Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 1 of 32
`
`THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
`Jason P. Sultzer
`sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
`Jeremy Francis
`francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
`85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
`Poughkeepsie, New York 12601
`Tel: (845) 483-7100
`Fax: (888) 749-7747
`
`REESE LLP
`Michael R. Reese
`mreese@reesellp.com
`George V. Granade
`ggranade@reesellp.com
`100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
`New York, New York 10025
`Telephone: (212) 643-0500
`Fax: (212) 643-0500
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x
`:
`JESSICA BARTON, individually on
`:
`behalf of herself and all others similarly
`:
`situated,
`
`
`:
`
`:
`
`
`:
`
`
`:
`
`v.
`:
`
`
`:
`
`
`:
`
`:
`PRET A MANGER (USA) LIMITED,
`:
`
`:
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`
`
`
` CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 2 of 32
`
`Plaintiff, Jessica Barton (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
`
`Pret A Manger (USA) Limited (hereinafter “Defendant” or “Pret A Manger”) with respect to the
`
`marketing and sales of Pret A Manger food products (hereinafter the “Products1”) throughout the
`
`State of New York and throughout the country:
`
`2.
`
`Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the Products using a marketing and
`
`advertising campaign centered around claims that appeal to health-conscious consumers, i.e., that
`
`its Products are "Natural." However, Defendant’s advertising and marketing campaign is false,
`
`deceptive, and misleading because the Products contain soya, a genetically modified organism
`
`(“GMO”) as well as numerous other synthetic ingredients. 2
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff and those similarly situated (“Class Members”) relied on Defendant’s
`
`misrepresentations that the Products are "Natural" when purchasing the Products. Plaintiff and
`
`Class Members paid a premium for the Products over and above comparable products that did
`
`not purport to be "Natural." Given that Plaintiff and Class Members paid a premium for the
`
`
`1 The Products which Defendant deceptively advertises and labels include the following: Pret Salt & Vinegar Chips,
`Pret BBQ Chips, Pure Pret Ginger Beer, Pret Cheddar and Tomato Sandwich, Pret Balsamic Chicken & Avocado
`Sandwich, Pret California Club Sandwich, Pret Chicken & Bacon Sandwich, Pret Egg Salad & Arugula Sandwich,
`Pret Tuna Salad sandwich, Pret Turkey & Pesto Sandwich, Pret Chicken Caesar & Bacon on Artisan Sandwich, Pret
`Ham & Cheese Sandwich, Pret Bang Chicken Wrap, Pret Chicken Bacon & Ranch Wrap, Pret Chef’s Salad, Pret
`Chicken Caesar Salad, Pret’s Cuban Sandwich, Pret’s BBQ Pulled Pork Hot Wrap, Pret’s ham & Cheddar Grilled
`Cheese, Pret’s Blueberry Muffin, Pret’s Carrot Cake Cookie, Pret’s Chocolate Brownie Cookie, Pret’s Chocolate
`Chunk Cookie, Pret’s Chocolate Hazelnut Croissant, Pret’s Energy Bagel, and Pret’s Pan Au Chocolate.
`
` 2
`
` Defendant may discontinue offering some products and regularly introduce new products that are also falsely
`marketed and advertised as “Natural.” Defendant may also market and sell substantially similar products of which
`Plaintiff is unaware. Plaintiff will ascertain the identity of these additional products through discovery. Plaintiff
`reserves the right to amend this complaint to include additional food items identified through the course of
`discovery.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 3 of 32
`
`Products based on Defendant’s misrepresentations that they are "Natural,” Plaintiff and Class
`
`Members suffered an injury in the amount of the premium paid.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant’s conduct violated and continues to violate, inter alia, New York
`
`General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, the consumer protection statutes of all 50 states, and the
`
`Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Defendant breached and continues to breach its express
`
`warranties regarding the Products. Defendant has been and continues to be unjustly enriched.
`
`Accordingly, 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
`
`5.
`
`Consumers have become increasingly concerned about the effects of synthetic and
`
`chemical ingredients in food, cleaning products, bath and beauty products and everyday
`
`household products. Companies such as Defendant have capitalized on consumers’ desires for
`
`purportedly “natural products.” Indeed, consumers are willing to pay, and have paid, a premium
`
`for products branded “natural” over products that contain synthetic ingredients. In 2015, sales of
`
`natural products grew 9.5% to $180 billion.3 Reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff and
`
`Class Members, value natural products for important reasons, including the belief that they are
`
`safer and healthier than alternative products that are not represented as natural.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Natural Products Industry Sales up 9.5% to $180bn Says NBJ, FOOD NAVIGATOR, http://www.foodnavigator-
`usa.com/Markets/EXPO-WEST-trendspotting-organics-natural-claims/(page)/6; see also Shoshanna Delventhal, Study Shows
`Surge in Demand for “Natural” Products, INVESTOPEDIA (February 22, 2017),
`http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022217/study-shows-surge-demand-natural-products.asp (Study by Kline
`Research indicated that in 2016, the personal care market reached 9% growth in the U.S. and 8% in the U.K. The trend-driven
`natural and organic personal care industry is on track to be worth $25.1 million by 2025); Natural living: The next frontier for
`growth? [NEXT Forecast 2017], NEW HOPE NTWORK (December 20, 2016), http://www.newhope.com/beauty-and-
`lifestyle/natural-living-next-frontier-growth-next-forecast-2017.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 4 of 32
`
`Defendant Deceptively Markets and Advertises the Products as “Natural”
`
`6.
`
`Pret A Manger’s logo during the Class Period – which appears throughout retail
`
`outlets and was prevalently featured on the company’s advertisements, and, including but not
`
`limited to, signage, employee uniforms, cups, napkins, product packaging, and takeaway bags –
`
`contains the representation that it sells “Natural Food.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 5 of 32
`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 5 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 6 of 32
`
`
`
`
`
`7.
`
`
`
`In addition to Pret A Manger’s logo, prominent signage in its retail outlets states,
`
`“Freshly prepared, good, natural food.”
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 7 of 32
`
`
`
`The labels for many of the Products state that they are made with “natural ingredients.”
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 8 of 32
`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 8 of 32
`
`
`
`Ishm‘ (A3“. Calla-Fran Mann
`
`cal Ran
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 9 of 32
`
`9.
`
`Defendant’s representations that the Products are “natural” are false, deceptive,
`
`and misleading because the Products contain GMOs and numerous other synthetic ingredients.
`
`Defendant’s Products Contain Synthetic Ingredients
`
`10.
`
`Despite being advertised as “Natural,” Pret A Manger Products contain
`
`ingredients including maltodextrin (Pret Salt & Vinegar Chips), citric acid (Pret Salt & Vinegar
`
`Chips, Pret BBQ Chips, Pure Pret Ginger Beer), lactic acid (Pret Salt & Vinegar Chips), and
`
`malic acid (Pret Salt & Vinegar Chips). As explained below, these ingredients are synthetic, and
`
`not natural.
`
`a. Maltodextrin is recognized as a synthetic by federal regulations.
`
`Maltodextrin is a saccharide polymer that is prepared as a white powder or concentrated
`
`solution by partial hydrolysis of corn starch, potato starch, or rice starch using acids and
`
`enzymes. (72 Fed. Reg. 62149, 62166 (proposed Nov. 2, 2007); 21 C.F.R. § 184.1444).
`
`Maltodextrin is primarily used as a carrier or bulking agent. It is a synthetic factory-
`
`produced texturizer that is created by complex processing that does not occur in nature.
`
`To produce maltodexrin, acids and/or enzymes are applied in sequence to a starch to
`
`produce partial hydrolysis (saccharification). The acids or enzymes convert or
`
`depolymerize starch to glucose or maltose molecules. Once maltose is high enough for
`
`maltodextrin, the acids or enzymes are neutralized, removed, or deactivated. (57 Fed.
`
`Reg. 23989 (proposed June 5, 1992)). See also Maltodextrins, GMO COMPASS, Dec.
`
`10, 2008, available at
`
`http://www.gmocompass.org/eng/database/ingredients/148.maltodextrins.html
`
`b.
`
`Citric Acid (2-hydroxy-propane-1, 2,3-tricarboxylic acid) is a synthetic
`
`substance. While the chemical’s name has the word “citric” in it, citric acid is no longer
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 10 of 32
`
`extracted from the citrus fruit but industrially manufactured by fermenting certain
`
`genetically mutant strains of the black mold fungus, Aspergillus niger.
`
`c.
`
`Malic Acid is the common name for 1-hydroxy-1, 2-ethanedicarboxylic
`
`acid. L (+) malic acid, referred to as L-malic acid, occurs naturally in various foods.
`
`Racemic DL-malic acid does not occur naturally. It is made commercially by hydration
`
`of fumaric acid or maleic acid, and is therefore synthetic. See 21 C.F.R. §184.1069.
`
`d.
`
`Lactic Acid is a federally-listed synthetic substance that is added to foods
`
`as a synthetic flavorant, acidity regulator, and preservative. 21 C.F.R. § 172.515(b); see
`
`also Food Ingredients and Colors, E270, Current EU Approved Additives and their E
`
`Numbers, http://www.food.gov.uk/policy-advice/additivesbranch/enumberlist#anchor_3.
`
`Although lactic acid exists naturally in some foods, it must be synthetically formulated
`
`for use as a food additive -- as is the case with the Products -- through commercial
`
`fermentation of carbohydrates or by using acetaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide to form
`
`lactronitrile, which is then chemically degraded via hydrolysis to form lactic acid. 21
`
`C.F.R. § 184.1061(a).
`
`11.
`
`In addition, the sandwich bread used in Defendant’s sandwich Products contains
`
`diacetyl tartaric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides, mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids, and
`
`ascorbic acid.4 In 2018, Defendant was censured by an advertising watchdog for advertising its
`
`Products as natural despite containing these ingredients, which, as explained below, are synthetic
`
`and not natural.5
`
`
`4 https://bakeryinfo.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/19440/Pret__91natural_92_claim_banned_over_E-
`numbers_in_bread.html
`5 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/18/pret-a-manger-censured-over-natural-sandwich-ingredients-
`claim
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 11 of 32
`
`e.
`
`Ascorbic Acid is a chemical preservative and is synthetic. See 21 C.F.R. §
`
`182.3013.
`
`f.
`
`Diacetyl tartaric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides, also know as
`
`DATEM, are composed of mixed esters of glycerin in which one or more of the hydroxyl
`
`groups of glycerin has been esterified by diacetyl tartaric acid and by fatty acids. The
`
`ingredient is prepared by the reaction of diacetyl tartaric anhydride with mono- and
`
`diglycerides that are derived from edible sources. See 21 C.F.R. § 184.1101.
`
`g. Mono- and diglycerides consist of a mixture of glyceryl mono- and diesters,
`
`and minor amounts of triesters, that are prepared from fats or oils or fat-forming acids
`
`that are derived from edible sources. The most prevalent fatty acids include lauric,
`
`linoleic, myristic, oleic, palmitic, and stearic. Mono- and diglycerides are manufactured
`
`by the reaction of glycerin with fatty acids or the reaction of glycerin with triglycerides in
`
`the presence of an alkaline catalyst. The products are further purified to obtain a mixture
`
`of glycerides, free fatty acids, and free glycerin that contains at least 90 percent-by-
`
`weight glycerides. See 21 C.F.R. § 184.1505.
`
`Defendant’s Products Contain GMOs
`
`
`12.
`
`Defendant’s representations that the Products are "Natural" is false, misleading,
`
`and deceptive because the Products contain soya, which is known to be derived from GMOs
`
`and/or to be synthetically produced.
`
`13.
`
`The term GM foods or GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) commonly refers
`
`to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology
`
`techniques.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 12 of 32
`
`14.
`
`GMOs are not natural because they grow from seeds that have been modified in a
`
`laboratory.
`
`15.
`
`GMOs are plants that grow from seeds in which DNA splicing has been used to
`
`place genes from another source into a plant. Contrary to Defendant’s representations, the
`
`Products use plants or plant derivatives grown or created from GMOs, and are thus not
`
`“Natural.”
`
`e.
`
`The following Pret A Manger Products contain soya:
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`Pret Cheddar and Tomato Sandwich
`
`Pret Balsamic Chicken & Avocado Sandwich
`
`Pret California Club Sandwich
`
`Pret Chicken & Bacon Sandwich
`
`Pret Egg Salad & Arugula Sandwich
`
`Pret Tuna Salad sandwich
`
`Pret Turkey & Pesto Sandwich
`
`Pret Chicken Caesar & Bacon on Artisan Sandwich
`
`Pret Ham & Cheese Sandwich
`
`Pret Bang Chicken Wrap
`
`Pret Chicken Bacon & Ranch Wrap
`
`Pret Chef’s Salad
`
`Pret Chicken Caesar Salad
`
`Pret’s Cuban Sandwich
`
`Pret’s BBQ Pulled Pork Hot Wrap
`
`Pret’s Ham & Cheddar Grilled Cheese
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 13 of 32
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`●
`
`Pret’s Blueberry Muffin
`
`Pret’s Carrot Cake Cookie
`
`Pret’s Chocolate Brownie Cookie
`
`Pret’s Chocolate Chunk Cookie
`
`Pret’s Chocolate Hazelnut Croissant
`
`Pret’s Energy Bagel
`
`Pret’s Pan Au Chocolate
`
`Defendant’s “Natural” Labeling is Deceptive and Caused Injury to Class Members
`
`16. Whether Defendant’s labeling of the Products as "Natural" is deceptive is judged
`
`by whether it would deceive or mislead a reasonable person. To assist in ascertaining what a
`
`reasonable consumer believes the term natural means, one can look to the regulatory agencies for
`
`their guidance.
`
`17.
`
`In 2013, the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) issued a Draft
`
`Guidance Decision Tree for Classification of Materials as Synthetic or Nonsynthetic (Natural).
`
`In accordance with this decision tree, a substance is natural—as opposed to synthetic—if: (a) it is
`
`manufactured, produced, or extracted from a natural source (i.e. naturally occurring mineral or
`
`biological matter); (b) it has not undergone a chemical change (i.e. a process whereby a
`
`substance is transformed into one or more other distinct substances) so that it is chemically or
`
`structurally different than how it naturally occurs in the source material; or (c) the chemical
`
`change was created by a naturally occurring biological process such as composting,
`
`fermentation, or enzymatic digestion or by heating or burning biological matter. (Exhibit A).
`
`18.
`
`Congress has defined "synthetic" to mean “a substance that is formulated or
`
`manufactured by a chemical process or by a process that chemically changes a substance
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 14 of 32
`
`extracted from naturally occurring plants, animals, or mineral sources . . .” . 7 U.S.C. § 6502
`
`(21).
`
`19.
`
`Reasonable consumers do not expect a synthetic chemical with suspected health
`
`concerns to be found in a product marketed as “natural,” which makes Pret A Manger’s “Natural
`
`Food” representation deceptive and misleading.
`
`20.
`
`Surveys and other market research, including expert testimony Plaintiff intends to
`
`introduce, will demonstrate that the term “natural” is misleading to a reasonable consumer
`
`because the reasonable consumer believes that the term “natural,” when used to describe goods
`
`such as the Products, means that the goods are free of synthetic ingredients and/or GMOs.
`
`21.
`
`Consumers lack the meaningful ability to test or independently ascertain or verify
`
`whether a product is natural, especially at the point of sale. Consumers would not know the true
`
`nature of the ingredients merely by reading the ingredients label.
`
`22.
`
`Discovering that the ingredients are not natural requires a scientific investigation
`
`and knowledge of chemistry beyond that of the average consumer. That is why, even though the
`
`ingredients listed above are identified on the back of the Products’ packaging in the ingredients
`
`listed, the reasonable consumer would not understand – nor are he or she expected to understand
`
`- that these ingredients are synthetic and/or GMOs.
`
`23. Moreover, the reasonable consumer is not expected or required to scour the
`
`ingredients list on the back of the Products in order to confirm or debunk Defendant’s prominent
`
`front and side-of-the-Products claims, representations, and warranties that the Products are
`
`"Natural."
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 15 of 32
`
`24.
`
`Defendant did not disclose that the above listed ingredients are synthetic
`
`ingredients. A reasonable consumer understands Defendant’s “Natural" claims to mean that the
`
`Products do not contain synthetic ingredients or GMOs.
`
`25.
`
`Defendant has thus violated, inter alia, NY General Business Law § 392-b by: a)
`
`putting upon an article of merchandise, bottle, wrapper, package, label or other thing, containing
`
`or covering such an article, or with which such an article is intended to be sold, or is sold, a false
`
`description or other indication of or respecting the kind of such article or any part thereof; and b)
`
`selling or offering for sale an article, which to its knowledge is falsely described or indicated
`
`upon any such package, or vessel containing the same, or label thereupon, in any of the
`
`particulars specified.
`
`26.
`
`Consumers rely on label representations and information in making purchasing
`
`decisions.
`
`27.
`
`The marketing of the Products as "Natural" in a prominent location on the labels
`
`of all of the Products throughout the Class Period, evidences Defendant’s awareness that
`
`"Natural" claims are material to consumers.
`
`28.
`
`Defendant’s deceptive representations and omissions are material in that a
`
`reasonable person would attach importance to such information and would be induced to act
`
`upon such information in making purchase decisions.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class Members reasonably relied to their detriment on
`
`Defendant’s misleading representations and omissions.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant’s false, misleading, and deceptive misrepresentations and omissions
`
`are likely to continue to deceive and mislead reasonable consumers and the general public, as
`
`they have already deceived and misled Plaintiff and the Class Members.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 16 of 32
`
`31.
`
`In making the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions
`
`described herein, Defendant knew and intended that consumers would pay a premium for
`
`Products labeled "Natural" over comparable products not so labeled.
`
`32.
`
`As an immediate, direct, and proximate result of Defendant’s false, misleading,
`
`and deceptive representations and omissions, Defendant injured Plaintiff and the Class Members
`
`in that they:
`
`a. Paid a sum of money for Products that were not what Defendant
`represented;
`
`b. Paid a premium price for Products that were not what Defendant
`represented;
`
`c. Were deprived of the benefit of the bargain because the Products they
`purchased were different from what Defendant warranted; and
`
`d. Were deprived of the benefit of the bargain because the Products they
`purchased had less value than what Defendant represented.
`
`
`33.
`
`Had Defendant not made the false, misleading, and deceptive representations and
`
`omissions, Plaintiff and the Class Members would not have been willing to pay the same amount
`
`for the Products they purchased, and, consequently, Plaintiff and the Class Members would not
`
`have been willing to purchase the Products.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class Members paid for Products that were "Natural" but
`
`received Products that were not "Natural." The Products Plaintiff and the Class Members
`
`received were worth less than the Products for which they paid.
`
`35.
`
`Based on Defendant’s misleading and deceptive representations, Defendant was
`
`able to, and did, charge a premium price for the Products over the cost of competitive products
`
`not bearing a "Natural" label.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 17 of 32
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff and the Class Members all paid money for the Products. However,
`
`Plaintiff and the Class Members did not obtain the full value of the advertised Products due to
`
`Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions. Plaintiff and the Class Members purchased,
`
`purchased more of, and/or paid more for, the Products than they would have had they known the
`
`truth about the Products. Consequently, Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered injury in
`
`fact and lost money as a result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff expressly does not request that Defendant be required to label the
`
`Products with a GMO disclosure; rather, Plaintiff specifically requests that Defendant: 1) cease
`
`advertising or stating the Products as Natural; and 2) inform consumers that the Products contain
`
`GMOs and other synthetic ingredients in advertising for the Products.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`38.
`
`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 Pret A Manger, is a citizen of
`
`the United Kingdom; and (3) the amount in controversy is in excess of $5,000,000, exclusive of
`
`interests and costs.
`
`39.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant conducts
`
`and transacts business in the State of New York, contracts to supply goods within the State of
`
`New York, and supplies goods within the State of New York.
`
`40.
`
`Venue is proper because many Class Members reside in the Southern 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.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 18 of 32
`
`Plaintiff
`
`PARTIES
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff is an individual consumer who, at all times material hereto, was a citizen
`
`of New York State residing in New York City. At different times during the Class Period
`
`Plaintiff purchased the Products, including the Pret Salt & Vinegar Chips, Pret BBQ Chips, and
`
`Pure Pret Ginger Beer as well as various sandwiches, desserts, and salads listed above from
`
`different Pret A Manger stores in New York City, New York. Plaintiff viewed the marketing and
`
`advertising for the Products she purchased, which represented that the Products were “Natural.”
`
`Plaintiff does not consider a product containing GMOs or other synthetic ingredients to be
`
`“natural.” If the Products were actually "Natural," as represented on the Products’ label, Plaintiff
`
`would purchase the Products in the immediate future.
`
`42.
`
`Had Defendant not made the false, misleading, and deceptive representation that
`
`the Products were "Natural," Plaintiff would not have been willing to pay the same amount for
`
`the Products, and, consequently, she 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. Since the Products Plaintiff received were worth less
`
`than the Products for which she paid, Plaintiff was injured in fact and lost money as a result of
`
`Defendant’s improper conduct.
`
`Defendant
`
`43.
`
`Defendant is a corporation headquartered in the United Kingdom. Its Head Office
`
`is located at 853 Broadway New York, NY. There are more than 80 Pret A Manger store
`
`locations in the United States, with approximately 55 stores located in New York.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 19 of 32
`
`44.
`
`Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises and distributes the Products
`
`throughout the United States. Defendant created and/or authorized the false, misleading and
`
`deceptive advertisements, packaging and labeling for the Products.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`Plaintiff brings this matter on behalf of herself and those similarly situated. As
`
`45.
`
`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.
`
`46.
`
`The Class is defined as all consumers who purchased the Products anywhere in
`
`the United States during the Class Period (the “Class”).
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff also seeks certification, to the extent necessary or appropriate, of a
`
`subclass of individuals who purchased the Products in the State of New York at any time during
`
`the Class Period (the “New York Subclass”).
`
`48.
`
`The Class and New York Subclass shall be referred to collectively throughout the
`
`Complaint as the Class.
`
`49.
`
`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:
`
`50.
`
`Numerosity: Class Members are so numerous that joinder of all Members is
`
`impracticable. Plaintiff believes that there are thousands of consumers who are Class Members
`
`described above who have been damaged by Defendant’s deceptive and misleading practices.
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 20 of 32
`
`51.
`
`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 to the Class and
`
`the public concerning the contents of the Products;
`
`d. Whether Defendant’s false and misleading statements concerning the Products
`
`were likely to deceive the public;
`
`e. Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to injunctive relief;
`
`f. Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to money damages under the same
`
`causes of action as the other Class Members.
`
`52.
`
`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
`
`deceptive, misleading conduct and purchased Defendant’s Products. Plaintiff is entitled to relief
`
`under the same causes of action as the other Class Members.
`
`53.
`
`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 and she has a strong interest in vindicating her
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 21 of 32
`
`rights; she has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action litigation and
`
`they intend to vigorously prosecute this action.
`
`54.
`
`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 predominate over any individual issue 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.
`
`55.
`
`Superiority: A class action is superior to the other available methods for the fair
`
`and efficient adjudication of this controversy because:
`
`a. The joinder of thousands of individual Class Members is impracticable,
`
`cumbersome, unduly burdensome, and a waste of judicial and/or litigation
`
`resources;
`
`b. The individual claims of the Class Members may be relatively modest compared
`
`with the expense of litigating the claim, thereby making it impracticable, unduly
`
`burdensome, and expensive—if not totally impossible—to justify individual
`
`actions;
`
`c. When Defendant’s liability has been adjudicated, all Class Members’ 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;
`
`d. This class action will promote orderly, efficient, expeditious, and appropriate
`
`adjudication and administration of Class claims;
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 22 of 32
`
`e. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty to be encountered in the management of this
`
`action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action;
`
`f. This class action will assure uniformity of decisions among Class Members;
`
`g. The Class is readily definable and prosecution of this action as a class action will
`
`eliminate the possibility of repetitious litigation;
`
`h. Class Members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution of separate
`
`actions is outweighed by their interest in efficient resolution by a single class
`
`action; and
`
`i.
`
`It would be desirable to concentrate in this single venue the litigation of all
`
`persons who were induced by Defendant’s uniform false advertising to purchase
`
`the Products as being "Natural."
`
`56.
`
`Accordingly, this Class is properly brought and should be maintained as a class
`
`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
`
`57.
`
`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 its 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 Products again if the ingredients were changed so that
`
`they indeed were "Natural."
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-04815 Document 1 Filed 06/23/20 Page 23 of 32
`
`58.
`
`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:
`
`a. Numerosity: Individual joinder of the injunctive Class Members would be wholly
`
`impracticable. Defendant’s Products have been purchased by thousands of people
`
`throughout the United States;
`
`b. Commonality: Questions of law and fact are common to Members of the Class.
`
`Defendant’s misconduct was uniformly directed at all consumers. Thus, all
`
`Members of the Class have a common cause against Defendant to