
`
`Act, S.D. Codified Laws §§ 37-24-1 - 37-24-58, with respect to persons who made Campaign
`
`Donations in South Dakota (the “Putative South Dakota Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated
`
`S.D. Codified Laws § 37-24-6(1).
`
`148.
`
`The Putative South Dakota Class Members are entitled to actual damages pursuant
`
`to S.D. Codified Laws § 37-24-31.
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-03116-RPK-RML Document 1 Filed 05/26/22 Page 22 of 26 PageID #: 22
`
`TENNESSEE
`
`TENNESSEE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
`
`(Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-18-101 - 47-18-132)
`
`149. CVS violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§
`
`47-18-101 - 47-18-132, with respect to persons who made Campaign Donations in Tennessee (the
`
`“Putative Tennessee Class Members”); specifically, CVS violated Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-104(a).
`
`150.
`
`The Putative Tennessee Class Members are entitled to actual damages pursuant to
`
`Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-109(a)(1).
`
`151.
`
`The Putative Tennessee Class Members are entitled to an order enjoining CVS’s
`
`unlawful practices pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 47

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket