Case 1:12-md-02413-RRM-RLM Document 51 Filed 12/03/13 Page 1 of 61 PageID #: 797 MILBERG LLP ARIANA J. TADLER HENRY J. KELSTON One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 Facsimile: (212) 868-1229 [email protected] [email protected] REESE RICHMAN LLP MICHAEL R. REESE KIM E. RICHMAN 875 Avenue of Americas, 18th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 [email protected] [email protected] Interim Class Counsel UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ) ) ) CASE NO. 1:12-MD-02413-RRM-RLM ) Frito-Lay North America, Inc. “All Natural” ) AMENDED CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT Litigation ) ) CLASS ACTION ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) ) ) Case 1:12-md-02413-RRM-RLM Document 51 Filed 12/03/13 Page 2 of 61 PageID #: 798 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................................................1 I. NATURE OF THE ACTION............................................................................................2 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE........................................................................................4 III. PARTIES ............................................................................................................................6 A. Plaintiffs...................................................................................................................6 B. Defendants .............................................................................................................10 C. Both PepsiCo and Frito-Lay Actively Engage in the Advertising and Marketing of the Products as “All Natural” and Profit Therefrom. ........................................11 IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS..........................................................................................16 A. Defendants Advertise and Market Tostitos, SunChips and Bean Dip as “All Natural”..................................................................................................................16 B. GMOs Are Not Natural..........................................................................................24 C. Tostitos, SunChips and Bean Dip Are Made From GMOs ...................................27 D. Defendants Deceptively Market the Products as “All Natural” to Induce Consumers to Purchase the Products .....................................................................27 E. Plaintiffs Were Damaged.......................................................................................29 V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ...............................................................................30 A. Numerosity—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1). ......................................32 B. Commonality and Predominance—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3). .................................................................................................................33 C. Typicality—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3)..........................................34 D. Adequacy of Representation—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4).............34 E. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). ...34 F. Superiority—Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). .......................................35 i Case 1:12-md-02413-RRM-RLM Document 51 Filed 12/03/13 Page 3 of 61 PageID #: 799 VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ..................................................................................................35 COUNT I Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq. (Brought on Behalf of the Nationwide Classes) ..................................................35 COUNT II Violation of New York General Business Law § 349 (Deceptive Acts and Practices) (Brought on Behalf of the Nationwide Classes, NY-CA-FL Classes, and New York Classes)..........................................................................................37 COUNT III Violation of New York General Business Law § 350 (False Advertising(Brought on Behalf of the Nationwide Classes, NY-CA-FL Classes, and New York Classes)) .......................................................................................38 COUNT IV Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17500 et seq. (Brought on behalf of California Classes) .............................................................39 COUNT V Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq (Brought on behalf of California Classes) .............................................................40 COUNT VI Violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act – Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq. (Brought on behalf of California Classes)...........................42 COUNT VII Violation of the Florida Deceptive And Unfair Trade Practices Act § 501.201 et seq. ......................................................................................................44 COUNT VIII Breach of Express Warranty Under New York Law (Brought on Behalf of the Nationwide Classes, NY-CA-FL Classes and New York Classes) ............45 COUNT IX Breach of Express Warranty Under California Law (Brought on Behalf of the California Classes) ...........................................................................................46 COUNT X Breach of Express Warranty Under Florida Law (Brought on Behalf of the Florida Classes)................................................................................................48 COUNT XI Intentional Misrepresentation Under New York Law (Brought on Behalf of the Nationwide Classes, NY-CA-FL Classes and New York Classes) ............49 COUNT XII Intentional Misrepresentation Under California Law (Brought on Behalf of the California Classes) ......................................................................................50 COUNT XIII Intentional Misrepresentation Under Florida Law (Brought on Behalf of the Florida Classes)................................................................................................51 REQUEST FOR RELIEF ...........................................................................................................52 JURY DEMAND..........................................................................................................................53 ii Case 1:12-md-02413-RRM-RLM Document 51 Filed 12/03/13 Page 4 of 61 PageID #: 800 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This Amended Consolidated Complaint is brought against PepsiCo, Inc. (which has its headquarters in New York) and Frito-Lay North America, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”) by individual consumers residing in New York, California and Florida, alleging that Defendants deceptively and misleadingly marketed certain products as “all natural” when, in fact, those products contained unnatural, genetically-modified organisms. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and nationwide classes seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the statutory and common law of the State of New York, and monetary damages pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the statutory and common law of the State of New York. Alternatively, Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a multi-state class of residents of the states of New York, California and Florida seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the statutory and common law of the State of New York, and a multi-state class of residents of the states of New York, California and Florida seeking monetary damages pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the statutory and common law of the State of New York. Alternatively, Plaintiff Shake brings this action on behalf of himself and a class of New York residents seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2), and a class of New York residents seeking monetary damages pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), for violations of the statutory and common law of the State of New York; Plaintiffs Gengo and Zuro bring this action on behalf 1 Case 1:12-md-02413-RRM-RLM Document 51 Filed 12/03/13 Page 5 of 61 PageID #: 801 of themselves and a class of California residents seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2), and a class of California residents seeking monetary damages pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), for violations of the statutory and common law of the State of California; and Plaintiff Lawson brings this action on behalf of herself and a class of Florida residents seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2), and a class of Florida residents seeking monetary damages pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), for violations of the statutory and common law of the State of Florida.1 The allegations in this Amended Consolidated Complaint are based on the personal knowledge of each of the Plaintiffs as to themselves, and on information and belief as to all other matters. I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Plaintiffs allege that from January 1, 2010 through the present