Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 1 of 38 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Eastern Division

MARCIA SCHUTTE, individually and on Case No. ______behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v.

CORELLE BRANDS HOLDINGS INC. f/k/a WKI HOLDING COMPANY, INC. (WORLD KITCHEN), BRANDS LLC, and CORNING INCORPORATED,

Defendants.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Marcia Schutte (“Plaintiff”) hereby files this class action complaint on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, by and through the undersigned attorneys, against

Defendant Corelle Brands Holdings Inc. and Defendant Corelle Brands LLC (collectively,

“Corelle”) and Defendant Corning Incorporated (“Corning”) (Corelle and Corning are referred to herein collectively as “Defendants”) and alleges as follows based upon personal knowledge as to herself and her own acts and experiences and, as to all other matters, upon information and belief based upon, inter alia, investigation conducted by her attorneys.

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This case arises from Defendants’ betrayal of the public trust. Defendants identified and seized on an opportunity to exploit a household brand name which has been known and trusted

Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 2 of 38 PageID #:2

for over a century——by quietly replacing the original Pyrex product with an inferior and unsafe product that shatters and injures consumers on a regular basis.

2. Pyrex is a cookware product (hereinafter, “Pyrex”) originally developed and manufactured by Corning, a company revered for its materials science expertise and innovation.

For decades, Corning manufactured Pyrex from a durable material known as .

3. Borosilicate glass has a very low coefficient of thermal expansion; that is, it does not expand much when it is heated, even to high temperatures. Borosilicate glass is also mechanically strong and can withstand the rigors of normal household kitchen use without breaking.

4. Because Pyrex products made of borosilicate glass were strong and could withstand the substantial temperature changes that occur during normal household use, and because Corning advertised those very traits, Pyrex products manufactured from borosilicate glass earned the trust of generations of American consumers, who correctly believed that they could safely use Pyrex for just about any normal household kitchen task.

5. Corning, well aware of the reputation and perception of Pyrex and the trust that consumers placed in their Pyrex products, proceeded to take advantage of that trust. Rather than continuing to manufacture Pyrex as it always had, Corning quietly abandoned borosilicate glass and began manufacturing Pyrex from a less expensive, far inferior material known as soda lime glass.

6. When heated, Pyrex products manufactured from soda lime glass expand substantially more than Pyrex manufactured from borosilicate glass. Soda lime Pyrex, therefore, cannot withstand nearly the same range of household temperature changes as Pyrex manufactured from borosilicate glass.

2 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 3 of 38 PageID #:3

7. Instead, Pyrex made of soda lime glass can and regularly does shatter unexpectedly during the course of normal household kitchen use, often sending pieces of sharp glass flying through the air (“the Defect”).

8. Hundreds, if not thousands, of consumers have been seriously injured by shattering

Pyrex, and those numbers will only increase as long as these Pyrex products—which are currently manufactured and sold by Corelle under a license from Corning—remain on the market.

9. In fact, a prominent retired Corning scientist, upon reading a scientific article highlighting the safely problems associated with Pyrex and other soda lime glass cookware, wrote to the author to say that the article “serves the very important public purpose of publicizing the criminal act, at least in my mind, of selling cheap, high-expansion soda lime glass to the unsuspecting public.”

10. Indeed, from the time that Defendants started making Pyrex out of soda lime glass, they have failed to adequately disclose to consumers that the products are manufactured with the

Defect.

11. To the contrary, Defendants have advertised and marketed, and continue to advertise and market, Pyrex in a manner that reinforces existing consumer perceptions about the quality and characteristics of the Pyrex brand—even though the quality has decreased and the product is now unsafe for normal household use.

12. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class defined below, seeks to obtain relief from Defendants, including, inter alia, damages and injunctive relief.

13. Specifically, this class action is brought to remedy violations of law in connection with Defendants’ unfair business practices and deceptive marketing and sale of Pyrex products made of soda lime glass (“Class Pyrex Products”). Defendants misrepresent, through advertising

3 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 4 of 38 PageID #:4

to potential customers, that Class Pyrex Products are safe for normal household use when they are not.

14. Defendants have misled and continue to mislead consumers into believing that soda lime Pyrex products are capable of adequately and safely storing, heating and serving food, when in fact they suffer from the Defect.

15. Defendants also inflate the prices for such Pyrex products to reflect their claimed storage, heating and serving capabilities. As a consequence of Defendants’ misrepresentations and the Defect, consumers pay more for Pyrex than they would pay if they knew they were receiving an unsafe and significantly lower quality product than is represented in Defendants’ advertising, and/or would not have brought the products at all had they known of the Defect.

16. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action to redress Defendants’ violations of the

Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“CFA”), 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq; the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq. (“UDTPA”); the implied warranty of merchantability under the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code, 810 ILCS 5/2-

314; the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 1345.01 et seq.; the Ohio

Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Ch. 4165; the Ohio Uniform Commercial

Code, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 1302.01 et seq.; and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.

§ 2301(3); as well as claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

17. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1332 of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 because: (i) there are 100 or more class members,

(ii) there is an aggregate amount in controversy exceeding $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and (iii) there is minimal diversity because Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of different

4 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 5 of 38 PageID #:5

states. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1367.

18. Venue is proper in this judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because

Corelle is headquartered in this District, has advertised in this District, and has received substantial revenues and profits from sales of Pyrex which it has directed into the stream of commerce in this District; therefore, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.

PARTIES

The Plaintiff

19. Plaintiff Marcia Schutte (“Plaintiff”) is a resident of Ohio.

20. In or about April 2018, Plaintiff purchased several new Pyrex bowls from a Kroger store in Ohio. Some of Plaintiff’s newly purchased Pyrex bowls are depicted in Photo “A” below.

Photo “A”

21. Shortly after her purchase, in or about April 2018, Plaintiff cooked soup in a stock pot on her stovetop, turned off the burner and served the soup in bowls. While the remaining soup cooled in the pot, Plaintiff placed one of her new empty Pyrex bowls on the counter.

5 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 6 of 38 PageID #:6

22. After she finished eating, Plaintiff ladled the remaining soup into the Pyrex bowl with one hand and stabilized the bowl with her other hand.

23. While Plaintiff was ladling soup, the Pyrex bowl shattered in the hand that was holding it. Sharp shards of glass flew in all directions throughout the kitchen, including into the stock pot and even into her clothing. Portions of Plaintiff’s shattered Pyrex bowl are depicted in

Photos “B” and “C” below.

Photo “B”

6 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 7 of 38 PageID #:7

Photo “C”

24. Plaintiff has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of Defendants’ failure to disclose the faulty formulation of Pyrex in that: (1) she paid more than she otherwise would have paid for her Pyrex products (if she would have chosen to purchase the Pyrex products at all); (2) she had to clean up shattered Pyrex glass pieces and lost a fully-prepared meal; (3) she had to replace the destroyed Pyrex bowl at her own expense; and (4) she was exposed to a potentially dangerous situation.

The Defendants

Corning

25. Defendant Corning Incorporated, or Corning, was incorporated in New York in

1989 as a successor corporation to Corning Glass Works, which had been incorporated in New

York in 1936.

26. Defendant Corning, which is headquartered in Corning, New York, is “one of the world's leading innovators in materials science,” with “expertise in glass science, ceramics science, and optical physics, along with its deep manufacturing and engineering capabilities. . . . Corning's industry-leading products include damage-resistant cover glass for mobile devices; precision glass

7 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 8 of 38 PageID #:8

for advanced displays; optical fiber, wireless technologies, and connectivity solutions for state-of- the-art communications networks[.]”

27. Defendant Corning no longer manufactures Pyrex products for consumer kitchens, but it continues to hold the registered trademark for Pyrex (and to produce Pyrex-branded products, such as beakers, for laboratory use).

World Kitchen/Corelle

28. WKI Holding Company, Inc. (World Kitchen) was incorporated in Delaware in

1991.

29. In approximately February 2018, WKI Holding Company, Inc. (World Kitchen) changed its name to Corelle Brands Holdings, Inc. as “a key step in the company's growth and development.”1

30. Defendant Corelle Brands LLC is a Delaware corporation and serves as the operating subsidiary of Defendant Corelle Brands Holdings, Inc. in the United States.2

31. Defendant Corelle Brands LLC is part of Cornell Capital, a New York-based private equity firm.3

32. Both of the Corelle Defendants—Corelle Brands Holdings, Inc. and Corelle Brands

LLC—are headquartered within this District in Rosemont, Illinois.

33. The Corelle Defendants manufacture and market cookware, bakeware, tabletop products and cutlery sold under well-known brands including CorningWare, Pyrex, Corelle,

Chicago Cutlery, Snapware and OLFA. Corelle employs about 3,000 people and has major manufacturing and distribution operations in the United States, Canada, and Asia-Pacific regions.

1https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/world-kitchen-changes-name-to-corelle-brands- 300593135.html (last visited June 15, 2018). 2 Id. 3 Id.

8 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 9 of 38 PageID #:9

34. Corelle designs, manufactures, markets and sells Pyrex products under a license issued by Corning Incorporated in approximately 1998.

APPLICATION OF ILLINOIS LAW

35. As the Plaintiff is bringing this Complaint in this District because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred here, it is appropriate that Illinois’ substantive laws apply. Corelle has its corporate headquarters in Illinois, where a number of class members bought Pyrex products, and where a number of those products shattered. Defendants also actively advertise and market their Pyrex products in Illinois. By availing themselves of the Illinois market and aggressively marketing to Illinois customers, Defendants are or should be aware that

Illinois substantive law would apply to any proceeding addressing injuries related to the Pyrex products. Copies of this Complaint will be served on the Attorney General for the state of Illinois and all others required by law.

TOLLING OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS

36. Any applicable statutes of limitations have been tolled by Defendants’ knowing and active concealment and denial of the facts alleged herein. Plaintiff and the members of the Class could not reasonably have been expected to discover the true, latent nature of the Defect prior to their purchases of Pyrex.

37. Defendants were and remain under a continuing duty to disclose to Plaintiff and the members of the Class the true character, quality and nature of the Pyrex products, including that the Shattered Defect exists and results from a poor design and/or material composition. As a result of Defendants’ active concealment, any and all statutes of limitations otherwise applicable to the allegations herein have been tolled.

9 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 10 of 38 PageID #:10

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. The Shift in Materials and the Shattered Glass Defect

38. Defendants market Pyrex directly to consumers throughout the United States through the website https://www.pyrexware.com/, which offers the “largest selection of Pyrex® products.”4 Defendants also sell Pyrex products through leading retailers in the United States, such as Target, Bed Bath & Beyond, grocery stores, local retailers and even through the on-line retailer, Amazon.com.

39. As discussed above, the glass cookware marketed by Defendant Corning as “Pyrex” beginning in about 1915 was manufactured from borosilicate glass. Starting no later than the 1980s, Defendant Corning began manufacturing Pyrex from soda lime glass instead of borosilicate glass.5 40. Soda lime glass cookware products are significantly less expensive to produce than borosilicate cookware products, because, inter alia, both raw material and energy costs are substantially lower. 41. Defendant Corning realized that it could produce soda lime Pyrex which looked just like borosilicate Pyrex but would allow a much greater profit margin if consumers did not know or understand the difference between the two materials. 42. In fact, Defendant Corning made the shift to soda lime glass very quietly and failed to retool the design to make it more appropriate for the replacement material.

43. Defendant Corning’s decision to manufacture essentially identical-looking Pyrex products from cheaper, lower quality glass not only saved it the costs of redesigning the products and publicizing this shift to consumers, but it also assured that consumers would not be able to

4 https://www.shopworldkitchen.com/pyrex/ (last visited June 15, 2018). 5 Publicly-available information regarding the timing of the change in materials is conflicting. The details of the shift from borosilicate glass to soda lime glass, and ways to distinguish the two products, will be the subject of discovery.

10 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 11 of 38 PageID #:11

tell the difference, at the point of sale, between original borosilicate products and inferior soda lime products. 44. In approximately 1998, Corning spun off its consumer products division, and licensed the U.S. rights to the Pyrex brand to Defendant Corelle (previously known as World Kitchen). When it licensed the Pyrex brand, Defendant Corelle also purchased the Pyrex manufacturing plant in Charleroi, Pennsylvania. Corelle now manufactures and sells Pyrex in the United States under a licensing agreement with Corning. 45. Notably, the company that licensed the European rights to the Pyrex brand continues to manufacture and sell only Pyrex made from safer borosilicate glass. While some occasional shattering is to be expected from any glass product, when the borosilicate Pyrex products sold in Europe shatter, the cause is generally dropping or some other physical impact, rather than changes in temperature associated with normal household use. B. Marketing and Sale of Pyrex

46. Pyrex was initially marketed as “icebox to oven” and “oven to icebox,” and Corning carefully cultivated and perpetuated the consumer perception that Pyrex could withstand any change in temperature associated with normal household cooking and freezing, even after it quietly began transitioning Pyrex from borosilicate glass to soda lime glass. 47. Defendants continue to market Pyrex in a manner that reinforces consumer perceptions formed in the borosilicate era, even though those perceptions are no longer accurate.

48. Defendants now market soda lime Pyrex products as “versatile” glassware that is

“safe to use in the oven, microwave, refrigerator, freezer and dishwasher.”6 49. Moreover, in every sale of Pyrex products, Defendants warrant that Pyrex is fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used and are free from defects.

6 Id. at footnote 4.

11 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 12 of 38 PageID #:12

50. These assertions are, however, false, misleading, deceptive and unfair. Every Class Pyrex Product was manufactured with an inherent defect that renders it likely to shatter as a result of normal household kitchen use.

51. Defendants failed to disclose the Defect to consumers at any time before, during or after purchase.

C. Defendants’ Longstanding Knowledge of the Defect

52. Defendants are undeniably aware of the Defect in Pyrex, as a result of reports in trade publications and the general media, and countless consumer complaints. These articles and complaints, examples of which are set forth below, demonstrate Defendants’ awareness of the

Defect and its failure to address the Defect in any meaningful way.

53. In approximately September 2012, the American Ceramics Society published an article entitled “Shattering glass cookware,” which concluded that Defendants’ reformulation of

Pyrex products from borosilicate glass to soda lime silicate glass reduced the products’ “thermal stress resistance,” making them vulnerable to “sudden, explosion-like failure.” R.C. Bradt and R.L.

Martens, “Shattering glass cookware,” Am. Ceramic Soc’y Bull. (Sept. 2012) (hereinafter,

“American Ceramics Society article”), at 33.

54. The American Ceramics Society article further reveals that “documented reports of incidents of dramatic shattering failures during what most kitchen cooks would consider normal use suggests that the margin of safety for avoiding thermal stress failures of soda lime silicate cookware is borderline. It does not appear to be adequate for all household cooking.” Id. at 37.

55. Defendants claim that the soda lime glass is strengthened during the manufacturing process by applying a heat strengthening or thermal tempering process.

12 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 13 of 38 PageID #:13

56. In theory, heat strengthening, or thermal tempering could increase a product’s resistance to thermal stress fracture, thereby allowing the product to withstand greater changes in temperature.

57. In theory, heat strengthening, or thermal tempering, could also provide the additional benefit of causing Class Pyrex Products that do break to shatter in a much safer manner, known as “dicing.” Dicing is the process that occurs when glass shatters into small equiaxed cubes, i.e., small pieces that have approximately the same dimensions in all directions. Dicing is seen, for example, when tempered automobile glass fractures into small fragments.

58. The authors of the American Ceramics Society article analyzed modern soda lime glass cookware, including Pyrex, using several methods, including observation of the long, sharp shards produced when those products shatter.

59. The American Ceramics Society article authors concluded that, although the soda lime glass cookware had been heat-strengthened to some degree, in actuality the heat strengthening neither: (1) substantially increased the products’ ability to withstand temperature change, nor (2) made the glassware safer by causing it to break into small, relatively uniform cubes. In the words of the authors, the heat strengthening “does not appear to be sufficient to increase substantially the thermal stress fracture resistance of the cookware, nor is it sufficient to create a desirable dicing fracture pattern[.]”

60. Instead, heat strengthening actually makes Pyrex more dangerous when it shatters as a result of thermal shock. This is because Defendants’ heat strengthening process creates internal tension in each Pyrex product. When Pyrex shatters due to thermal shock (which often happens while it is setting on a flat surface), that internal tension sends shards of glass flying through the air.

13 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 14 of 38 PageID #:14

61. In other words, as a result of the heat strengthening process, Pyrex products don’t simply crack—they explode.

62. By contrast, the original borosilicate Pyrex products, which did not require heat strengthening, were “annealed,” or essentially free of internal tension. Unlike soda lime Pyrex, borosilicate Pyrex sends glass shards flying through the air only when it is dropped (and dropping, unlike the Shattered Glass Defect, is a risk understood by most consumers).

63. The Corelle Defendants are well aware of the American Ceramics Society article, given that they sued the authors under a variety of theories, and lost on all claims following a bench trial in this Court. World Kitchen, LLC v. American Ceramic Soc’y, et al., Case No. 12-cv-8626,

2016 WL 3568723 (N.D. Ill. June 30, 2016).

64. Further, various incidents of shattered Pyrex glassware have appeared in the media, including the website of Clark Howard, a popular consumer expert and host of the nationally- syndicated Clark Howard Show, whose family experienced a “loud explosion” during a family dinner when a brand new Pyrex casserole dish exploded,7 and in YouTube postings by consumers.8

65. Additionally, examples of publicly-available customer complaints include:

Consumer No. 1: [one-star rating] My dinner was cooking in a Pyrex glassware and it exploded in my face. Luckily I was ok but my oven is destroyed and glass is all over the kitchen. Luckily no huge fire but it's very dangerous. Needs to be recalled asap.9

7 https://clark.com/family-lifestyle/pyrex-dish-explodes-clark-howard-kitchen/ (last visited June 15, 2018). 8 See, e.g., “Exploding Pyrex!” posted by Barry Zoeller at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W91fOFLhHLI on August 27, 2017 (last visited June 15, 2018); “Pyrex glass pan exploding in my kitchen. . . ,” posted by Danny Maiorani at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufMkWrVRwf0 on Oct. 26, 2016 (last visited June 15, 2018). 9 Posted by Catherine of Mount Laurel, NJ at https://www.consumeraffairs.com/homeowners/pyrex.html on April 15, 2018 (last visited June 15, 2018).

14 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 15 of 38 PageID #:15

Consumer No. 2: [one-star rating] I had a glass pyrex bowl with lid that I loved and used frequently for storage in the refrigerator. This past week I was washing dishes and put the bowl (at room temperature, it had been emptied hours earlier) in my dishwater. As I was washing another dish, the Pyrex bowl shattered into hundreds of pieces in my dishwater!! I received a few small cuts, but it could have been a lot worse! I grew up believing Pyrex was the best, so this came as a shock... Came online looking for a warranty and found that I am not alone in having exploding Pyrex. So disappointing! I have the bowl in another container should Pyrex question my veracity.10

Consumer No. 3: [one-star rating] I have had 2 glass 13 x 9 pans explode in the oven. I always have loved Pyrex but now I refuse to buy any more of them or Pyrex of any kind, I stick to metal. One pan had a beautiful roast with potatoes and vegetables. The other had chicken enchiladas, both these pans exploded and of course I had to toss the food out. Very disappointed in Pyrex, no more for me!!!11

Consumer No. 4: [one-star rating]. I bought three of these dishes in mid December 2017, to use for entertaining my family over the holidays. The second time I used my new Pyrex dish was to reheat our regular sweet corn casserole the day after Christmas. I reheated it as normal and laid it gently on my stove top. Within moments, the dish literally exploded all over my kitchen. I was injured, but thankfully, not badly. Needless to say the dish could not be eaten and I have been afraid to use the additional two dishes I purchased since.12

Consumer No. 5: [one star-rating] Exploded while Microwaving. I have had these [Pyrex Simply Store 10-piece glass food storage set] for a while and I mostly use them to store food in the fridge. When I first started using it for microwaving purposes, the plastic lid melted on the edge and had not been able to close properly. Tonight, when I put one of the smaller bowls (taken out from a cabinet under room temperature - it was not even taken out from the fridge) in the microwave for a minute and half to heat up some sesame seeds, the glass container exploded into pieces with a loud bang! Luckily, my microwave door did not spring open or it would have been really bad. When I opened the microwave door, some tiny pieces of glass fell on the counter and into the bowls that are on the counter and have my prepped dinner ingredients. I did not know there was glass pieces in my prepped food until I chewed on them! Luckily,

10 Posted by Denise of Mcgraw, NY at id. on March 25, 2018. 11 Posted by Kathleen of Folsom, CA at id. on March 8, 2018. 12 Posted by Caroline of Fort Meyers, FL at id. on Feb. 16, 2018.

15 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 16 of 38 PageID #:16

they were small enough and there was no major injury. I immediately threw my dinner away. It also took me some time to clean up the mess in the kitchen.13

Consumer No. 6: I was cooking a roast last night using a pyrex baking dish. The temperature was set on 180 degrees, which I've done hundreds of times before. Whilst baking the dish shattered, I could not salvage the food, glass was all through it. I'm very disappointed in the product. Everything had to be thrown away. Not to mention the time it took to get rid of all the glass and oil. I would like to be compensated in some way for this.14

Consumer No. 7: I open a can of soup put soup in a Pyrex bowl and placed in microwave for 2 min. Removed bowl and was on about the 4th spoon of soup when I felt some thing sharp in my mouth upon spiting it out to examine I seen a piece of white glass so compared I to the chip on edge of bowl I got a ziplock bag placed the soup and placed broke pieces and the bowl bottom fell off the already badly broken bowl so I am now going to the ER to be sure I have no glass in me so my question is; should I seek a injury Attorney or can you handle this matter.15

Consumer No. 8: I took my 2 Pyrex dishes out of oven after making dinner. I place[d one on the] counter on dry cloth and the other on top of stove. I walked to trash can heard a loud noise and the pan blew up all over the kitchen my children were in there thank good no one was really hurt just some cuts from glass. The explosion was so bad it broke the plastic on my coffee maker.16

66. Defendants are experienced in the design and manufacture of Pyrex products, and likely conducted and continue to conduct testing on their Pyrex products. Such tests would be designed to assure quality control and to verify that the Pyrex products are free from defects. As a result, Defendants knew or should have known that Pyrex suffered from the Defect.

13 Posted by Snala at https://www.amazon.com/Pyrex-Simply-Store-10-Piece-Storage/product- reviews/B00005B8K5/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_hist_1?filterByStar=one_star&pageNumber=1 on March 2, 2016 (last visited June 15, 2018). 14 Posted by Shelley Cooper of Harrismith, WA at http://www.hissingkitty.com/complaints- department/pyrex-cookware on Dec. 15, 2017 (last visited June 15, 2018). 15 Posted by Karen Hering of Phoenix, AZ at id. on Nov. 21, 2017. 16 Posted by Lisa Ketchum of Fort Myers, FL at id. on Oct. 14, 2017.

16 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 17 of 38 PageID #:17

67. Each of the Pyrex products included in the Class is defectively designed and formulated, making them susceptible to the Defect upon thermal changes encountered in normal household food storage, heating and cooking.

68. Plaintiff and Class members have suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ deceptive practices, including but not limited to the fact that Pyrex products suffer from the Defect, which entirely destroys the products along with damaging items in consumers’ homes (including the food they held), damaging the homes themselves, and posing a risk of injury to consumers.

69. Consumers not only lose money they paid for dangerous Pyrex products, but many must also spend money to address any related damage to other items in their homes, the homes themselves, and any injuries that occur as a result of the Defect.

70. Trade publications, lawsuits, media reports and readily searchable third-party sites collectively demonstrate that Defendants were or should have been aware of the Defect. Despite this knowledge, Defendants have failed to implement any changes to address and remedy the

Defect or the way they formulate, compose, design, market and sell Pyrex to consumers.

71. Defendants have attempted to avoid liability for their dangerous product by adding a set of complex and contradictory warnings to their website and packaging inserts. These warnings—which are inconsistent with well-known consumer perceptions about Pyrex that

Defendants carefully crafted during the borosilicate years and intentionally maintained despite the change to soda lime glass—confusingly advise consumers that they should avoid “sudden temperature changes to glassware” yet that Pyrex is “intended for normal household use,” can be inserted into a preheated oven (with no apparent temperature limit), and “can be used for cooking, baking, warming and reheating food in microwave ovens and preheated conventional or convection ovens.”

17 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 18 of 38 PageID #:18

72. Defendants know or should know that their conflicting and confusing warnings are not likely to be read or fully understood by most consumers, whom Defendants have conditioned over decades to expect that Pyrex is fit for all household kitchen uses. Defendants thus know or should know that the warnings are no substitute for correcting the Defect.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

73. Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf, and on behalf of the following Class pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and/or 23(b)(3). Specifically, the Class consists of the following: National Class: All persons in the United States who purchased one or more Class Pyrex Product(s) for household use;

Or, in the alternative,

Ohio Class: All persons in Ohio who purchased one or more Class Pyrex Product(s) for household use.

74. Together, the National Class and Ohio Class shall be collectively referred to herein as the “Class.” Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their employees, officers and directors; persons or entities that purchased Pyrex for purposes of resale; and the Judge(s) assigned to this case.

75. Numerosity: The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. While the exact number and identities of individual members of the Class are unknown to Plaintiff at this time because such information is in the possession of Defendants and obtainable by Plaintiff only through the discovery process, Plaintiff believes that the Class consists of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of persons and entities that were deceived by

Defendants’ conduct.

18 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 19 of 38 PageID #:19

76. Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Fact and Law: Common questions of fact and law exist as to all members of the Class. These questions predominate over the questions affecting individual Class members. These common factual and legal questions include, but are not limited to:

a. whether Defendants misrepresented the quality and characteristics of Pyrex;

b. whether Pyrex has a Defect due to an inappropriate design, formulation or

material composition;

c. whether Defendants omitted the Defect from their disclosure of the properties

of Pyrex to consumers;

d. whether Defendants’ conduct violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and

Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq;

e. whether Defendants’ conduct violated the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade

Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq.;

f. whether Defendants’ conduct violated the implied warranty of merchantability

under the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code, 810 ILCS 5/2-314;

g. whether Defendants’ conduct violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act,

Ohio Rev. Code §§ 1345.01 et seq.;

h. whether Defendants’ conduct violated the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act,

Ohio Rev. Code. Ch. 4165;

i. whether Defendants’ conduct violated the Ohio Uniform Commercial Code,

Ohio Rev. Code §§ 1302.01 et seq.

j. whether Defendants breached express warranties under the Magnuson-Moss

Warranty Act;

19 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 20 of 38 PageID #:20

k. whether Defendants’ conduct resulted in unlawful common law fraud;

l. whether Defendants’ conduct resulted in unlawful negligent misrepresentation;

m. whether Defendants were unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff and the

Class;

n. whether Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the violations alleged

herein;

o. whether Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to monetary damages and/or

other remedies and, if so, the nature of any such relief; and

p. whether the law of Illinois should be applied to the entire Class because much

of the relevant conduct emanated from within Illinois and Illinois is the location

of the Corelle Defendants’ corporate headquarters.

77. Typicality: All of Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class since

Defendants advertised and marketed each Pyrex product included in the Class with the same type of false and/or misleading statements, regardless of model or cookware type. Plaintiff and all members of the Class sustained monetary and economic injuries including, but not limited to, ascertainable losses arising out of Defendants’ wrongful conduct. Plaintiff is advancing the same claims and legal theories on behalf of herself and all absent Class members.

78. Adequacy: Plaintiff is an adequate Class representative because her interests do not materially or irreconcilably conflict with the interests of the Class that she seeks to represent, she has retained counsel competent and highly experienced in complex consumer class action litigation, and she intends to prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of the Class will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiff and her counsel.

79. Superiority: A class action is superior to all other available means of fair and

20 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 21 of 38 PageID #:21

efficient adjudication of the claims of Plaintiff and members of the Class. The injury suffered by each individual Class member is relatively small in comparison to the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex and extensive litigation necessitated by Defendants’ conduct. It would be virtually impossible for members of the Class individually to effectively redress the wrongs done to them. Even if the members of the Class could afford such individual litigation, the court system could not. Individualized litigation presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. Individualized litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties and to the court system presented by the complex legal and factual issues of the case. By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties, and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. Members of the Class can be readily identified and notified based on, inter alia, Defendants’ records and databases.

80. Defendants have acted, and refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to the

Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive and equitable relief with respect to the Class as a whole.

81. Illinois’ substantive laws may be constitutionally applied to the claims of Plaintiff and the Class under the Due Process Clause, 14th Amend., § 1, and the Full Faith and Credit

Clause, art. IV., § 1, of the U.S. Constitution. Illinois has significant contact, or significant aggregation of contacts, to the claims asserted by Plaintiff and all Class members, thereby creating state interests that ensure that the choice of Illinois state law is not arbitrary or unfair. Specifically, the Corelle Defendants have their corporate headquarters in Illinois, Defendants have advertised and sold their products in Illinois, and upon information and belief, the conduct that gave rise to

Plaintiff’s claims emanated from Illinois.

21 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 22 of 38 PageID #:22

VIOLATIONS ALLEGED

COUNT I VIOLATIONS OF ILLINOIS’ CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT (“CFA”) (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.) (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class)

82. Plaintiff and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs of this Class Action Complaint as though set forth fully herein.

83. The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS

505/1 et seq. (“CFA”), protects consumers against “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited to the use or employment of any deception fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact.”

84. Plaintiff and Class members are consumers who purchased Pyrex for household use.

85. As consumers, Plaintiff and Class members may sue Defendants because their business activities involve trade or commerce, are addressed to the market generally, and otherwise implicate consumer protection concerns.

86. In the course of Defendants’ business, Defendants violated the CFA by knowingly concealing, suppressing, and/or omitting the fact that Pyrex is defective, with the intent that

Plaintiff and the putative Class rely upon that concealment, suppression, and/or omission when purchasing Pyrex products.

22 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 23 of 38 PageID #:23

87. The Defect, which manifests in all of the Pyrex products included in the Class, destroys the products completely, rendering them entirely unusable.

88. Defendants have engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices under the CFA, including representing that Pyrex has characteristics, uses, benefits, and qualities which it does not have; representing that Pyrex is of a particular standard and quality when it is not; advertising

Pyrex with the intent to not sell it as advertised; and otherwise engaging in conduct likely to deceive. Further, Defendants’ acts and practices described herein offend established public policy because of the harm they cause to consumers, and because Defendants fraudulently concealed the defective nature of Pyrex from consumers.

89. Defendants’ actions as set forth above occurred in the conduct of trade or commerce.

90. Defendants’ conduct caused Plaintiff and Class members to suffer an ascertainable loss. Plaintiff and the other Class members bought Pyrex products they otherwise would not have, overpaid for their Pyrex products and did not receive the benefit of their bargain. Plaintiff and

Class members have also incurred replacement costs for their Pyrex products.

91. Plaintiff and other Class members’ damages are the direct and foreseeable result of

Defendants’ unlawful conduct. Had the Defect been disclosed, consumers would not have purchased or would have paid less for Pyrex products, would have been spared the subsequent expenses and inconvenience, and would not have been exposed to a dangerous situation.

92. Pursuant to 815 ILCS 505/10, Plaintiff will serve the Illinois Attorney General with a copy of this Complaint.

COUNT II

23 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 24 of 38 PageID #:24

VIOLATIONS OF ILLINOIS’ UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (“UDTPA”) (815 ILCS 510/1 et seq.) (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class)

93. Plaintiff and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs of this Class Action Complaint as though set forth fully herein.

94. Under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCS 510/1 et seq.

(“UDTPA”), a “person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of his or her business, vocation, or occupation,” the person does any of the following: (2) causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services; . . . (5) represents that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection that he or she does not have; . . . (7) represents that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another; . . . (9) advertises goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised; . . . [and] (12) engages in any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding.”

95. Defendants are “persons” within the meaning of 815 ILCS 510/1(5).

96. Defendants’ actions, as alleged herein, constitute deceptive, unfair, fraudulent and unlawful practices committed in violation of 815 ILCS 510 et seq.

97. All of the conduct and misrepresentations alleged herein occurred in the course of

Defendants’ business and was part of a pattern or generalized course of conduct.

24 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 25 of 38 PageID #:25

98. As pled more fully above, Defendants knew of the Defect and that Pyrex posed a risk of shattering, yet they concealed that knowledge and mispresented to consumers and the public that their Pyrex was fit for home use.

99. Despite their knowledge of the potential for Pyrex to shatter, Defendants failed to issue a warning or to replace Pyrex products and instead concealed the Defect for years and are still concealing it today.

100. Plaintiff and Class members reasonably expected that Defendants would disclose the existence of the Defect to them and also reasonably expected that Defendants would not sell a product for home use that would result in shattered Pyrex products, information which is and was material to Plaintiff and Class members.

101. Defendants, at all times relevant, knew or should have known, that Plaintiff and

Class members did not know of, nor could they have reasonably been expected to discover, the potential of Pyrex to shatter, and that Defendants were in exclusive possession of the knowledge of the Defect.

102. By concealing the potential destruction of their Pyrex products due to the Defect and representing that Pyrex was fit for use in consumers’ homes, Defendants engaged in actionable conduct within the meaning of the UDTPA.

103. Had Plaintiff and the Class Members known of the potential of Pyrex to shatter due to the Defect, they would not have purchased the Pyrex products or would have paid substantially less for them.

104. Defendants’ deceptive, unfair, fraudulent and unlawful conduct alleged herein was specifically designed to and did induce Plaintiff and Class members to purchase Pyrex products for use in their homes.

25 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 26 of 38 PageID #:26

105. Defendants violated the UDTPA when they concealed and/or failed to disclose the potential damage to Pyrex products posed by the Shattered Glass, and concealed and/or failed to disclose the fact that the products were defective as described herein when they had a duty to disclose such information, and instead sold the products as if they were fit for ordinary purposes and did not pose a risk of shattering.

106. Plaintiff and Class members lost time and money when their Class products shattered.

107. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of the UDTPA alleged herein, Plaintiff and Class members were damaged.

COUNT III VIOLATIONS OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY PROTECTIONS UNDER ILLINOIS’ UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (“UCC”) (810 ILCS 5/2-314 et seq.) (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class)

108. Plaintiff and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs of this Class Action Complaint as though set forth fully herein.

109. The purchase of Pyrex by Plaintiff and Class members constituted a “sale of goods” under the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), 810 ILCS 5/2-106.

110. Defendants were merchants with respect to Pyrex under the Illinois UCC, 810 ILCS

5/2-104.

111. The Pyrex products purchased by Plaintiff and Class members were not

“merchantable” at the time of sale, as required by the Illinois UCC, 810 ILCS 5/2-314(2), because they were defectively designed, formulated or composed, and they posed serious and immediate risk of destruction to the Pyrex products.

26 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 27 of 38 PageID #:27

112. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants were under a duty imposed by law requiring that a manufacturer or seller’s product be reasonably fit for the ordinary purposes for which the product is used, and that the product be acceptable in trade for the product description.

This implied warranty of merchantability is part of the basis of the bargain between Defendants, on the one hand, and Plaintiff and Class members, on the other.

113. Notwithstanding the aforementioned duty, at the time of delivery, Defendants breached the implied warranty of merchantability in that Pyrex was defective and poses a risk of destruction, would not pass without objection, is not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods manufactured from Pyrex are used (i.e., effectively and efficiently storing, heating and serving food), and failed to conform to the standard performance of like products used in the trade.

114. Defendants knew or should have known that their Pyrex products pose the risk of destruction and are defective and knew or should have known that selling Pyrex to Plaintiff and

Class members constituted a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

115. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, Plaintiff and Class members bought Pyrex without knowledge of the Defect or potential risk of destruction.

116. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, Plaintiff and Class members purchased defective products which could not safely be used for their intended purpose of effectively and efficiently storing, heating and serving food.

117. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, Plaintiff and Class members have suffered damages.

118. Defendants were unjustly enriched by keeping the profits for their unsafe products while never having to incur the costs of repair, replacement, or a recall.

27 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 28 of 38 PageID #:28

COUNT IV VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES ACT (Ohio Rev. Code §§ 1345.01 et seq.) (On Behalf of the Ohio Class)

119. Plaintiff and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs of this Class Action Complaint as though set forth fully herein.

120. Plaintiff and the Class members are “consumers” within the meaning of the Ohio

Consumer Sales Practices Act, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.01(D) (“CSPA”).

121. Defendants are “suppliers” as defined by Ohio Revised Code §1345.01(C).

122. Defendants’ conduct described herein involves “consumer transactions” as defined in Ohio Revised Code § 1345.01(A).

123. Defendants have engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in connection with a consumer transaction, including representing that Pyrex has characteristics, uses, benefits, and qualities which it does not have; representing that Pyrex is of a particular standard and quality when it is not; advertising Pyrex with the intent to not sell it as advertised; and otherwise engaging in conduct likely to deceive.

124. Defendants’ misrepresentations and false, deceptive, and misleading statements with respect to Pyrex, as described above, constitute deceptive acts or practices.

125. Defendants’ false, unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable acts have previously been declared to be false, unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable by the Ohio Attorney General, who has made the following materials, among others, publicly available for inspection, which materials declare actions similar to Defendants’ to be unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable:

 In the matter of Gateway Distributors, Ltd., June 14, 2006, Attorney General Public Inspection File Number 10002461 (company “shall not make any express

28 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 29 of 38 PageID #:29

or implied statements in the offer or sale of [its] products that have capacity, tendency or effect of deceiving or misleading consumers or that fail to state any material fact, the omission of which deceives or tends to deceive consumers);

 In re MillerCoors, December 23, 2008, Attorney General Public Inspection File Number 10002740 (company agrees to stop manufacturing, marketing, and providing unsafe product until product is reformulated);

 Ohio v Purdue Pharma, Inc., May 08, 2007, Franklin County Case Number 07- CVH-05-6195, Attorney General Public Inspection File Number 10002558 (company prohibited from making misleading statements regarding the use of its product);

 Ohio v. The Dannon Co., Inc., December 22, 2010, Franklin County Case Number 10-CVH-12-18225, Attorney General Public Inspection File number 10002917 (along with $21 million payment, company enjoined from making any express or implied claims about certain characteristics of its product)

 Ohio v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, June 23, 2011, Lucas County Case Number CI- 2011-3928, Attorney General Public Inspection File Number 10002956 (along with paying $40.75 million, company shall not make any written or oral claim for the products that is false, misleading or deceptive or represent that the products have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, quantities, or qualities that products do not have, or cause likelihood or confusion or misunderstanding as to products’ source, sponsorship, or certification); and

 In re Warner-Lambert Company, LLC, May 13, 2014, Attorney General Public Inspection File Number 10002243 (company agrees, inter alia, not to make false, misleading, or deceptive oral or written claims about its product).

126. It is also a deceptive act or practice for purposes of the Ohio CSPA if a supplier makes representations, claims, or assertions of fact in the absence of a reasonable basis in fact, as

Ohio Admin. Code § 109:4-3-10(A) specifically proscribes such statements:

Make any representations, claims or assertions of fact, whether orally or in writing, which would cause a reasonable consumer to believe such statements are true, unless, at the time such representations, claims or assertions are made, the supplier possesses or relies upon a reasonable basis in fact such as factual, objective, quantifiable, clinical or scientific data or other competent and reliable evidence which substantiates such representations, claims or assertions of fact.

127. As a result of their misrepresentations and false, deceptive, and misleading statements with respect to Pyrex, as described above, Defendants have violated the Ohio

29 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 30 of 38 PageID #:30

Consumer Sales Practices Act, Ohio Revised Code §1345.02.

128. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violation of the Ohio Consumer

Sales Practices Act, Ohio Revised Code § 1345.02, Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered actual damages, the full amount of which will be proven at trial.

129. Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §1345.09(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Plaintiff and

Ohio Class Members are entitled to rescind the consumer transactions or recover actual damages, plus an amount not exceeding $5,000 in non-economic damages.

130. Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §1345.09(E), Plaintiff and Ohio Class Members seek an order enjoining the above-described wrongful acts and practices of Defendants and for restitution and disgorgement.

131. Pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §1345.09(F), Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

132. Pursuant to Section 1345.09(E), this Complaint will be served upon the Ohio

Attorney General.

COUNT V VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (Ohio Rev. Code. Ch. 4165) (On Behalf of the Ohio Class)

133. Plaintiff and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs of this Class Action Complaint as though set forth fully herein.

134. Defendants are “persons” as defined in Ohio Revised Code § 4165.01(D).

135. In violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 4165.02(A), Defendants have engaged in a deceptive trade practice by using deceptive representations in connection with goods; representing that goods have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, uses or benefits that they do not have;

30 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 31 of 38 PageID #:31

represent that goods are of a particular standard, quality, or grade when they are of another; and advertise goods with intent not to sell them as advertised.

136. As a result of their deceptive trade practices with respect to Pyrex, Defendants have violated the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ohio Revised Code § 4165.02(A).

137. Defendants’ violations of Ohio’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act have caused

Plaintiff and Class Members actual damages.

138. Plaintiff and the Class seek actual damages and/or equitable relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, and to enjoin Defendants on the terms that the Court considers reasonable.

COUNT VI VIOLATIONS OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY PROTECTIONS UNDER OHIO’S UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (“UCC”) (Ohio Rev. Code §§ 1302.01 et seq.) (On Behalf of the Ohio Class)

139. Plaintiff and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs of this Class Action Complaint as though set forth fully herein.

140. As purchasers of Pyrex products, Plaintiff and Class members were “buyers” of

“goods” under the Ohio Revised Code § 1302.01.

141. Defendants were “merchants” with respect to Pyrex under the Ohio Revised Code

§ 1302.01.

142. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants were under a duty imposed by law requiring that the goods they sold would: (1) pass without objection in the trade under the description; (2) be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; (3) conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label. Ohio Revised Code § 1302.27.

31 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 32 of 38 PageID #:32

This implied warranty of merchantability is part of the basis of the bargain between Defendants, on the one hand, and Plaintiff and Class members, on the other.

143. The Pyrex products purchased by Plaintiff and Class members were not

“merchantable” at the time of sale because they did pass without objection in the trade under the description; they were not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; and they did not conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.

144. Defendants knew or should have known that Pyrex posed the risk of destruction and was defective and knew or should have known that selling Pyrex to Plaintiff and Class members constituted a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

145. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, Plaintiff and Class members bought Pyrex products without knowledge of the

Defect or potential risk of destruction.

146. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, Plaintiff and Class members purchased defective products which could not safely be used for their intended purpose of effectively and efficiently storing, heating and serving food.

147. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, Plaintiff and Class members have suffered damages.

COUNT VII BREACH OF WRITTEN WARRANTY UNDER THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class, or Alternatively, the Ohio Class)

148. Plaintiff and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs of this Class Action Complaint as though set forth fully herein.

32 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 33 of 38 PageID #:33

149. Plaintiff and the Class members are “consumers” within the meaning of the

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3).

150. Defendants are “suppliers” and “warrantors” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C.

§§ 2301(4)-(5).

151. Pyrex products are “consumer products” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §

2301(1).

152. Defendants’ warranties, including Corelle’s Limited Two-Year Warranty, which promises “replace any Pyrex product that breaks from oven heat” within two years of the date of purchase, are “written warranties” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 2301(6).

153. Defendants have breached the express warranties by refusing and/or failing to honor the express warranties by repairing or replacing, free of charge, the shattered Pyrex products.

154. Plaintiff and the Class members relied on the existence and length of the express warranties in deciding whether to purchase the Pyrex products.

155. Defendants’ breach of the express warranties has deprived Plaintiff and Class members of the benefit of their bargain.

156. The amount in controversy of Plaintiff’s individual claims meets or exceeds the sum or value of $25.00. In addition, the amount in controversy meets or exceeds the sum or value of $50,000 (exclusive of interests and costs) computed on the basis of all claims to be determined in this suit.

157. Defendants have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to cure their breach of the written warranties and/or Plaintiff and the other Class members were not required to do so because providing Defendants a reasonable opportunity to cure their breach of written warranties would have been futile; replacement of a defective Pyrex product with another defective Pyrex product

33 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 34 of 38 PageID #:34

would be futile. Defendants were on notice of the Defect from the complaints and service requests they received from Class members, as well as from their own warranty claims, customer complaint data, and/or trade publications, media reports and third-party consumer websites.

158. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ breach of the written warranties,

Plaintiff and the other Class members sustained damages and other losses in an amount to be determined at trial. Defendants’ conduct damaged Plaintiff and the other Class members, who are entitled to recover actual damages, consequential damages, specific performance, diminution in value, costs, including statutory attorney fees, and/or other relief as deemed appropriate.

COUNT VIII COMMON LAW FRAUD (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class, or Alternatively, the Ohio Class)

159. Plaintiff and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs of this Class Action Complaint as though set forth fully herein.

160. Defendants made material misstatements of fact to Plaintiff and Class members regarding the non-defective nature of Pyrex. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class were fraudulently induced to purchase Pyrex products.

161. These misstatements by Defendants were made with knowledge of their falsity and misleading nature, and with the intent that Plaintiff and members of the Class would rely upon them.

162. As described herein, Defendants fraudulently sold Pyrex with the Defect that effectively prevented purchasers from purchasing Pyrex without a defect.

163. At the time that Defendants made these misrepresentations and concealments, and at the time that Plaintiff and Class members purchased Pyrex products, Plaintiff and the Class were

34 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 35 of 38 PageID #:35

unaware of the false and misleading nature of these misrepresentations, and reasonably believed them to be true.

164. In making these representations, Defendants knew they were false and misleading and intended that the Plaintiff and Class members would rely upon such misrepresentations.

165. Plaintiff and Class members did in fact rely upon Defendants’ misrepresentations concerning the non-defective nature of Pyrex.

166. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ deceptive, fraudulent, and unfair practices, Plaintiff and Class members have suffered injury in fact and/or actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

167. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, demands judgment against Defendants for damages and declaratory relief.

COUNT IX NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class, or Alternatively, the Ohio Class)

168. Plaintiff and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs of this Class Action Complaint as though set forth fully herein.

169. Under the circumstances alleged, Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff and the Class to provide them with non-defective Pyrex products.

170. Defendants represented to Plaintiff and Class members that by purchasing Pyrex products, they would be enjoying non-defective Pyrex products which is not what they actually received.

171. Defendants’ representations, as described herein, were false, negligent and material.

35 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 36 of 38 PageID #:36

172. Defendants negligently made these misrepresentations with the understanding that

Plaintiff and Class members would rely upon them.

173. Plaintiff and Class members did in fact reasonably rely upon these misrepresentations and concealments by Defendants.

174. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ negligent actions, Plaintiff and

Class members have suffered injury in fact and/or actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

175. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, demands judgment against Defendants for damages and declaratory relief.

COUNT X UNJUST ENRICHMENT (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class, or Alternatively, the Ohio Class)

176. Plaintiff and the Class reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs of this Class Action Complaint as though set forth fully herein.

177. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of herself and on behalf of the members of the Class against Defendants.

178. Plaintiff and members of the Class conferred a benefit on Defendants by purchasing

Pyrex products.

179. Defendants had knowledge that this benefit was conferred upon them.

180. Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff and the Class, and their retention of this benefit under the circumstances would be inequitable.

181. Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendants to make restitution to her and the other members of the Class.

36 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 37 of 38 PageID #:37

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and members of the Class, respectfully requests that this Court: A. Determine that the claims alleged herein may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and issue an order certifying one or more Classes as defined above;

B. Appoint Plaintiff as the representative of the Class and her counsel as Class counsel; C. Award all actual, general, special (including treble), incidental, statutory, and consequential damages to which Plaintiff and Class members are entitled; D. Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary relief; E. Grant appropriate injunctive and/or declaratory relief;

F. Award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and G. Grant such further relief that this Court deems appropriate.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff respectfully demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Dated: June 15, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Nyran Rose Rasche Nyran Rose Rasche Brian P. O’Connell CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 150 South Wacker Street Suite 3000 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]

37 Case: 1:18-cv-04198 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/15/18 Page 38 of 38 PageID #:38

Bryan L. Clobes CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 1101 Market Street Suite 2650 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 Telephone: (215) 864-2800 E-Mail: [email protected]

Joseph G. Sauder Matthew D. Schelkopf Joseph B. Kenney SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 555 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, Pennsylvania 19312 Telephone: 888.711.9975 Facsimile: 610.727.4360 E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class

38