UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

Luis Guilin, On Behalf of Himself and All 

Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 11 cv 07763

CLASS ACTION

Judge James B. Zagel

Magistrate Judge Sidney I. Schenkier

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Luis Guilin, by and through his attorneys, brings this action on behalf of himself

and all others similarly situated against Defendant Walgreen Co. and alleges as follows: 

NATURE OF ACTION

1. Walgreen markets, sells and distributes Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex, a 

line of six joint health dietary supplements.1 All of the six products bear the name Glucosamine 

Chondroitin in bold, large letters, prominently at the top front of each label. The primary 

purported active ingredients in all of Walgreen’s Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex products

are glucosamine hydrochloride and chondroitin sulfate. Through an extensive, widespread, 

comprehensive and uniform nationwide marketing campaign, Walgreen promises that

Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex will help build cartilage, lubricate joints and improve joint 

comfort. On the front of each box of Walgreen’s six Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex

products, where consumers cannot miss it, Defendant claims that the Products will help to 

 1 The Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex line includes: (1) Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex Triple Strength; (2) 

Glucosamine Chondroitin MSM Complex; (3) Glucosamine Chondroitin Double Strength; (4) Glucosamine 

Chondroitin Complex Triple Strength with Vitamin D; (5) Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex Advanced plus 

MSM; and (6) Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex Advanced (collectively, “Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex” or 

“the Products”). 

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:156
- 2 -

“rebuild cartilage” and “lubricate joints.” Defendant also states that Glucosamine Chondroitin

Complex is “formulated to help with joint comfort”.

2

2. Prominently displayed on the Products’ labels are the deceptive taglines: “rebuild 

cartilage”, “lubricate joints” and “joint comfort.” (collectively referred to as “the joint health 

benefit representations”). No limitations accompany these taglines such that the take-away is 

that Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex will provide these specific joint related benefits for all 

joints in the human body, for adults of all ages and for all manner and stages of joint related 

ailments. In this vein, every Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex product label depicts persons

running and has circles or highlighting around a variety of joints including the runners’ elbows, 

hips, knees and ankles. 

3. In truth, Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex does not rebuild cartilage, lubricate 

joints or improve joint comfort. Clinical cause and effect studies have found that the primary 

active ingredients in the Products, glucosamine and chondroitin, are ineffective, taken alone or in 

combination, with regard to the purported joint health benefits represented on the Products’

packaging and labeling. As a recent study sponsored by the National Institute of Health (“NIH”) 

concluded: “The analysis of the primary outcome measure did not show that either [glucosamine 

or chondroitin], alone or in combination, was efficacious. . . .” Clegg, D., et al., Glucosamine, 

Chondroitin Sulfate, and the Two in Combination for Painful Knee Osteoarthritis, 354 New 

England J. of Med. 795, 806 (2006) (“2006 GAIT Study”). As a result, in addition to 

affirmatively misrepresenting the joint health benefits of its Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex 

products, the failure of Walgreen to disclose the facts regarding these studies also constitutes 

deception by omission or concealment. Thus, Walgreen’s joint health benefit representations

and omissions are false, misleading and reasonably likely to deceive the public.

4. Despite the deceptive nature of Walgreen’s representations, Walgreen conveys 

 2 Walgreen makes the “joint comfort” representation on four of the Products: (1) Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex 

Triple Strength; (2) Glucosamine Chondroitin MSM Complex (the product purchased by Plaintiff); (3) Glucosamine 

Chondroitin Double Strength; and (4) Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex Triple Strength with Vitamin D.

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 2 of 21 PageID #:157
- 3 -

its uniform, deceptive message to consumers through a variety of media including its website 

and online promotional materials, and, most important, at the point of purchase, on the front of 

the Products’ packaging/labeling where it cannot be missed by consumers. The only reason a 

consumer would purchase Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex is to obtain the advertised joint 

health benefits, which the Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex products do not provide. 

5. As a result of Walgreen’s deceptive claims, consumers – including Plaintiff and 

the proposed Class – have purchased products that do not perform as advertised. 

6. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated 

consumers to halt the dissemination of this false and misleading advertising message, correct the 

false and misleading perception it has created in the minds of consumers, and obtain redress for 

those who have purchased the Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex products. Plaintiff alleges 

violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act

created by Walgreen’s advertising, including false labeling. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. The Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2). The 

matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000 

and is a class action in which there are in excess of 100 class members and some of the 

members of the class are citizens of states different from Defendant. 

8. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 in that many of the 

acts and transactions giving rise to the alleged claims occurred in this District and because 

Walgreen is an Illinois Corporation, headquartered in this District and does substantial business

within this District.

PARTIES

9. Plaintiff Luis Guilin resides in Calexico, California. On or around spring 2011, 

Plaintiff Guilin was exposed to and saw Walgreen’s representations by reading the label of the

Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex with MSM product at a Walgreen store in El Centro, 

California. In reliance on the joint health benefit representations on the front of the label, 

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 3 of 21 PageID #:158
- 4 -

Plaintiff purchased the Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex with MSM and paid approximately 

$20 for the bottle. After using the Product as directed, Plaintiff did not experience any of the 

represented joint health benefits. Believing that if he continued using the Product it would 

work, Plaintiff purchased another bottle of Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex with MSM in El 

Centro. However, after using approximately half of this bottle and having experienced no joint 

health benefits, Plaintiff stopped using the Product. Plaintiff suffered injury fact and lost 

money. Had Plaintiff known the truth about Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions at 

time of his first purchase and at the time of his second purchase, including that the scientific 

evidence demonstrated that these Products were not effective as represented by Defendant,

Plaintiff would not have purchased the Product. 

10. Defendant Walgreen Co. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws 

of Illinois. Walgreen’s headquarters is at 200 Wilmot Road Deerfield, Illinois 60015. From its 

headquarters in Illinois, Walgreen distributed, promoted, marketed and sold the Glucosamine 

Chondroitin Complex products to consumers throughout the United States.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex Products

11. Since 2007, Defendant has distributed, marketed, and sold nationwide the 

Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex products.

12. The Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex products are sold in every Walgreen

store and on Defendant’s website - Walgreens.com. The Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex 

products are available in 80, 90, 120 and 150 count bottles, retailing for approximately $19.99 

to $29.99. The following are screen shots of the Products: 

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 4 of 21 PageID #:159
- 5 -

13. Since the Products’ launch, Walgreen has consistently conveyed the message to 

consumers throughout the United States that Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex helps to 

“rebuild cartilage”, “lubricate joints” and on four of the Products (including the one that Plaintiff 

purchased) that the Products help with “joint comfort”, simply by taking the recommended 

number of tablets each day. They do not. Defendant’s joint health benefit representations and 

omissions are false, misleading, and deceptive. 

14. The first identified primary active ingredient in all the Glucosamine Chondroitin 

Complex products is glucosamine hydrochloride. As more fully set forth below, the scientific 

evidence is that glucosamine, taken alone or in combination with chondroitin sulfate, does not 

provide the joint health benefits represented by Defendant.

15. The second primary active ingredient in Defendant’s Glucosamine Chondroitin 

Complex products is chondroitin sulfate. As more fully set forth below, the scientific evidence is 

that chondroitin sulfate, alone or in combination with glucosamine, does not provide the joint 

health benefits represented by Defendant.

16. In addition to these two primary active ingredients that Defendant prominently 

promotes as being the primary active ingredients that provide the purported joint health benefits, 

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 5 of 21 PageID #:160
- 6 -

Defendant’s Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex products contain smaller amounts of other 

purported ingredients, including: methylsulfonylmethane (“MSM”);

3 hyaluronic acid;4 and 

Boswellia Serrata,

5 also known as Indian Frankincense. As more fully discussed below, these 

minor ingredients are also not effective in providing the joint health benefits represented by 

Defendant, but in any event the focus of this action is on the uniform false and deceptive 

representations and omissions that Defendant makes about glucosamine and chondroitin on the 

package labeling of each of its Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex products.

17. Even though numerous clinical studies have found that the two primary 

ingredients in Defendant’s Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex products, glucosamine and 

chondroitin, alone or in combination, to be ineffective, Walgreen continues to state on the 

Products’ packaging and labeling that Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex helps to, inter alia: 

“rebuild cartilage”, “lubricate joints” and improve “joint comfort”, without any limitation on 

which joints (in fact highlighting four key joint areas), for adults of all ages and without any 

limitation on what stages of joint related ailments. Front, back, and side shots of a representative 

Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex Triple Strength label appear as follows:

 3 Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex Advanced is the only Product that does not contain MSM. 

4 Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex with MSM, Glucosamine Chondroitin Advanced with MSM, and Glucosamine 

Chondroitin Advanced are the only Products that contain hyaluronic acid. 

5 Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex Advanced and Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex Advanced Plus MSM are 

the only Products that do not contain Boswellia Serrata. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 6 of 21 PageID #:161
- 7 -

FRONT LEFT SIDE

RIGHT SIDE BACK

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 7 of 21 PageID #:162
- 8 -

Scientific Studies Confirm That Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex Is Not Effective.

18. Independent studies published, at least as early as 2004, have found that 

glucosamine and chondroitin, both alone or in combination, are not effective in providing the 

represented joint health benefits.

19. For example, a 2004 study by McAlindon et al., entitled Effectiveness of 

Glucosamine For Symptoms of Knee Osteoarthritis: Results From and Internet-Based 

Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial, 117(9) Am. J. Med. 649-9 (Nov. 2004), concluded 

that glucosamine was no more effective than placebo in treating the symptoms of knee 

osteoarthritis – in short, it was ineffective.

20. Also as early as 2004, studies confirmed there is a significant “placebo” effect 

with respect to glucosamine consumption. A 2004 study by Cibere et al, entitled Randomized, 

Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Glucosamine Discontinuation Trial In Knee Osteoarthritis,

51(5) Arthritis Care & Research 738-45 (Oct. 15, 2004), studied users of glucosamine who had 

claimed to have experienced at least moderate improvement after starting glucosamine. These 

patients were divided into two groups – one that continued using glucosamine and one that was 

given a placebo. For six months, the primary outcome observed was the proportion of disease 

flares in the glucosamine and placebo groups. A secondary outcome was the time to disease 

flare. The study results reflected that there were no differences in either the primary or 

secondary outcomes for glucosamine and placebo. The authors concluded that the study 

provided no evidence of symptomatic benefit from continued use of glucosamine – in other 

words, any prior perceived benefits were due to the placebo effect and not glucosamine.

21. In the 2006 Gait Study, the study authors rigorously evaluated the effectiveness 

of glucosamine hydrochloride and chondroitin, alone and in combination, on osteoarthritis for 

six months. According to the study’s authors, “The analysis of the primary outcome measure 

did not show that either supplement, alone or in combination, was efficacious. . .” 2006 GAIT 

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 8 of 21 PageID #:163
- 9 -

Study at 806.6 Subsequent GAIT studies in 2008 and 2010 reported that glucosamine and 

chondroitin did not rebuild cartilage7 and were otherwise ineffective – even in patients with 

moderate to severe knee pain for which the 2006 reported results were inconclusive. See 

Sawitzke, A.D., et al., The Effect of Glucosamine and/or Chondroitin Sulfate on the Progression 

of Knee Osteoarthritis: A GAIT Report, 58(10) J. Arthritis Rheum. 3183–91 (Oct. 2008);

Sawitzke, A.D., Clinical Efficacy And Safety Of Glucosamine, Chondroitin Sulphate, Their 

Combination, Celecoxib Or Placebo Taken To Treat Osteoarthritis Of The Knee: 2-Year 

Results From GAIT, 69(8) Ann Rhem. Dis. 1459-64 (Aug. 2010). 

22. The GAIT studies are consistent with the reported results of prior and subsequent 

studies. For example, the National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions (“NCCCC”) 

reported “the evidence to support the efficacy of glucosamine hydrochloride as a symptom 

modifier is poor” and the “evidence for efficacy of chondroitin was less convincing.” NCCCC, 

Osteoarthritis National Clinical Guideline for Care and Management of Adults, Royal College 

of Physicians, London 2008. Consistent with its lack of efficacy findings, the NCCCC 

Guideline did not recommend the use of glucosamine or chondroitin for treating osteoarthritis. 

Id. at 33.

23. A study by Rozendaal et al., entitled Effect of Glucosamine Sulfate on Hip 

Osteoarthritis, 148 Ann. of Intern. Med. 268-77 (2008) assessing the effectiveness of 

glucosamine on the symptoms and structural progression of hip osteoarthritis during 2 years of 

treatment, concluded that glucosamine was no better than placebo in reducing symptoms and 

progression of hip osteoarthritis.

24. A 2010 meta-analysis by Wandel et al. entitled Effects of Glucosamine, 

 6 The 2006 Gait Study was funded by the National Center for Complementary & Alternative Medicine and the 

National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, two components of NIH.

7 To a similar effect a study by Kwok, et al., entitled The Joints On Glucosamine (JOG) Study: A Randomized, 

Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial To Assess The Structural Benefit Of Glucosamine In Knee Osteoarthritic 

Based On 3T MRI, 60 Arthritis Rheum 725 (2009) concluded that glucosamine was not effective in preventing the 

worsening of cartilage damage.

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 9 of 21 PageID #:164
- 10 -

Chondroitin, Or Placebo In Patients With Osteoarthritis Or Hip Or Knee: Network MetaAnalysis, BMJ 341:c4675 (2010) examined prior studies involving glucosamine and chondroitin, 

alone or in combination, and whether they relieved the symptoms or progression of arthritis of the 

knee or hip. The study authors reported that glucosamine and chondroitin, alone or in 

combination, did not reduce joint pain or have an impact on the narrowing of joint space: “Our 

findings indicate that glucosamine, chondroitin, and their combination do not result in a relevant 

reduction of joint pain nor affect joint space narrowing compared with placebo.” Id. at 8. The 

authors went as far to say, “We believe it unlikely that future trials will show a clinically relevant 

benefit of any of the evaluated preparations.” Id.

25. In the July 7, 2010, Wilkens et al., reported that there was no difference between 

placebo and glucosamine for the treatment of low back pain and lumbar osteoarthritis and that 

neither glucosamine nor placebo were effective in reducing pain related disability. The 

researchers also stated that, “Based on our results, it seems unwise to recommend glucosamine to 

all patients” with low back pain and lumbar osteoarthritis. Wilkens et al., Effect of Glucosamine 

on Pain-Related Disability in Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain and Degenerative Lumbar 

Osteoarthritis, 304(1) JAMA 45-52 (July 7, 2010). 

26. Scientific studies also confirm that the other ingredients in Glucosamine

Chondroitin Complex are ineffective. See, e.g., S. Brien, et. al., Systematic Review of the 

Nutritional Supplements (DMSO) and methylsulfonylmethane (MSM) in the treatment of 

osteoarthritis (Apr. 17, 2008) (concluding that there is no “definitive evidence that MSM is 

superior to placebo in the treatment of mild to moderate OA of the knee”).

27. While hyaluronic acid has been proven to be effective when directly injected into 

joints, due to its high molecular weight, when taken orally, it cannot be absorbed into the human 

bloodstream let alone beneficially affect joints.

28. Boswellia Serrata – Indian Frankincense - is essentially a witch doctor potion 

and is not effective in providing any joint health benefits.

The Impact of Walgreen’s Wrongful Conduct

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 10 of 21 PageID #:165
- 11 -

29. Despite clinical studies that show the ingredients in Walgreen’s Glucosamine 

Chondroitin Complex products are ineffective, Walgreen conveyed and continues to convey one 

uniform message: Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex helps to “rebuild cartilage”, “lubricate 

joints” and improve “joint comfort” in all joints in the human body, for adults of all ages and for 

all manner and stages of joint related ailments.

30. As the distributor of Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex, Walgreen possesses 

specialized knowledge regarding the content and effects of the ingredients contained in its

Products and Walgreen is in a superior position to learn of the effects – and has learned of the 

effects, or lack thereof, – its Products have on consumers. 

31. Specifically, at least as early as 2007 when it began selling the Glucosamine 

Chondroitin Complex products, Walgreen knew, but failed to disclose, that the Products do not 

provide the joint health benefits represented and that well-conducted, clinical studies have 

found the ingredients in its Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex products to be ineffective in 

providing the joint health benefits represented by Walgreen. Plaintiff and Class members have 

been and will continue to be deceived or misled by Walgreen’s deceptive joint health benefit 

representations. Plaintiff purchased and consumed Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex during 

the Class period and in doing so, read and considered the Product’s label and based his decision 

to purchase the Product on the joint health benefit representations on the product packaging. 

Walgreen’s joint health benefit representations and omissions were a material factor in 

influencing Plaintiff’s decision to purchase and consume the Product. 

32. The only purpose behind purchasing the Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex 

products is to obtain some or all of the represented joint health benefits. There is no other 

reason for Plaintiff and the Class to have purchased the Products and Plaintiff and the Class 

would not have purchased the Products had they known Defendant’s joint health benefit 

statements were false and misleading and that clinical cause and effect studies have found the 

ingredients to be ineffective for the represented joint health benefits.

33. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class members have been injured in fact in their 

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 11 of 21 PageID #:166
- 12 -

purchases of these Products in that they were deceived into purchasing Products that do not 

perform as advertised.

34. Walgreen, by contrast, reaped enormous profits from its false marketing and sale 

of these Products.

CLASS DEFINITION AND ALLEGATIONS

35. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated 

Class members pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and seeks certification of the following Class against Walgreen for violations of 

California state laws and similar laws in other states: 

Multi-State Class

All persons who, within the applicable statute of limitations under 

their respective state’s consumer fraud act,

8 purchased the 

Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex products.

Excluded from the Class are Defendant, its parents, subsidiaries, 

affiliates, officers and directors, and those who purchased the 

Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex products for the purpose of 

resale

36. In the alternative, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other 

similarly situated California residents pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and seeks certification of the following Class: 

California Class 

All California residents who, within the applicable statute of 

 8

While discovery may alter the following, Plaintiff preliminarily avers that the other states with similar consumer 

fraud laws under the facts of this case include, but are not limited to: Arkansas (Ark. Code § 4-88-101, et seq.); 

Colorado (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-101, et seq.); Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42-110, et seq.); Delaware (Del. 

Code tit. 6, § 2511, et seq.); District of Columbia (D.C. Code § 28-3901, et seq.); Florida (Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et 

seq.); Hawaii (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 480-1, et seq.); Idaho (Idaho Code § 48-601, et seq.); Illinois (815 ICLS § 505/1, et 

seq.); Maine (Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 5 § 205-A, et seq.); Massachusetts (Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93A, et seq. ); Michigan 

(Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.901, et seq.); Minnesota (Minn. Stat. § 325F.67, et seq.); Missouri (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 

407.010, et seq.); Montana (Mo. Code. § 30-14-101, et seq.); Nebraska (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1601, et seq.); Nevada 

(Nev. Rev. Stat. § 598.0915, et seq,); New Hampshire (N.H. Rev. Stat. § 358-A:1, et seq.); New Jersey (N.J. Stat. § 

56:8-1, et seq.); New Mexico (N.M. Stat. § 57-12-1, et seq.); New York (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349,et seq.); North 

Dakota (N.D. Cent. Code § 51-15-01, et seq.); Oklahoma (Okla. Stat. tit. 15, § 751, et seq.); Oregon (Or. Rev. Stat. § 

646.605, et seq.); Rhode Island (R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-13.1-1, et seq.); South Dakota (S.D. Code Laws § 37-24-1, et 

seq.); Texas (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.41, et seq.); Virginia (VA Code § 59.1-196, et seq.); Vermont (Vt. Stat. 

tit. 9, § 2451, et seq.); Washington (Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010, et seq.); West Virginia (W. Va. Code § 46A-6-

101, et seq.); and Wisconsin (Wis. Stat. § 100.18, et seq.).

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 12 of 21 PageID #:167
- 13 -

limitations, purchased the Glucosamine Condition Complex 

products.

Excluded from the Class are Defendant, its parents, subsidiaries, 

affiliates, officers and directors, and those who purchased the 

Glucosamine Condition Complex products for the purpose of resale. 

37. Members of the Class are so numerous and geographically dispersed that joinder 

of all Class members is impracticable. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis 

alleges, that the proposed Class contains many thousands of members. The precise number of 

Class members is unknown to Plaintiff. 

38. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and 

predominate over questions affecting only individual Class members. The common legal and 

factual questions include, but are not limited to, the following:

· Whether the representations discussed herein that Defendant made about 

its Glucosamine Condition Complex products were or are misleading, or likely to deceive;

· Whether Plaintiff and the Class members were deceived by Defendant’s 

representations;

· Whether the alleged conduct constitutes violations of the laws asserted 

herein;

· Whether Plaintiff and Class members have been injured and the proper 

measure of their losses as a result of those injuries; and

· Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to injunctive, declaratory or 

other equitable relief.

39. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class because, 

inter alia, all Class members were injured through the uniform misconduct described above, 

including being subject to Defendant’s deceptive joint health benefit representations, which

accompanied each and every box of Glucosamine Condition Complex. Plaintiff is advancing 

the same claims and legal theories on behalf of himself and all members of the Class.

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 13 of 21 PageID #:168
- 14 -

40. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy. The expense and burden of individual litigation would make it 

impracticable or impossible for proposed Class members to prosecute their claims individually. 

It would thus be virtually impossible for the members of the Class, on an individual basis, to 

obtain effective redress for the wrongs done to them. Furthermore, even if Class members 

could afford such individualized litigation, the court system could not. Individualized litigation 

would create the danger of inconsistent or contradictory judgments arising from the same set of 

facts. Individualized litigation would also increase the delay and expense to all parties and the 

court system from the issues raised by this action. By contrast, the class action device provides 

the benefits of adjudication of these issues in a single proceeding, economies of scale, and 

comprehensive supervision by a single court, and presents no unusual management difficulties 

under the circumstances here.

41. In the alternative, the Class also may be certified because Defendant has acted or 

refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class thereby making appropriate final 

declaratory and/or injunctive relief with respect to the members of the Class as a whole.

42. Plaintiff seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive and equitable relief on 

behalf of the entire Class, on grounds generally applicable to the entire Class, to enjoin and 

prevent Defendant from engaging in the acts described, and requiring Defendant to provide full 

restitution to Plaintiff and Class members. Unless a Class is certified, Defendant will retain 

monies received as a result of its conduct that were taken from Plaintiff and Class members. 

Unless a Class-wide injunction is issued, Defendant will continue to commit the violations 

alleged, and the members of the Class and the general public will continue to be misled.

COUNT I

Violation of Business & Professions Code §17200, et seq.

(Applicable to a Multi-State or California-Only Class)

43. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in the paragraphs above, 

as if fully set forth herein.

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:169
- 15 -

44. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the Class.

45. As alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact and lost money or property 

as a result of Walgreen’s conduct because he purchased a Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex 

product in reliance on Walgreen’s joint health benefit statements detailed above, but did not 

receive a product that provided the represented joint health benefits. 

46. The Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code §17200, et seq. 

(“UCL”), prohibits any “unlawful,” “fraudulent” or “unfair” business act or practice and any false 

or misleading advertising. In the course of conducting business, Walgreen committed unlawful 

business practices by, inter alia, making the representations (which also constitute advertising 

within the meaning of §17200) and omissions of material facts, as set forth more fully herein, and 

violating Civil Code §§1572, 1573, 1709, 1711, 1770 and Business & Professions Code §§17200,

et seq., 17500, et seq.

47. Plaintiff and the Class reserve the right to allege other violations of law, which 

constitute other unlawful business acts or practices. Such conduct is ongoing and continues to 

this date.

48. Walgreen’s actions also constitute “unfair” business acts or practices because, as 

alleged above, inter alia, Walgreen engaged in false advertising, misrepresented and omitted 

material facts regarding its Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex products in its advertising 

campaign, including the Products’ packaging, and thereby offended an established public policy, 

and engaged in immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous activities that are substantially 

injurious to consumers. 

49. As stated in this Complaint, Plaintiff alleges violations of consumer protection, 

unfair competition and truth in advertising laws, resulting in harm to consumers. Walgreen’s acts 

and omissions also violate and offend the public policy against engaging in false and misleading 

advertising, unfair competition and deceptive conduct towards consumers. This conduct 

constitutes violations of the unfair prong of Business & Professions Code §17200, et seq. 

50. There were reasonably available alternatives to further Walgreen’s legitimate 

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 15 of 21 PageID #:170
- 16 -

business interests, other than the conduct described herein.

51. Business & Professions Code §17200, et seq., also prohibits any “fraudulent 

business act or practice.”

52. Walgreen’s actions, claims, nondisclosures and misleading statements, as more 

fully set forth above, were also false, misleading and/or likely to deceive the consuming public 

within the meaning of Business & Professions Code §17200, et seq. 

53. Plaintiff and other members of the Class have in fact been deceived by 

Walgreen’s material representations and omissions, which are described above. This deception

has caused harm to Plaintiff and other members of the Class who each purchased a Glucosamine 

Chondroitin Complex product. Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered injury in fact 

and lost money as a result of these unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent practices.

54. As a result of its deception, Walgreen has been able to reap unjust revenue and 

profit.

55. Unless restrained and enjoined, Walgreen will continue to engage in the abovedescribed conduct. Accordingly, injunctive relief is appropriate.

56. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and the general 

public, seeks restitution of all money obtained from Plaintiff and the members of the Class 

collected as a result of unfair competition, an injunction prohibiting Walgreen from continuing 

such practices, corrective advertising and all other relief this Court deems appropriate, consistent 

with Business & Professions Code §17203.

COUNT II

Violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act – Civil Code §1750 et seq.

(Applicable to a Multi-State or California-Only Class)

57. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in the paragraphs above, 

as if fully set forth herein.

58. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the Class.

59. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, 

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 16 of 21 PageID #:171
- 17 -

California Civil Code §1750, et seq. (the “Act”). Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by 

California Civil Code §1761(d). Walgreen’s Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex products are

“goods” within the meaning of the Act.

60. Walgreen violated and continues to violate the Act by engaging in the following 

practices proscribed by California Civil Code §1770(a) in transactions with Plaintiff and the Class 

which were intended to result in, and did result in, the sale of Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex:

(5) Representing that [Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex has] . . . approval, 

characteristics, . . . uses [and] benefits . . . which [it does] not have . . . .

* * *

(7) Representing that [Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex is] of a particular 

standard, quality or grade . . . if [it is] of another.

* * *

(9) Advertising goods . . . with intent not to sell them as advertised.

* * *

(16) Representing that [Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex has] been supplied 

in accordance with a previous representation when [it has] not.

61. Walgreen violated the Act by representing and failing to disclose material facts 

in its advertising campaign including the Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex product labels and 

packaging, as described above, when it knew, or should have known, that the representations 

were false and misleading and that the omissions were of material facts it was obligated to 

disclose.

62. Pursuant to California Civil Code §1782(d), Plaintiff and the Class seek a Court 

order enjoining the above-described wrongful acts and practices of Walgreen and for restitution.

63. Pursuant to §1782 of the Act, , by letter dated April 19, 2012, Plaintiff notified 

Walgreen in writing by certified mail of the particular violations of §1770 of the Act and 

demanded that Walgreen rectify the problems associated with the actions detailed above and give 

notice to all affected consumers of Walgreen’s intent to so act. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 17 of 21 PageID #:172
- 18 -

64. Walgreen failed to rectify or agree to rectify the problems associated with the 

actions detailed above and give notice to all affected consumers within 30 days of the date of 

written notice pursuant to §1782 of the Act. Therefore, Plaintiff further seeks actual, punitive and 

statutory damages.

65. Walgreen’s conduct is fraudulent, wanton and malicious.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for a judgment:

A. Certifying the Class as either as a multi-state class or as a California-only class;

B. Awarding restitution to Plaintiff and the proposed Class members;

C. Awarding injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity, including enjoining 

Walgreen from continuing the unlawful practices as set forth herein, and directing Defendant to 

identify, with Court supervision, victims of its conduct and pay them all money it is required to 

pay;

D. Awarding statutory and punitive damages, as appropriate;

E. Ordering Walgreen to engage in a corrective advertising campaign;

F. Awarding attorneys’ fees and costs; and

G. Providing such further relief as may be just and proper.

DATED: June 7, 2012

s/ Stewart Weltman________________________

Of Counsel 

LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN

STEWART M. WELTMAN

122 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850

Chicago, Illinois 60603

Telephone: 312-427-3600

Fax: 312-427-1850

SIPRUT PC

JOSEPH SIPRUT

122 South Michigan Avenue

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 18 of 21 PageID #:173
- 19 -

Suite 1850

Chicago, Illinois 60603

312.588.1440

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Of Counsel:

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN

& BALINT, P.C.

ELAINE A. RYAN 

PATRICIA N. SYVERSON (To be admitted Pro Hac Vice)

LINDSEY M. GOMEZ-GRAY (To be admitted Pro Hac 

Vice)

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1000

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone: (602) 274-1100

Facsimile: (602) 798-5860

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN

& BALINT, P.C.

TODD D. CARPENTER (To be admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

600 West Broadway Suite 900

San Diego, California 92101

Telephone: (619) 756-6978

Facsimile: (602) 798-5860

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 19 of 21 PageID #:174
- 20 -

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 20 of 21 PageID #:175
- 21 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 7th day of June, 2012, a copy of the 

foregoing Third Amended Class Action Complaint was filed with the Clerk of Court using the 

CMM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following:

David B. Sudzus

Bradley J. Andreozzi

Benjamin Todd Vinson

Justin O’Neill Kay

Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 3700

Chicago, IL 60606

s/Stewart M. Weltman

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Case: 1:11-cv-07763 Document #: 33 Filed: 06/07/12 Page 21 of 21 PageID #:176