`
`
`REESE LLP
`Michael R. Reese
`mreese@reesellp.com
`100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
`New York, New York 10025
`Telephone: (212) 643-0500
`Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
`
`REESE LLP
`Charles D. Moore (to be admitted pro hac vice)
`cmoore@reesellp.com
`100 South 5th Street, Suite 1900
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`Telephone: (212) 643-0500
`Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
`
`United States District Court
`Southern District of New York
`
`
`
`Sonia Spates individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated
`
`Plaintiff
`
` Case No. 21-cv-10155
`
`- against -
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Uber Technologies Inc.
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-10155 Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 19
`
`Plaintiff Sonia Spates (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Spates”), on behalf of herself and all others
`
`similarly situated (“the Class”), brings this action against Uber Technologies Inc. (“Defendant”)
`
`based upon Defendant’s misrepresentations concerning its “Upfront Pricing” for Uber rides.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. Defendant develops, markets and, facilitates the sale of shared rides through its well-
`
`known Uber ride-hailing app (“the App”). Starting in 2016 and continuing through to today,
`
`Defendant marketed its App as having Upfront Pricing - a feature Defendant claimed provided
`
`accuracy, transparency, simplicity, and certainty to riders by notifying them of the total cost of a
`
`ride prior to purchase. Unfortunately for consumers this was and is untrue, as Defendant routinely
`
`overcharged consumers.
`
`2.
`
`This is a class action on behalf of New York consumers who used Defendant’s App,
`
`and were charged more than the price they were quoted at the beginning of their ride (i.e. the
`
`“upfront price.”).
`
`3.
`
`In a classic bait and switch scheme, under the so-called Upfront Pricing, Defendant
`
`promises consumers one price to entice them to use Uber for transportation, to then surreptitiously
`
`charge the consumers a highly price later.
`
`4. Defendant was able to accomplish this scheme because it had received the
`
`consumers’ method of payment at or before the time Uber gave consumers the upfront price, but
`
`then charged the consumers’ credit card or method of payment a higher price later on. Indeed,
`
`many consumers were overcharged on their credit cards and other payments methods and are
`
`unaware of it still to this day. Defendant’s records, however, are able to show each and every one
`
`of the overcharges during the class period.
`
`5. Defendant claims, “we strive to be clear about pricing, matching, and how our
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-10155 Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 3 of 19
`
`technology affects riders and drivers,”1 and Defendant claims Upfront Pricing “gives you the
`
`information you need to choose the ride that best meets your needs and budget.”2 This is false and
`
`deceptive as it does not.
`
`6. Defendant’s claim that “riders no longer have to guess at prices, they can avoid
`
`surprises, even when it’s surging, and make better choices about which ride is right for their needs”
`
`is likewise false and misleading.3
`
`7.
`
`Likewise, Defendant represents that Upfront Pricing is so simple it involves “no
`
`complicated math and no surprises . . . .”4
`
`8.
`
`The deception is simple: the upfront price presented to consumers was false and
`
`misleading, as Defendant routinely charged consumers on their credit cards and other payment
`
`methods a higher amount than that presented to the consumer.
`
`PARTIES
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff Spates is a resident of Bronx, New York. Plaintiff purchased Defendant’s
`
`service in the Bronx during the Class Period. On multiple occasions, including in September 2021,
`
`before using the service she was quoted a price but was ultimately charged a higher price. Plaintiff
`
`relied on Defendants’ false, misleading, and deceptive price in purchasing the service. Had
`
`Plaintiff known the truth – that the upfront price was false, misleading, and deceptive – Plaintiff
`
`would not have purchased the service. Plaintiff brings the claims below seeking damages, actual
`
`and statutory, as well as injunctive relief.
`
`10. Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., (“Uber”) is incorporated in Delaware and has its
`
`principal place of business in San Francisco, California.
`
`
`1 https://marketplace.uber.com/principles.
`2 https://www.uber.com/us/en/ride/how-uber-works/upfront-pricing/.
`3 https://marketplace.uber.com/pricing/upfront-pricing.
`4 https://www.uber.com/newsroom/upfront-fares-no-math-and-no-surprises/.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-10155 Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 4 of 19
`
`11. Plaintiff would purchase the service again if there were assurances that the Upfront
`
`Pricing was no longer misleading.
`
`JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`12.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).
`
`13. Upon information and belief, the aggregate amount in controversy is more than
`
`$5,000,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs.
`
`14. This court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it conducts and transacts
`
`business within New York and contracts to supply and supplies services within New York.
`
`15. Venue is proper because Plaintiff and many class members reside in this District,
`
`Defendants do business in this District and in New York, and a substantial part of events and
`
`omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.
`
`ADDITIONAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS
`
`16. Defendant has consistently touted Upfront Pricing as a way for consumers to
`
`determine their total fares before purchasing rides, and Defendant has consistently represented to
`
`consumers that Upfront Pricing avoids surprises.
`
`17. This action is brought because Upfront Pricing often does not provide the total fare
`
`and consumers often are surprised (if they ever find out) that their ultimate fare differs from the
`
`Upfront Pricing fare they were quoted, resulting in them being charged an amount more than they
`
`were told when they agreed to the ride in the first place.
`
`18. When there is a difference between the fare as quoted through Upfront Pricing and
`
`the final fare, the final fare is always higher than the quoted fare; it is never lower.
`
`Uber’s Pricing Methods
`
`19. Beginning in the fall of 2016, Defendant started Upfront Pricing.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-10155 Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 5 of 19
`
`20. Uber’s “Upfront Pricing” includes a base rate based on the time and distance for a
`
`trip, upcharges for busy times and areas, and, in some instances, a flat booking fee and/or tolls and
`
`charges, all of which is presented to the consumer before the ride is purchased.
`
`21.
`
`In the normal course of business, Defendant maintains records regarding when and
`
`how each rider registers for the App.
`
`22.
`
`In the normal course of its business, Defendant maintains records regarding the
`
`number of trips taken by riders using the App.
`
`23. Defendant is able to identify and reproduce for each rider and each ride the “upfront”
`
`price that was quoted before the ride was purchased and the final, actual overcharge to each rider
`
`after each ride has ended (typically without the consumer’s knowledge).
`
`Defendant’s Representations Regarding Upfront Pricing
`
`24. Defendant placed the App into the stream of commerce and utilized Upfront Pricing
`
`to offer for sale and to sell shared rides to consumers including Plaintiff and Class members in
`
`New York.
`
`25. Defendant placed the App into the stream of commerce and utilized Upfront Pricing
`
`with knowledge and intent that consumers would rely on Upfront Pricing to choose between
`
`competing ride-share opportunities and when using the App to purchase rides.
`
`26. The App purports to show consumers the total cost of their ride in advance of booking
`
`the ride, which Defendant has made a feature of its marketing and advertising of itself and the App
`
`in order to gain competitive advantage in the marketplace.
`
`27. Defendant’s blog at uber.com confirms the materiality of Upfront Pricing to
`
`consumer decision-making based upon the “certainty” that Upfront Pricing purportedly provides:
`
`“Why upfront fares? To help create certainty[.] In cities where upfront fares
`have been introduced, data shows that riders tend to request more because
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-10155 Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 6 of 19
`
`they have more certainty about the price – particularly during busy times
`when prices may be higher.”5 Likewise, the same blog page confirms,
`“Riders have more confidence when requesting trips with upfront fares.
`Data from other cities that have introduced upfront fares suggests that
`upfront fares result in more overall trip requests . . . . In cities that use
`upfront fares, riders tend to request more trips than they did before it was
`introduced because of increased transparency – there’s no math and no
`surprises.”6
`
`28. Defendant has made numerous similar representations in addition to those identified
`
`above. Defendant’s express and implied representations appear, among other places, on
`
`Defendant’s web page and in other marketing materials distributed by Defendant to consumers.
`
`a.
`
`Defendant’s Uber Marketplace web page acknowledges, in discussing the
`
`principles under which Uber operates, that “the work of connecting people
`
`to places and opportunities has real-word consequences, and that’s a big
`
`responsibility” and that its “principled approach to marketplace design
`
`helps us live up to that responsibility”7
`
`b.
`
`On the same page Defendant claims it is “being upfront” and that it
`
`“believe[s] everyone should be equipped with the right information to make
`
`the best decisions for their needs;” hence Defendant “strive[s]to be clear
`
`about pricing, matching, and how [its] technology affects riders and
`
`drivers.”
`
`
`5 https://www.uber.com/ur-PK/blog/introducing-upfront-pricing/ (emphasis added).
`6 Id. (emphasis added).
`7 https://marketplace.uber.com/principles.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-10155 Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 7 of 19
`
`
`
`c.
`
`Defendant’s Uber.com website advises consumers that “riders are shown
`
`the cost of their ride in advance” and that, as a result, “[r]iders feel confident
`
`taking trips when they have the information to make better decisions and
`
`drivers get more opportunities to earn.”8
`
`d.
`
`According to the same web page, “Upfront prices are great for riders and
`
`drivers. Before booking a trip, riders are shown the price they’ll pay at the
`
`end of the ride. Riders then have the confidence to request more trips,
`
`generating more demand for drivers.”
`
`e.
`
`Similarly, “Because riders no longer have to guess at prices, they can avoid
`
`surprises, even when it’s surging, and make better choices about which ride
`
`is right for their needs. In the time it took you to read this, we provided more
`
`than 2,000 upfront prices to riders, helping them get on their way.”910
`
`f.
`
`Defendant’s website advises riders they will “[k]now the cost before you
`
`ride, and pay the way you want.”11
`
`
`8 https://marketplace.uber.com/pricing/upfront-pricing.
`9 Id.
`10 Id.
`11 https://www.uber.com/us/en/ride/how-uber-works/upfront-pricing/.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-10155 Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 8 of 19
`
`g.
`
`Under the heading “Uber’s upfront pricing explained,” Defendant’s website
`
`promises that “[b]efore you request a ride, the app shows an upfront price
`
`to your destination every time—so you can sit back and enjoy the trip” while
`
`likening its “know before you go” pricing to buying an airplane ticket—“no
`
`complicated math and no surprises,” as seen below.12
`
`29. Defendant’s representations are not limited to its uber.com website. Defendant’s
`
`devoted YouTube channel features a question and answer video with Product Lead for Pricing,
`
`Brandon Trew, that contains the following representations, which are consistent with those set out
`
`above:13
`
`a.
`
`[YouTube Video]: “But why give the price upfront rather than at the end?
`
`Providing the upfront price removes all the guesswork and the risk.”
`
`b.
`
`[YouTube Video]: “By being upfront, we expand access, as riders with more
`
`information can make more confident choices and know with certainty what
`
`they’re going to pay by the end.”
`
`c.
`
`[YouTube Video]: “Ensuring prices serve riders and drivers. That’s what
`
`moves us.”
`
`30. Likewise, Defendant’s sponsored Uber Facebook page has delivered the same
`
`messaging. For example, Defendant advised consumers in late 2016 that they would “see the total
`
`cost of your ride so there are no unwelcome surprises” with Upfront Pricing (again using the “know
`
`before you go” slogan.14
`
`
`12 Id.
`13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCZ-vBC_a3E.
`14 https://www.facebook.com/uber/videos/1551756198197993/.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-10155 Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 9 of 19
`
`
`
`31. The representations (and concomitant omissions) cited above are consistent with
`
`other marketing claims made by Defendant over time and across different media.
`
`32. These claims are incomplete, inaccurate, and are misleading in their particulars and
`
`on the whole because they lead reasonable consumers to believe that the Upfront Pricing that
`
`appears on the App is the price they will pay at the end of the ride and that is not always so.
`
`33. Defendant intended for consumers to rely upon its representations concerning the
`
`accuracy, transparency, simplicity, and certainty of Upfront Pricing.
`
`34.
`
`It would be reasonable for consumers to rely upon Defendant’s representations
`
`concerning Upfront Pricing’s accuracy, transparency, simplicity, and certainty when purchasing a
`
`shared ride.
`
`35. Defendant repeatedly acknowledges that consumers rely upon its Upfront Pricing
`
`scheme when it touts the fact that Upfront Pricing leads to more ride purchases by consumers based
`
`upon its apparent accuracy, transparency, simplicity, and certainty.
`
`36. The “upfront” price that appears in the App is not effectively qualified in any fashion
`
`and is presented as the fare a reasonable consumer may expect to pay at the ride’s conclusion. The
`
`information that is available is inconspicuous, incomplete, and misleading. The screenshots below
`
`are illustrative of what consumers typically encounter in the App.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-10155 Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 10 of 19
`
`
`
`a. Image A depicts the user interface in the App once the rider has identified her
`
`pickup point and destination. The price in the superimposed yellow box is the “upfront” price.
`
`Consumers can pick between several options – UberX (for a typical car); UberXL (for a larger car)
`
`or Black (for a luxury car). Once the consumers picks one of the options, that type of ride and the
`
`price are confirmed. Here, if the consumer selected Uber X and accepted the ride based on the
`
`“upfront” fare, that fare should be $41.43. In reality, Uber often charged the consumer more once
`
`the ride was completed. Most consumers did not realize this, as the higher charge was made
`
`directly to the consumer’s credit card or other form of payment, without disclosing beforehand the
`
`higher charge.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-10155 Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 11 of 19
`
`
`
`37. Despite Defendant’s consistent marketing focus on pricing transparency and
`
`simplicity, receipts of actual fares paid by consumers demonstrate that Defendant routinely
`
`overcharges consumers amounts significantly higher than the Upfront Price stated to consumers.
`
`38.
`
`In fact, fares paid by consumers significantly differed from the Upfront Price despite
`
`no changes being made by the consumers to the original estimated length, duration, or route and/or
`
`when changes to the original estimated length, duration, or route were negligible or insignificant.
`
`39. Defendant’s representations concerning Upfront Pricing’s accuracy, transparency,
`
`simplicity, and certainty were made with the intent to generate sales of shared rides through the
`
`App and website, and in fact they did so.
`
`40. Defendant’s representations are inaccurate and misleading and contain material
`
`omissions insofar as Defendant expressly or impliedly claims:
`
`a.
`
`that Upfront Pricing accurately represents the cost to the consumer of any
`
`or every Uber ride;
`
`b.
`
`that the fare that a consumer pays at the end of a trip invariably will be the
`
`fare quoted before purchasing the trip;
`
`c.
`
`that a consumer may rely on Upfront Pricing to provide an accurate
`
`representation of the fare for a trip when deciding whether to purchase a
`
`ride;
`
`d.
`
`that Upfront Pricing provides transparency and avoids surprises by
`
`informing consumers of the cost of a trip before purchase;
`
`e.
`
`that Defendant provides all of the information necessary to allow consumers
`
`to determine, fare-wise, whether to purchase a given Uber ride and/or
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-10155 Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 12 of 19
`
`whether to use another rideshare company or another travel option, e.g., a
`
`taxi; or
`
`f.
`
`that Upfront Pricing is accurate, transparent, simple and/or certain.
`
`41.
`
`In short, Defendant’s advertising and marketing represents to the public that Upfront
`
`Pricing provides clarity and transparency to consumers, but consumers are being continuously
`
`misled about the price of a given trip prior to purchase.
`
`42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s consistent and pervasive
`
`misrepresentations regarding Upfront Pricing, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damages.
`
`43. Uber’s “upfront” price represents the actual value of each given ride to Plaintiff and
`
`to other consumers.
`
`44. That representation was false, however, in each instance where the final fare
`
`exceeded the “upfront” price.
`
`45. Accordingly, in each such respective instance, Plaintiff and the Class did not realize
`
`the benefit of the bargain and their expectations were not met.
`
`46.
`
`In each such respective instance, Plaintiff and the Class paid more than the market
`
`value represented by the price bargained for. Plaintiff and the Class bargained with Uber on a
`
`particular market value for a given ride. But in each respective instance where the final fare
`
`exceeded the “upfront” price, Plaintiff and the Class paid an amount higher than reflected in the
`
`market price to which they and Defendant had agreed.
`
`47. Absent Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiff and the Class would
`
`have paid less for rides, i.e., less for Defendant’s services, than they actually paid.
`
`48. The damages Plaintiff and the Class have suffered include but are not limited to the
`
`greater of (a) the difference between the quoted “upfront” price and the final fare for all rides in
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-10155 Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 13 of 19
`
`which the final fare exceeded the “upfront” price or (b) statutory damages of $550 per ride pursuant
`
`to New York General Business law sections 349 and 350.
`
`49. Defendant possesses data sufficient to ascertain the identity of each affected
`
`consumer and each such overcharge.
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`50. The class is defined as of all consumers who purchased a ride through Uber
`
`originating anywhere within New York using Upfront Pricing through the Uber App since January
`
`1, 2016 to the date of the entry of final judgment against Defendant. (“Class”).
`
`51. A class action is superior to other methods for fair and efficient adjudication.
`
`52. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members, even if permitted, is
`
`impracticable, as there are likely hundreds of thousands of members.
`
`53. Common questions of law or fact predominate and include:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`whether the Upfront Price was likely to mislead to reasonable consumers;
`
`whether Defendant charged higher prices than the Upfront Price represented
`
`to consumers;
`
`what representations Defendant has made regarding Upfront Pricing;
`
`whether and when Upfront Pricing is in fact the actual fare paid by
`
`consumers;
`
`e.
`
`whether and to what extent Plaintiff and the Class suffered direct losses or
`
`damages;
`
`f.
`
`whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to actual or statutory damages;
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-10155 Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 14 of 19
`
`and
`
`g.
`
`whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to injunctive relief, restitution,
`
`or other forms of equitable relief.
`
`54. Plaintiff’s claims and the basis for relief are typical to other members because all
`
`were subjected to the same representations.
`
`55. Plaintiff is an adequate representative because her interests do not conflict with other
`
`members.
`
`56. No individual inquiry is necessary because the focus is only on Defendant’s practices
`
`and the class is definable and ascertainable.
`
`57.
`
`Individual actions would risk inconsistent results, be repetitive and are impractical
`
`to justify, as the claims are modest.
`
`58. Plaintiff’s counsel are competent and experienced in complex class action litigation
`
`and intends to adequately and fairly protect class members’ interests.
`
`59. Plaintiff seeks class-wide injunctive relief because Defendant’s deceptive practices
`
`continue.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GBL § 349
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and Other Class Members)
`
`60. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all the foregoing
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`61. 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 . . .”
`
`62. The conduct of Defendant alleged herein constitutes recurring, “unlawful” deceptive
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-10155 Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 15 of 19
`
`acts and practices in violation of GBL § 349, and as such, Plaintiff and the other Class Members
`
`seek monetary damages and the entry of preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against
`
`Defendant, enjoining it from inaccurately describing, marketing, and promoting the Upfront
`
`Pricing.
`
`63.
`
` Defendant misleadingly, inaccurately, and deceptively represents Upfront Pricing to
`
`consumers.
`
`64. Defendant’s improper consumer-oriented conduct is misleading in a material way in
`
`that it, inter alia, induced Plaintiff and other Class Members to purchase and/or pay a premium for
`
`Defendant’s services and to use the services when they otherwise would not have.
`
`65. Defendant made its untrue or misleading statements and representations willfully,
`
`wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the truth.
`
`66. Plaintiff and other Class Members have been injured inasmuch as they were
`
`overcharged. Accordingly, Plaintiff and other Class Members paid more than what they bargained
`
`or received.
`
`67. 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 other members of the Class have been damaged thereby.
`
`68. As a result of Defendant’s recurring deceptive acts and practices, Plaintiff and other
`
`Class Members are entitled to monetary and compensatory damages, injunctive relief, restitution
`
`and disgorgement of all moneys obtained by means of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, interest, and
`
`attorneys’ fees and costs. This includes actual damages under GBL § 349, as well as statutory
`
`damages of $50 per ride pursuant to GBL § 349.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GBL § 350
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-10155 Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 16 of 19
`
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and Other Class Members)
`
`69. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all the foregoing
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`70. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350 provides, in part, as follows:
`
`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.
`
`71. N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350a(1) provides, in part, as follows:
`
`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 . . .
`
`72. Defendant’s representations contain untrue and materially misleading statements
`
`concerning Defendant’s services inasmuch as they misrepresent the Upfront Pricing.
`
`73. Plaintiff and other Class Members have been injured inasmuch as they relied upon
`
`the Upfront Pricing and were overcharged for the services. Accordingly, Plaintiff and other Class
`
`Members paid more than what they bargained or received.
`
`74. Defendant’s Upfront Pricing induced the Plaintiff and Class Members to buy
`
`Defendant’s services.
`
`75. Defendant made the material misrepresentations described in this Complaint on
`
`Defendant’s App.
`
`76. Defendant’s material misrepresentations were substantially uniform in content,
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-10155 Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 17 of 19
`
`presentation, and impact upon consumers at large. Moreover, all consumers purchasing the
`
`services were and continue to be exposed to Defendant’s material misrepresentations.
`
`77. As a result of Defendant’s recurring, acts and practices in violation of GBL § 350,
`
`Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to monetary and compensatory damages, injunctive relief,
`
`restitution and disgorgement of all moneys obtained by means of Defendant’s unlawful conduct,
`
`interest, and attorneys’ fees and costs as well as statutory damages of $500 per service purchased.
`
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`UNJUST ENRICHMENT
`(On Behalf of Plaintiff and Other Class Members)
`
`78. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in all the foregoing
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`79. Plaintiff pleads this claim in the alternative.
`
`80. As a result of Defendant’s deceptive, fraudulent, and misleading labeling,
`
`advertising, marketing, and sales of the services, Defendant was enriched, at the expense of
`
`Plaintiff and the other Class members through the payment of the purchase price for Defendant’s
`
`services.
`
`81. Under the circumstances, it would be against equity and good conscience to permit
`
`Defendant to retain the ill-gotten benefits that it received from Plaintiff and the other members in
`
`light of the fact that the services purchased by Plaintiff and the other Class members were not what
`
`Defendant purported them to be. Thus, it would be unjust or inequitable for Defendant to retain
`
`the benefit without restitution to Plaintiff and the other Class members for the monies paid to
`
`Defendant for such services.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-10155 Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 18 of 19
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the members of the Class,
`
`respectfully requests the Court to enter an Order:
`
`A.
`
`certifying the proposed Class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), (b)(2),
`
`and (b)(3), as set forth above;
`
`B.
`
`declaring that Defendant is financially responsible for notifying the Class members
`
`of the pendency of this suit;
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`declaring that Defendant has committed the violations of law alleged herein;
`
`providing for any and all injunctive relief the Court deems appropriate;
`
`awarding monetary damages, including but not limited to any compensatory,
`
`incidental, or consequential damages in an amount that the Court or jury will determine, in
`
`accordance with applicable law;
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`awarding statutory damages;
`
`providing for any and all equitable monetary relief the Court deems appropriate;
`
`awarding punitive or exemplary damages in accordance with proof and in an
`
`amount consistent with applicable precedent;
`
`I.
`
`awarding Plaintiff her reasonable costs and expenses of suit, including attorneys’
`
`fees;
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`
`
`awarding pre- and post-judgment interest to the extent the law allows; and
`
`providing such further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 1:21-cv-10155 Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 19 of 19
`
`Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Date: November 30, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted
`
`/s/ draft
`Michael R. Reese
`mreese@reesellp.com
`REESE LLP
`100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
`New York, New York 10025
`Telephone: (212) 643-0500
`Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
`
`REESE LLP
`Charles D. Moore (to be admitted pro hac vice)
`cmoore@reesellp.com
`100 South 5th Street, Suite 1900
`Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
`Telephone: (212) 643-0500
`Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff and the Classes
`
`18
`
`