Case 2:21-cv-00758-JS-SIL Document 1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`(CENTRAL ISLIP)
`
`SALLY BREDBERG and REBECCA
`BROMBERG, Individually and on Behalf of
`All Others Similarly Situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No.:
`
`21-758
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs Sally Bredberg and Rebecca Bromberg (“Plaintiffs”), individually and on
`
`behalf of all others similarly situated, upon personal knowledge as to facts pertaining to
`
`themselves and on information and belief as to all other matters, by and through their
`
`undersigned counsel, bring this class action complaint against Defendant The Hain Celestial
`
`Group, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Earth’s Best”).
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This consumer class action arises out of Defendant’s deceptive marketing
`
`practices in connection with its sale of Earth’s Best rice cereal (the “Product”) throughout the
`
`United States. Earth’s Best prominently advertises its Earth’s Best rice cereal as wholesome,
`
`safe food to feed to infants and small children. In reality, though, Earth’s Best rice cereal
`
`contains high levels of arsenic – higher, in fact, than those allowed by the FDA. As a result,
`
`Earth’s Best should not be legally sold within the United States, and Earth’s Best’s failure to
`
`disclose that material fact violates state and common law.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00758-JS-SIL Document 1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 2
`
`2.
`
`Earlier this month, the United States House of Representatives released a report
`
`on levels of heavy metals in baby foods by various manufacturers (the “House Report”). The
`
`report showed that Earth’s Best rice cereal, in particular, consistently contained inorganic arsenic
`
`in excess of FDA action levels of 100 parts per billion (“ppb”). The FDA defines an action level
`
`as “limits at or above which FDA will take legal action to remove products from the market.”1
`
`3.
`
`These levels of arsenic represent a health hazard to infants who consume this
`
`cereal. The House Report noted that, “The known health risks of arsenic exposure include
`
`‘respiratory, gastrointestinal, haematological, hepatic,
`
`renal,
`
`skin, neurological and
`
`immunological effects, as well as damaging effects on the central nervous system and cognitive
`
`development in children.’”2 (citations omitted)
`
`4.
`
`The House Report further notes that the FDA set the action level for inorganic
`
`arsenic at 100 ppb because the “FDA was focused on the level of inorganic arsenic that would
`
`cause cancer.”3 At minimum, Earth’s Best continues to market and sell Earth’s Best rice cereal
`
`knowing that it contains dangerously high levels of a known carcinogen subject to FDA action.
`
`5.
`
`However, the House Report further indicates that not only was Earth’s Best aware
`
`of the unacceptably high levels of arsenic, but specifically tested its product in such a way as to
`
`undercount the arsenic present in its product, by testing only the ingredients in its rice cereal
`
`rather than the finished product. The House Report noted that “Hain’s finished baby foods had
`
`more arsenic than their ingredients 100% of the time—28-93% more inorganic arsenic. That
`
`
`1 https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-
`industry-action-levels-poisonous-or-deleterious-substances-human-food-and-animal-feed, last
`accessed Feb. 8, 2021.
`2 https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2021-02-
`04%20ECP%20Baby%20Food%20Staff%20Report.pdf at 10, last accessed Feb. 8, 2021
`3 Id. at 52.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00758-JS-SIL Document 1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 3
`
`means that only testing ingredients gives the false appearance of lower-than actual toxic heavy
`
`metal levels.”4
`
`6.
`
`As a result, Earth’s Best rice cereal consistently contains levels of inorganic
`
`arsenic in excess of the action levels set by the FDA. This fact is a concealment, suppression, or
`
`omission of material fact under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
`
`Act as well as a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`The Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the case under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1332(d) because the case is brought as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, at least one
`
`proposed Class member is of diverse citizenship from Defendant, the proposed Class includes
`
`more than 100 members, and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds five million dollars,
`
`excluding interest and costs.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant
`
`engaged in substantial conduct relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims within this District, has its principal
`
`place of business in this District, and has caused harm to Class members residing within this
`
`District.
`
`PARTIES
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff Sally Bredberg is a citizen of the State of Illinois, residing in Cook
`
`County. On or about August 17, 2019, Plaintiff Bredberg purchased a box of Earth’s Best rice
`
`cereal from a Target in Orland Park, Illinois paying $3.49. Had Plaintiff Bredberg known of
`
`Defendant’s deceptive and misleading practices, she would not have bought the Product, or she
`
`would have paid less for it.
`
`
`4 Id. at 57.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00758-JS-SIL Document 1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 4
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Rebecca Bromberg is a citizen of the State of Illinois, residing in Cook
`
`County. On or about April 24, 2020, Plaintiff Bromberg purchased two boxes of Earth’s Best
`
`rice cereal at a Target in Skokie, Illinois, paying $3.49 each. Had she known of Defendant’s
`
`deceptive and misleading practices, she would not have bought the Product, or she would have
`
`paid less for them.
`
`11.
`
`Defendant The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. is a Delaware limited liability
`
`corporation with its principal place of business at 1111 Marcus Avenue, Lake Success, New
`
`York, 11042. At all relevant times, Defendant has owned, marketed, and sold the Product at
`
`issue.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`12.
`
`Defendant markets and sells Earth’s Best rice cereal, which it markets as being
`
`“the perfect first food for your little one.”5
`
`13.
`
`Defendant’s packaging, as shown below, shows infants playing in a field of grain
`
`and prominently states, “ORGANIC” and “Grown without Potentially Harmful Pesticides or
`
`Herbicides.”
`
`
`5 https://www.earthsbest.com/product/organic-baby-rice-cereal/, last accessed Feb. 8, 2021
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00758-JS-SIL Document 1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`14.
`
`Additionally, Defendant’s website contains “Our Promise”, prominently labelled,
`
`which states that it produces “[P]ure, quality products you can trust.”6
`
`15.
`
`Additionally, Defendant’s “Our Promise” page states, “Organic foods are
`
`produced without the use of potentially harmful chemicals, pesticides, genetically engineered
`
`ingredients, or growth hormones from animal-derived products.”7
`
`
`6 https://www.earthsbest.com/why-earths-best/our-promise/, last accessed Feb. 8, 2021.
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00758-JS-SIL Document 1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 6
`
`16.
`
`Further, Defendant’s “Our Promise” page states that their products undergo
`
`“Rigorous product testing to guarantee quality and safety.”8
`
`17.
`
`The FDA sets action levels for products when it has concerns that a level of a
`
`substance can have a poisonous or deleterious effect on human health.9
`
`18.
`
`The FDA has stated that
`
`Action levels and tolerances are established based on the unavoidability of the
`poisonous or deleterious substances and do not represent permissible levels of
`contamination where it is avoidable. The blending of a food or feed containing a
`substance in excess of an action level or tolerance with another food or feed is not
`permitted, and the final product resulting from blending is unlawful, regardless of
`the level of the contaminant.10
`
`19.
`
`The FDA further states that, “Action levels and tolerances represent limits at or
`
`
`
`above which FDA will take legal action to remove products from the market.”11
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`The FDA has set an action level for inorganic arsenic in rice cereal at 100 ppb.12
`
`In setting this action level, the FDA has found that,
`
`There is growing evidence from human and animal studies that suggests that
`exposure to inorganic arsenic during these life stages may increase the risk of
`adverse health effects, including impaired development during pregnancy and
`childhood and neurodevelopmental toxicity in infants and young children, and
`that these adverse effects may persist later in life.13
`
`
`
`7 Id.
`8 Id.
`9 See https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-
`industry-action-levels-poisonous-or-deleterious-substances-human-food-and-animal-feed, last
`accessed Feb. 11, 2021
`10 Id.
`11 Id.
`12 https://www.fda.gov/food/chemical-metals-natural-toxins-pesticides-guidance-documents-
`regulations/supporting-document-action-level-inorganic-arsenic-rice-cereals-infants, last
`accessed Feb. 11, 2021.
`13 Id.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00758-JS-SIL Document 1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 7
`
`22.
`
`The FDA’s own testing of rice cereals has shown that the mean level of inorganic
`
`arsenic in brown rice cereals on store shelves is 119.0 ppb, while the mean level in white rice
`
`cereals on store shelves is 103.9 ppb.14
`
`23.
`
`On February 4, 2021, the United States House of Representatives Committee on
`
`Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy released a report titled
`
`“Baby Foods Are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury” (the
`
`“House Report”).15
`
`24.
`
`This report contained numerous concerning allegations regarding toxic levels of
`
`heavy metals in various types of baby foods. However, one of the most egregious was the
`
`allegation that not only did Earth’s Best rice cereal contain levels of inorganic arsenic in excess
`
`of those allowed under FDA action levels, but that Earth’s Best knew of this and took steps to
`
`either conceal or suppress this fact.
`
`25.
`
`The House Report stated about arsenic exposure:
`
`Arsenic is ranked number one among substances present in the environment that
`pose the most significant potential threat to human health, according to the
`Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances and
`Disease Registry (ATSDR). The known health risks of arsenic exposure include
`“respiratory, gastrointestinal, haematological, hepatic, renal, skin, neurological
`and immunological effects, as well as damaging effects on the central nervous
`system and cognitive development in children.” (emphasis in the original)
`
`Studies have concluded that arsenic exposure has a “significant negative effect on
`neurodevelopment in children.” This negative effect is most pronounced in Full
`Scale IQ, and more specifically, in verbal and performance domains as well as
`memory. For every 50% increase in arsenic levels, there is an approximately “0.4
`decrease in the IQ of children.” (citations omitted)16
`
`
`
`
`
`14 Id.
`15 Available at https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2021-02-
`04%20ECP%20Baby%20Food%20Staff%20Report.pdf, last accessed Feb. 11, 2021.
`16 Id. at 10.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00758-JS-SIL Document 1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 8
`
`26.
`
`Specifically with regard to Earth’s Best’s testing of its rice cereal (which focused
`
`on the testing of brown rice flour, the primary component of its rice cereal17), the House Report
`
`noted that “Hain does not regularly test finished baby food products for inorganic arsenic
`
`content. It typically only tests ingredients. However, when Hain did test a small sample of
`
`finished product, it found 129 ppb inorganic arsenic.”18
`
`27.
`
`This flies in the face of Hain’s representation that its products undergo “[r]igorous
`
`product testing to guarantee quality and safety”, as mentioned supra.
`
`28.
`
`Further, Earth’s Best levels of inorganic arsenic appear to stem from two factors.
`
`The first is that its brown rice flour contains, on average, levels of inorganic arsenic dangerously
`
`near or often above the FDA action levels. As Defendant itself states, the average level of
`
`inorganic arsenic sampled in brown rice flour from 2015 and 2016 was 98.5 ppb, just 1.5 ppb
`
`below the level allowed in the finished product. From 2016 to 2019, that level dropped (again,
`
`on average) to 69.3 ppb, still less than 31 ppb below the action level.19
`
`29.
`
`However, Defendant also adds a vitamin pre-mix to its rice cereal which contains
`
`dangerously high levels of inorganic arsenic (and lead).20 The one set of results for sample
`
`testing of the pre-mix that was submitted to the FDA and the House of Representatives contained
`
`
`17 https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2.pdf at Hain-000159,
`last accessed Feb. 11, 2021
`18 https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2021-02-
`04%20ECP%20Baby%20Food%20Staff%20Report.pdf at 16, last accessed Feb. 11, 2021
`19 https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2.pdf at Hain-000161,
`last accessed Feb. 11, 2021
`20 https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/11_Redacted.pdf, last
`accessed Feb. 11, 20201.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00758-JS-SIL Document 1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 9
`
`223 ppb of inorganic arsenic. However, Defendant not only did not reject the sample, it used it
`
`and then – amazingly – did not test the finished rice cereal.21
`
`30.
`
`The House Report stated of the use of this vitamin pre-mix:
`
`What can account for this increase in inorganic arsenic from the time the
`ingredients are tested to the time the products are finished? Hain conveyed to
`FDA that the cause of the increase was Hain’s use of a dangerous additive,
`stating: “Preliminary investigation indicates Vitamin/Mineral Pre-Mix may be a
`major contributing factor.” Although this additive may only make up roughly 2%
`of the final good, Hain suggested it was still responsible for the spike in the levels
`of inorganic arsenic in the finished baby food.22
`
`31.
`
`The House report concluded that, “Hain’s finished baby foods had more arsenic
`
`than their ingredients 100% of the time—28-93% more inorganic arsenic. That means that only
`
`testing ingredients gives the false appearance of lower-than-actual toxic heavy metal levels.”23
`
`32.
`
`This means that even at the lower end of the estimates – namely, levels of
`
`inorganic arsenic 28% more than the tested ingredients would indicate – the vast majority of the
`
`rice cereal sold by Earth’s Best contains levels of inorganic arsenic that violate FDA action
`
`levels.
`
`33. More critically, however, because of Defendant’s policy of not (with minor
`
`exceptions) testing the finished rice cereal, Defendant blindly ships its boxes to retailers without
`
`having checked the levels of inorganic arsenic present in its cereal
`
`34.
`
`So rather than reforming its testing procedure, or at least including a warning on
`
`each package that its rice cereal is extremely likely to contain levels of inorganic arsenic
`
`considered neurotoxic by the FDA, Defendant instead does nothing.
`
`
`21 https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2021-02-
`04%20ECP%20Baby%20Food%20Staff%20Report.pdf at 54-55, last accessed Feb. 11, 2021
`22 https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2021-02-
`04%20ECP%20Baby%20Food%20Staff%20Report.pdf at 56, last accessed Feb. 11, 2021
`23 Id. at 57.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00758-JS-SIL Document 1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 10
`
`35.
`
`Defendant’s failure to test its finished Product to ensure levels of inorganic
`
`arsenic below 100 ppb or, in the alternative, to label that its Product is extremely like to contain
`
`levels of inorganic arsenic above FDA action levels, is a material omission, suppression, or
`
`concealment.
`
`36.
`
`Defendant’s decision to omit or conceal information on the levels of inorganic
`
`arsenic in its rice cereal allows it to charge a premium for its product by selling a product that
`
`consumers (including Plaintiffs) believe to be a safe, wholesome cereal to feed to infants and
`
`small children, rather than a dangerous, toxic product for which consumers would pay less for or
`
`not buy at all.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and
`
`(b)(3), on behalf of a Class defined as follows (sometimes referred to as the “Nationwide
`
`Class”):
`
`All persons in the United States and its territories who purchased, other than for
`resale, Earth’s Best rice cereal during the Class Period.
`
`Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendant and its officers and directors, agents,
`
`affiliates, subsidiaries, and authorized distributors and dealers; (ii) all Class members that timely
`
`and validly request exclusion from the Class; and (iii) the Judge presiding over this action.
`
`38.
`
`Alternatively, Plaintiffs brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of the following subclass:
`
`All persons in the State of Illinois who purchased, other than for resale, Earth’s
`Best rice cereal during the Class Period.
`
`Excluded from the subclass are: (i) Defendant and its officers and directors, agents,
`
`
`
`affiliates, subsidiaries, and authorized distributors and dealers; (ii) all subclass members that
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00758-JS-SIL Document 1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 11
`
`timely and validly request exclusion from the subclass; and (iii) the Judge presiding over this
`
`action. The claims do not include personal injury claims. The Class and the Subclass are
`
`sometimes collectively referred to as the “Class”.
`
`39.
`
`Certification of Plaintiffs’ claims for class-wide treatment are appropriate because
`
`Plaintiffs can prove the elements of their claims on a class-wide basis using the same evidence as
`
`would be used to prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same claims.
`
`40.
`
`The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of the Class members
`
`would be impracticable.
`
`41.
`
`Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class members and predominate
`
`over questions affecting only individual Class members. Such common questions of law or fact
`
`include, inter alia:
`
`
`
`A. Whether Defendant engaged in the conduct alleged;
`
`B. Whether Defendant omitted, suppressed, or concealed material facts in the
`marketing and sales of the Product;
`
`C. Whether Plaintiffs and the Class members paid for a product that they
`would not have purchased or would have paid less for had they known the
`material facts omitted, suppressed, or concealed by Defendant;
`
`D. Whether Plaintiffs and the Class members have been damaged and, if so,
`the measure of such damages;
`
`E. Whether Defendant unjustly retained a benefit conferred by Plaintiffs and
`the Class members; and
`
`Whether Plaintiffs and the Class members are entitled to equitable relief,
`including, but not limited to, a constructive trust, restitution, and
`injunctive relief.
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class members because, among
`
`F.
`
`42.
`
`other things, Plaintiffs and the Class members were injured through the substantially uniform
`
`misconduct described above. Plaintiffs are advancing the same claims and legal theories on
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00758-JS-SIL Document 1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 12
`
`behalf of themselves and all Class members.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiffs are adequate Class representatives because their interests do not conflict
`
`with the interests of the other Class members they seek to represent; they have retained counsel
`
`competent and experienced in complex commercial and class action litigation; and Plaintiffs
`
`intend to prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of the Class members will be fairly and
`
`adequately protected by Plaintiffs and their counsel.
`
`44.
`
`A class action is also warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), because Defendant
`
`has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the Class, so that final injunctive
`
`relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate as to the Class as a whole. Defendant has
`
`directed and continues to direct its conduct to all consumers in a uniform manner. Therefore,
`
`injunctive relief on a class-wide basis is necessary to remedy continuing harms to Plaintiffs and
`
`the Class members caused by Defendant’s continuing misconduct.
`
`45.
`
`A class action is superior to any other available means for the fair and efficient
`
`adjudication of this controversy, and no unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the
`
`management of this class action. The damages or other detriment suffered by Plaintiffs and the
`
`Class members are relatively small compared to the burden and expense that would be required
`
`to individually litigate their claims against Defendant, so it would be impracticable for Class
`
`members to individually seek redress for Defendant’s wrongful conduct. Even if Class members
`
`could afford individual litigation, the court system should not be required to undertake such an
`
`unnecessary burden. Individualized litigation would also create a potential for inconsistent or
`
`contradictory judgments and increase the delay and expense to all parties and the court system.
`
`By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the
`
`benefits of a single adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00758-JS-SIL Document 1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 13
`
`court.
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`Unjust Enrichment
`(By Plaintiffs on Behalf of the Nationwide Class)
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 45
`
`46.
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the Class.
`
`Defendant has been unjustly enriched to Plaintiffs’ and the Class members’
`
`detriment as a result of its unlawful and wrongful retention of money conferred by Plaintiffs and
`
`the Class members who relied on Defendant’s representations regarding the nature of its rice
`
`cereal and paid a premium price for Defendant’s Product as a result.
`
`49.
`
`Defendant’s unlawful and wrongful acts, including the omission, suppression, or
`
`concealment of levels of inorganic arsenic in its rice cereal, enabled Defendant to unlawfully
`
`receive monies it would not have otherwise obtained.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiffs and the Class members have conferred benefits on Defendant, which
`
`Defendant has knowingly accepted and retained.
`
`51.
`
`Defendant’s retention of the benefits conferred by Plaintiffs and the Class
`
`members would be against fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiffs and the Class members seek to disgorge Defendant’s unlawfully
`
`retained profits and other benefits resulting from its unlawful conduct, and seek restitution and
`
`rescission for the benefit of Plaintiffs and the Class members.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00758-JS-SIL Document 1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 14
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiffs and the Class members are entitled to the imposition of a constructive
`
`trust upon Defendant, such that its unjustly retained profits and other benefits are distributed
`
`equitably by the Court to and for the benefit of Plaintiffs and the Class members.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.
`(By Plaintiffs on Behalf of the Illinois Subclass)
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 45
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`55.
`
`The express purpose of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
`
`Practices Act (“ICFA”) is to “protect consumers” “against fraud, unfair methods of competition
`
`and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce….” 815 ILCS
`
`505/1.
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiffs and the Subclass members are “consumers” within the meaning of 815
`
`ILCS 505/1(e).
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`Defendant is engaged in “trade or commerce” as defined by 815 ILCS 505/1(f).
`
`815 ILCS 505/2 declares unlawful “unfair methods of competition and unfair or
`
`deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited to the use or employment of any deception
`
`fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or
`
`omission of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or
`
`omissions of such material fact … in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”
`
`59.
`
`Defendant’s unfair and deceptive practices, including its material omissions,
`
`concealments, and/or suppressions, are likely to mislead – and have misled – consumers acting
`
`reasonably in the circumstances, and violate 815 ILCS 505/2. This includes misleading Plaintiffs
`
`and the Class.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00758-JS-SIL Document 1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 15
`
`60.
`
`Defendant has violated the ICFA by engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices
`
`as described herein which offend public policies and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and
`
`substantially injurious to consumers.
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiffs and members of the Class have been aggrieved by Defendant’s unfair
`
`and deceptive practices in that they purchased the Product, which they would not have purchased
`
`or would not have paid as much for had they known the true facts.
`
`62.
`
`The damages suffered by Plaintiffs and the Class were directly and proximately
`
`caused by the deceptive, misleading and unfair practices of Defendant, as more fully described
`
`herein.
`
`63.
`
`Pursuant to 815 ILCS 505/10a, Plaintiffs and the Class seek a court order
`
`enjoining the above-described wrongful acts and practices of Defendant and for restitution and
`
`disgorgement. Additionally, pursuant to 815 ILCS 505/10a, Plaintiffs and the Class seek
`
`economic damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`64.
`
`In accordance with 815 ILCS 505/10a, Plaintiffs, concurrent with the filing of this
`
`complaint, has served notice of this complaint on the Illinois Attorney General.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant as
`
`follows:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Certifying the Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, as requested
`herein;
`
`Appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and Plaintiffs’ Counsel as Class
`Counsel;
`
`Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class members damages and/or equitable relief as
`appropriate;
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00758-JS-SIL Document 1 Filed 02/11/21 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class members declaratory and injunctive relief;
`
`Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class members restitution and disgorgement;
`
`Imposing a constructive trust for the benefit of Plaintiffs and the Class members
`on the unjustly retained benefits conferred by Plaintiffs and the Class members
`upon Defendant;
`
`Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class members reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and
`expenses; and
`
`Granting such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, hereby request a jury
`
`trial on all claims so triable.
`
`
`DATED: February 11, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`whafhch56306
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by: s/ Kevin G. Cooper
`WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
` FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
`Matthew M. Guiney
`Kevin G. Cooper
`270 Madison Avenue
`New York, New York 10016
`Tel.: (212) 545-4600
`Fax: (212) 686-0114
`guiney@whafh.com
`kcooper@whafh.com
`
`WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
` FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
`Carl V. Malmstrom
`111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700
`Chicago, Illinois 60604
`Tel.: (312) 984-0000
`Fax: (212) 686-0114
`malmstrom@whafh.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed
`Class
`
`
`
`16
`
`