Case 2:22-cv-00289 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x
`Kristine Goytia, individually on
`:
`behalf of herself and all others similarly
`:
`situated,
`:
`
`:
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
` :
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` :
`
`:
`Unilever United States, Inc.,
`:
`
`:
` Defendant.
`:
`:
`:
`––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Kristine Goytia (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all
`
`others similarly situated, by her attorneys, alleges the following upon information and belief,
`
`except for those allegations pertaining to Plaintiff, which are based on personal knowledge:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This action seeks to remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of
`
`Unilever United States, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant”) with respect to the marketing and sale of
`
`body spray products throughout the state of New York and throughout the country, including, but
`
`not limited to, the following products (hereinafter collectively the “Products”):
`
`● Suave – 24 Hour Protection, Powder, Aerosol; and
`
`● Suave – 24 Hour Protection, Fresh, Aerosol.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant does specifically list both the active and inactive ingredients of the
`
`Products but fails to disclose that the Products contain “benzene.”
`
`3.
`
`Benzene is a widely recognized and incredibly dangerous substance, especially in
`
`the context of applying it to the skin.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00289 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 2 of 23 PageID #: 2
`
`4.
`
`Benzene has been recognized, acknowledged, and accepted as a well-known health
`
`hazard and human carcinogen for approximately a century.1
`
`5.
`
` For example, benzene is known to harm the bone marrow and long exposure can
`
`lead to blood cancer, such as leukemia.2
`
`6.
`
`Consumers like the Plaintiff trust manufacturers such as Defendant to sell Products
`
`that are safe and free from harmful known toxins, including benzene.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff and those similarly situated (hereinafter “Class Members”) certainly
`
`expect that the body spray they purchase will comply with its labeling and not contain any
`
`knowingly harmful substance like benzene.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant specifically manufactures, sells, and distributes the Products using a
`
`marketing and advertising campaign centered around claims that appeal to health-conscious
`
`consumers.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant’s marketing and advertising campaign includes the one place that every
`
`consumer looks when purchasing a product—the packaging and labels themselves. Consumers
`
`expect the ingredient listing on the packaging and labels to accurately disclose the ingredients
`
`within the Products.
`
`10.
`
`However, Defendant’s advertising and marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and
`
`misleading because the Products contain benzene, which Defendant does not list or mention
`
`anywhere on the Products’ packaging or labeling.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members relied on Defendant’s misrepresentations and
`
`omissions of what is in the Products when they purchased it.
`
`
`1 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17718179/
`2 https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/benzene/basics/facts.asp
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00289 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: 3
`
`12.
`
`Consequently, Plaintiff and Class Members lost the entire benefit of their bargain
`
`when what they received was a body spray product contaminated with a known carcinogen.
`
`13.
`
`That is because Defendant’s Products containing a known human carcinogen has
`
`no value.
`
`14.
`
`As set forth below, body spray products that contain benzene are in no way safe for
`
`humans and are entirely worthless.
`
`15.
`
`Accordingly, Defendant’s conduct violated and continues to violate, inter alia,
`
`New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. Defendant also breached and continues to
`
`breach its warranties regarding the Products and have been and continues to be unjustly enriched.
`
`Lastly, Plaintiff brings a claim for medical monitoring costs associated with testing, monitoring,
`
`and remediating the effects of their benzene exposure.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant on behalf of herself and Class
`
`Members who purchased the Products during the applicable statute of limitations period (the
`
`“Class Period”).
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`17.
`
`Consumers have become increasingly concerned about the effects of synthetic and
`
`chemical ingredients in products that they and their family members put on and/or into their bodies.
`
`Companies such as Defendant have capitalized on consumers’ desire for healthy and safe products,
`
`and indeed consumers are willing to pay, and have paid, a premium for these products.
`
`18.
`
`Consumers lack the meaningful ability to test or independently ascertain or verify
`
`whether a product contains unsafe substances, such as benzene, especially at the point of sale, and
`
`therefore must and do rely on Defendant to truthfully and honestly report what the Products
`
`contains on the Products’ packaging or labels.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00289 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 4 of 23 PageID #: 4
`
`19. When consumers look at the Products’ packaging there is no mention of benzene.
`
`Benzene is not listed in the ingredients section, nor is there any warning about the inclusion (or
`
`even potential inclusion) of benzene in the Products. This leads reasonable consumers to believe
`
`the Products do not contain dangerous chemicals like benzene.
`
`20. However, despite this, the Products contains benzene.
`
`21.
`
`21st century research has confirmed that there is no safe level of benzene
`
`exposure.3
`
`22.
`
`Benzene has been recognized, acknowledged, and accepted as a well-known health
`
`hazard and human carcinogen for approximately a century.4
`
`23.
`
`The National Toxicology Program (hereinafter “NTP”) has regarded benzene as
`
`“known to be a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in
`
`humans.”5 Benzene has also been “found to be carcinogenic to humans” by the International
`
`Agency for Research on Cancer (hereinafter “IARC”).
`
`24.
`
`According to the Center for Disease Control (“CDC”), benzene can cause severe
`
`health issues such as anemia, immune system damage, and cancer.6
`
`25.
`
`Direct benzene exposure through the skin is particularly concerning. For example,
`
`“[d]irect exposure of the eyes, skin, or lungs to benzene can cause tissue injury and irritation.”7
`
`26.
`
`The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (“NIOSH”) recommends
`
`protective equipment be worn by workers expecting to be exposed (by either “inhalation, skin
`
`absorption, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact”) to benzene at concentrations of 0.1 ppm.8
`
`
`3 https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103646
`4 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17718179/
`5 https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/benzene.pdf
`6 https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/benzene/basics/facts.asp
`7 Id.
`8 CDC, The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Benzene (October
`30, 2019), https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0049.html
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00289 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 5 of 23 PageID #: 5
`
`27.
`
`Research has revealed that benzene can be absorbed into the body through the lungs
`
`and across the skin.9 This makes benzene exposure from body sprays especially troubling because
`
`the spray is put directly onto the skin, with the remnants flying through the air likely to be at least
`
`partially breathed in by the user and absorbed into their lungs. Thus, even a relatively low
`
`concentration limit can result in very high total benzene exposure.
`
`28.
`
`This is why recent research revealing benzene in Defendant’s Products is
`
`particularly concerning.
`
`29.
`
`Valisure LLC recently published a study (“Study”) that found that benzene has been
`
`found in many body sprays.10
`
`30.
`
`In addition to Plaintiff’s own independent research, Valisure also found that
`
`Defendant’s Products contained benzene.11
`
`31.
`
`The concerning part is that benzene exposure in the manufacturing process can be
`
`specifically avoided so that the Products could have absolutely no benzene in them.12
`
`32.
`
`Therefore, Defendant’s
`
`false, misleading,
`
`omissions,
`
`and
`
`deceptive
`
`misrepresentations regarding the ingredients of the Products is likely to continue to deceive and
`
`mislead reasonable consumers and the public, as it has already deceived and misled Plaintiff and
`
`the Class Members.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant’s concealment was material and intentional because people are
`
`concerned with what is in the products that they are putting onto and into their bodies. Consumers
`
`such as Plaintiff and the Class Members are influenced by the ingredients listed. Defendant knows
`
`
`9 https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp3-c1.pdf
`10 https://www.valisure.com/wp-content/uploads/Valisure-FDA-Citizen-Petition-on-Body-Spray-v4.0-3.pdf
`11 Id.
`12 Id. at 1.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00289 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 6 of 23 PageID #: 6
`
`that if it had not omitted that the Products contained benzene, then Plaintiff and the Class would
`
`not have purchased the Products at all.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`34.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28
`
`U.S.C. section §1332(d) in that (1) this is a class action involving more than 100 class members;
`
`(2) Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of New York and Defendant Unilever United States, Inc. is a
`
`citizen of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business in New Jersey; and (3) the
`
`amount in controversy is in excess of $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs.
`
`35.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant conducts
`
`and transact business in the state of New York, contract to supply goods within the state of New
`
`York, and supply goods within the state of New York.
`
`36.
`
`Venue is proper because Plaintiff and many Class Members reside in the Eastern
`
`District of New York, and throughout the state of New York. A substantial part of the events or
`
`omissions giving rise to the Classes’ claims occurred in this district.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`PARTIES
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff Kristine Goytia is a citizen and resident of the state of New York. During
`
`the applicable statute of limitations period, Plaintiff purchased Defendant’s Suave Antiperspirant
`
`Deodorant, Aerosol Powder Product that contained benzene.
`
`38.
`
`Had Defendant not made the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and
`
`omissions regarding the Products containing benzene, Plaintiff would not have been willing to
`
`purchase the Products. Plaintiff purchased, purchased more of, and/or paid more for, the Products
`
`than she would have had she known the truth about the Products. The Products Plaintiff received
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00289 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: 7
`
`were worthless because they contain the known carcinogen benzene. Accordingly, Plaintiff was
`
`injured in fact and lost money as a result of Defendant’s improper conduct.
`
`Defendant
`
`39.
`
`Defendant, Unilever United States, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`headquarters and principal place of business located in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Unilever
`
`United States, Inc. conducts business throughout the United States, including this district. Unilever
`
`United States, Inc.’s line of body spray products, including the Products purchased by Plaintiff and
`
`Class Members, is available at retail stores throughout New York and the United States. Defendant
`
`created and/or authorized the false, misleading, and deceptive manufacturing, marketing,
`
`advertising, and distributing of the Products.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`Plaintiff brings this matter on behalf of herself and those similarly situated. As
`
`40.
`
`detailed at length in this Complaint, Defendant orchestrated deceptive marketing and labeling
`
`practices. Defendant’s customers were uniformly impacted by and exposed to this misconduct.
`
`Accordingly, this Complaint is uniquely situated for class-wide resolution, including injunctive
`
`relief.
`
`41.
`
`The Class is defined as all consumers who purchased the Product anywhere in the
`
`United States during the Class Period.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff also seeks certification, to the extent necessary or appropriate, of a subclass
`
`of individuals who purchased the Product in the state of New York at any time during the Class
`
`Period (the “New York Subclass”).
`
`43.
`
`The Class and New York Subclass shall be referred to collectively throughout the
`
`Complaint as the Class.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00289 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 8 of 23 PageID #: 8
`
`44.
`
`The Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class action under Rule
`
`23(a), satisfying the class action prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and
`
`adequacy because:
`
`45.
`
`Numerosity: Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all members is
`
`impracticable. Plaintiff believes that there are thousands of consumers in the Class and the New
`
`York Class who are Class Members as described above who have been damaged by Defendant’s
`
`deceptive and misleading practices.
`
`46.
`
`Commonality: The questions of law and fact common to the Class Members which
`
`predominate over any questions which may affect individual Class Members include, but are not
`
`limited to:
`
`a. Whether Defendant is responsible for the conduct alleged herein which was
`
`uniformly directed at all consumers who purchased the Products;
`
`b. Whether Defendant’s misconduct set forth in this Complaint demonstrates that
`
`Defendant has engaged in unfair, fraudulent, or unlawful business practices
`
`with respect to the advertising, marketing, and sale of its Products;
`
`c. Whether Defendant made false and/or misleading statements and omissions to
`
`the Class and the public concerning the contents of its Products;
`
`d. Whether Defendant’s false and misleading statements and omissions
`
`concerning its Product was likely to deceive the public; and
`
`e. Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to money damages under the same
`
`causes of action as the other Class Members?
`
`47.
`
`Typicality: Plaintiff is a member of the Class. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the
`
`claims of each Class Member in that every member of the Class was susceptible to the same
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00289 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 9 of 23 PageID #: 9
`
`deceptive, misleading conduct and purchased Defendant’s Products. Plaintiff is entitled to relief
`
`under the same causes of action as the other Class Members.
`
`48.
`
`Adequacy: Plaintiff is an adequate Class representative because her interests do not
`
`conflict with the interests of the Class Members she seeks to represent, her consumer fraud claims
`
`are common to all members of the Class, she has a strong interest in vindicating her rights, she has
`
`retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action litigation, and counsel intends
`
`to vigorously prosecute this action.
`
`49.
`
`Predominance: Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3), common issues of law and fact identified
`
`above predominate over any other questions affecting only individual members of the Class. The
`
`Class issues fully predominate over any individual issues because no inquiry into individual
`
`conduct is necessary; all that is required is a narrow focus on Defendant’s deceptive and misleading
`
`marketing and labeling practices.
`
`50.
`
`Superiority: A class action is superior to the other available methods for the fair
`
`and efficient adjudication of this controversy because:
`
`The joinder of thousands of individual Class Members is impracticable,
`a.
`cumbersome, unduly burdensome, and a waste of judicial and/or litigation
`resources;
`
`The individual claims of the Class Members may be relatively modest
`b.
`compared with the expense of litigating the claims, thereby making it impracticable,
`unduly burdensome, and expensive—if not totally impossible—to justify
`individual actions;
`
`When Defendant’s liability has been adjudicated, all Class Members’
`c.
`claims can be determined by the Court and administered efficiently in a manner far
`less burdensome and expensive than if it were attempted through filing, discovery,
`and trial of all individual cases;
`
`This class action will promote orderly, efficient, expeditious, and
`d.
`appropriate adjudication and administration of Class claims;
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00289 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 10 of 23 PageID #: 10
`
`This class action will assure uniformity of decisions among Class Members;
`
`Plaintiff knows of no difficulty to be encountered in the management of this
`e.
`action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action;
`
`f.
`
`The Class is readily definable and prosecution of this action as a class action
`g.
`will eliminate the possibility of repetitious litigation;
`
`Class Members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution of
`h.
`separate actions is outweighed by their interest in efficient resolution by single class
`action; and
`
`It would be desirable to concentrate in this single venue the litigation of all
`i.
`Class Members who were induced by Defendant’s uniform false advertising to
`purchase its Products.
`
`Accordingly, this Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class
`
`51.
`
`action under Rule 23(b)(3) because questions of law or fact common to Class Members
`
`predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and because a class action is
`
`superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating this controversy.
`
`INJUNCTIVE CLASS RELIEF
`
`52.
`
`Rules 23(b)(1) and (2) contemplate a class action for purposes of seeking class-
`
`wide injunctive relief. Here, Defendant has engaged in conduct resulting in misleading consumers
`
`about ingredients in the Products. Since Defendant’s conduct has been uniformly directed at all
`
`consumers in the United States, and the conduct continues presently, injunctive relief on a class-
`
`wide basis is a viable and suitable solution to remedy Defendant’s continuing misconduct. Plaintiff
`
`would purchase the Product again if they did not include benzene.
`
`53.
`
`The injunctive Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class action
`
`under Rule 23(a), satisfying the class action prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality,
`
`and adequacy because:
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00289 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 11 of 23 PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`
`
`Numerosity: Individual joinder of the injunctive Class Members would be
`a.
`wholly impracticable. Defendant’s Product has been purchased by thousands of
`people throughout the United States.
`
`Commonality: Questions of law and fact are common to members of the
`b.
`Class. Defendant’s misconduct was uniformly directed at all consumers. Thus, all
`members of the Class have a common cause against Defendant to stop its
`misleading conduct through an injunction. Since the issues presented by this
`injunctive Class deal exclusively with Defendant’s misconduct, resolution of these
`questions would necessarily be common to the entire Class. Moreover, there are
`common questions of law and fact inherent in the resolution of the proposed
`injunctive class, including, inter alia:
`
`i. Resolution of the issues presented in the 23(b)(3) class;
`
`ii. Whether members of the Class will continue to suffer harm by virtue of
`Defendant’s deceptive product marketing and labeling; and
`
`iii. Whether, on equitable grounds, Defendant should be prevented from
`continuing to deceptively mislabel the Products?
`
`Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the injunctive Class
`c.
`because her claims arise from the same course of conduct (i.e., Defendant’s
`deceptive and misleading marketing, labeling, and advertising practices). Plaintiff
`is a typical representative of the Class because, like all members of the injunctive
`Class, she purchased Defendant’s Product which were sold unfairly and deceptively
`to consumers throughout the United States.
`
`Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the
`d.
`interests of the injunctive Class. Her consumer protection claims are common to
`all members of the injunctive Class and she has a strong interest in vindicating her
`rights. In addition, Plaintiff and the Class are represented by counsel who are
`competent and experienced in both consumer protection and class action litigation.
`
`Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the Class Members on grounds
`
`54.
`
`generally applicable to the entire injunctive Class and Defendant has acted or refused to act in a
`
`manner that applies generally to the injunctive Class (i.e., Defendant has marketed its Product
`
`using the same misleading and deceptive labeling to all of the Class Members).
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff also seeks to include an injunction to require the implementation and
`
`funding of a blood serum testing program for the Plaintiff and Class Members to test for the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00289 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 12 of 23 PageID #: 12
`
`presence of benzene in their blood serum; and the implementation and funding of a medical
`
`monitoring program for Plaintiff and Class Members sufficient to monitor Plaintiff and Class
`
`Members’ health to ensure they are adequately monitored for the harmful effects of benzene in the
`
`human body.
`
`56.
`
`Any final injunctive relief or declaratory relief would benefit the entire injunctive
`
`Class as Defendant would be prevented from continuing its misleading and deceptive
`
`marketing practices and would be required to honestly disclose to consumers the true nature
`
`of the contents of the Products.
`
`CLAIMS
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GBL § 349
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and New York Subclass Members)
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all the
`
`57.
`
`foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`58.
`
`New York General Business Law Section 349 (“GBL § 349”) declares unlawful
`
`“[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce or in the
`
`furnishing of any service in this state . . .”
`
`59.
`
`The conduct of Defendant alleged herein constitutes recurring, “unlawful”
`
`deceptive acts and practices in violation of GBL § 349, and as such, Plaintiff and the New York
`
`Subclass Members seek monetary damages against Defendant, enjoining them from inaccurately
`
`describing, labeling, marketing, and promoting the Products.
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`There is no adequate remedy at law.
`
`Defendant misleadingly, inaccurately, and deceptively advertise and market its
`
`Product to consumers.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00289 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 13 of 23 PageID #: 13
`
`62.
`
`Defendant’s improper consumer-oriented conduct—including failing to disclose
`
`that the Product has benzene—is misleading in a material way in that it, inter alia, induced Plaintiff
`
`and the New York Subclass Members to purchase Defendant’s Product and to use the Product
`
`when they otherwise would not have. Defendant made the untrue and/or misleading statements
`
`and omissions willfully, wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the truth.
`
`63.
`
`Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members have been injured inasmuch as they
`
`purchased product that was mislabeled, unhealthy, and entirely worthless. Accordingly, Plaintiff
`
`and the New York Subclass Members received less than what they bargained and paid for.
`
`64.
`
`Defendant’s advertising and Products’ packaging and labeling induced Plaintiff and
`
`the New York Subclass Members to buy Defendant’s Products.
`
`65.
`
`Defendant’s deceptive and misleading practices constitute a deceptive act and
`
`practice in the conduct of business in violation of New York General Business Law §349(a) and
`
`Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members have been damaged thereby.
`
`66.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s recurring, “unlawful” deceptive acts and practices,
`
`Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members are entitled to monetary, statutory, compensatory,
`
`treble and punitive damages, restitution, and disgorgement of all moneys obtained by means of
`
`Defendant’s unlawful conduct, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GBL § 350
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members)
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all the
`
`67.
`
`foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`68.
`
`N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350 provides, in part, as follows:
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00289 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 14 of 23 PageID #: 14
`
`False advertising in the conduct of any business, trade, or commerce
`or in the furnishing of any service in this state is hereby declared
`unlawful.
`
`N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350a(1) provides, in part, as follows:
`
`69.
`
`The term ‘false advertising, including labeling, of a commodity, or
`of the kind, character, terms or conditions of any employment
`opportunity if such advertising is misleading in a material respect.
`In determining whether any advertising is misleading, there shall be
`taken into account (among other things) not only representations
`made by statement, word, design, device, sound or any combination
`thereof, but also the extent to which the advertising fails to reveal
`facts material in the light of such representations with respect to the
`commodity or employment to which the advertising relates under
`the conditions proscribed in said advertisement, or under such
`conditions as are customary or usual . . .
`
`Defendant’s labeling and advertisements contain untrue and materially misleading
`
`70.
`
`statements and omissions concerning its Product inasmuch as they misrepresent that the Product
`
`is safe for use and don’t list that the Product contains benzene.
`
`71.
`
`Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members have been injured inasmuch as they
`
`relied upon the labeling, packaging, and advertising and purchased a Product that was mislabeled,
`
`unhealthy, and entirely worthless. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members
`
`received less than what they bargained and paid for.
`
`72.
`
`Defendant’s advertising, packaging, and Products’ labeling induced Plaintiff and
`
`the New York Subclass Members to buy Defendant’s Products.
`
`73.
`
`Defendant made its untrue and/or misleading statements and representations
`
`willfully, wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the truth.
`
`74.
`
`Defendant’s conduct constitutes multiple, separate violations of N.Y. Gen. Bus.
`
`Law § 350.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00289 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 15 of 23 PageID #: 15
`
`75.
`
`Defendant made the material misrepresentations described in this Complaint in its
`
`advertising and on the Products’ packaging and labeling.
`
`76.
`
`Defendant’s material misrepresentations were substantially uniform in content,
`
`presentation, and impact upon consumers at large. Moreover, all consumers purchasing the
`
`Products were and continue to be exposed to Defendant’s material misrepresentations.
`
`77.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s recurring, “unlawful” deceptive acts and practices,
`
`Plaintiff and New York Subclass Members are entitled to monetary, statutory, compensatory,
`
`treble and punitive damages, restitution, and disgorgement of all moneys obtained by means of
`
`Defendant’s unlawful conduct, interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)
`
`Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the foregoing
`
`78.
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`79.
`
`Defendant provided Plaintiff and Class Members with an express warranty in the
`
`form of written affirmations of fact promising and representing that the Products are safe for use
`
`and do not contain benzene.
`
`80.
`
`The above affirmations of fact were not couched as “belief” or “opinion,” and were
`
`not “generalized statements of quality not capable of proof or disproof.”
`
`81.
`
`These affirmations of fact became part of the basis for the bargain and were material
`
`to Plaintiff and Class Members’ transactions.
`
`82.
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members reasonably relied upon Defendant’s affirmations of
`
`fact and justifiably acted in ignorance of the material facts omitted or concealed when they decided
`
`to buy Defendant’s Products.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00289 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 16 of 23 PageID #: 16
`
`83.
`
`Defendant knowingly breached the express warranties by including benzene in the
`
`Products sold to Plaintiff and the Class without properly notifying them of its inclusion in the
`
`Products.
`
`84. Within a reasonable time after it knew or should have known, Defendant did not
`
`change the Products’ labels to include benzene in the ingredient list.
`
`85.
`
`Defendant thereby breached the following state warranty laws:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`Code of Ala. § 7-2-313;
`
`Alaska Stat. § 45.02.313;
`
`A.R.S. § 47-2313;
`
`A.C.A. § 4-2-313;
`
`Cal. Comm. Code § 2313;
`
`Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-313;
`
`Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42a-2-313;
`
`6 Del. C. § 2-313;
`
`D.C. Code § 28:2-313;
`
`Fla. Stat. § 672.313;
`
`O.C.G.A. § 11-2-313;
`
`H.R.S. § 490:2-313;
`
`m.
`
`Idaho Code § 28-2-313;
`
`n.
`
`o.
`
`p.
`
`q.
`
`810 I.L.C.S. 5/2-313;
`
`Ind. Code § 26-1-2-313;
`
`Iowa Code § 554.2313;
`
`K.S.A. § 84-2-313;
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00289 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 17 of 23 PageID #: 17
`
`r.
`
`s.
`
`t.
`
`u.
`
`v.
`
`K.R.S. § 355.2-313;
`
`11 M.R.S. § 2-313;
`
`Md. Commercial Law Code Ann. § 2-313;
`
`106 Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. § 2-313;
`
`M.C.L.S. § 440.2313;
`
`w. Minn. Stat. § 336.2-313;
`
`x.
`
`y.
`
`z.
`
`aa.
`
`bb.
`
`cc.
`
`dd.
`
`ee.
`
`ff.
`
`gg.
`
`hh.
`
`ii.
`
`jj.
`
`kk.
`
`ll.
`
`Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-313;
`
`R.S. Mo. § 400.2-313;
`
`Mont. Code Anno. § 30-2-313;
`
`Neb. Rev. Stat. § 2-313;
`
`Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 104.2313;
`
`R.S.A. 382-A:2-313;
`
`N.J. Stat. Ann. § 12A:2-313;
`
`N.M. Stat. Ann. § 55-2-313;
`
`N.Y. U.C.C. Law § 2-313;
`
`N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-313;
`
`N.D. Cent. Code § 41-02-30;
`
`II. O.R.C. Ann. § 1302.26;
`
`12A Okl. St. § 2-313;
`
`Or. Rev. Stat. § 72-3130;
`
`13 Pa. Rev. Stat. § 72-3130;
`
`mm. R.I. Gen. Laws § 6A-2-313;
`
`nn.
`
`S.C. Code Ann. § 36-2-313;
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00289 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 18 of 23 PageID #: 18
`
`oo.
`
`pp.
`
`qq.
`
`rr.
`
`ss.
`
`tt.
`
`S.D. Codified Laws, § 57A-2-313;
`
`Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-313;
`
`Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 2.313;
`
`Utah Code Ann. § 70A-2-313;
`
`9A V.S.A. § 2-313;
`
`Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-504.2;
`
`uu. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 6A.2-313;
`
`vv. W. Va. Code § 46-2-313;
`
`ww. Wis. Stat. § 402.313; and
`
`xx. Wyo. Stat. § 34.1-2-313.
`
`86.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of the express warranties,
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members were damaged in the amount of the price they paid for the Products,
`
`in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and All Class Members)
`
`Plaintiff brings this count on behalf of herself and the Class and repeats and re-
`
`87.
`
`alleges all previous paragraphs, as if fully included herein.
`
`88.
`
`Defendant sold and Plaintiff and Class Members purchased the Products.
`
`89. When sold by Defendant, the Products were not merchantable, did not pass without
`
`objection in the trade under the label description, were not of adequate quality within that
`
`description, were not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used, and did not
`
`conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on its container or label.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00289 Document 1 Filed 01/18/22 Page 19 of 23 PageID #: 19
`
`90.
`
`Because the Products contain benzene, they are in no way safe for use as body spray
`
`products.
`
`91.
`
`As a direct result of Defendant’s Products being unfit for intended purpose and/or
`
`otherwise not merchantable, Plaintiff and Class members were damaged because they would not
`
`have purchased Defendant’s Products had they known the true facts regarding the benzene content.
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`FRAUDULENT CONCEALM