UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

NICK PEARSON, On Behalf of Himself 

and All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota 

Corporation, 

Defendant.

Case No.: 11 CV 07972

CLASS ACTION

Judge James B. Zagel

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Nick Pearson (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys, brings this action on 

behalf of himself and all others similarly situated against Defendant Target Corporation 

(“Target” or “Defendant”), and alleges as follows: 

NATURE OF ACTION

1. Defendant markets, sells and distributes Up & Up Glucosamine, a line of two 

joint health dietary supplements (“the Products”).1 Each of the Products bear the name 

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

primary purported active ingredients in both of Target’s Up & Up Glucosamine Products are 

glucosamine hydrochloride and chondroitin sulfate. On the front of each package/label, Target 

makes essentially the same representations about each Product - that they will “help rebuild 

cartilage”2or “support renewal of cartilage”, help “maintain the structural integrity of joints” 3, 

 1

The Up & Up Glucosamine line of joint health dietary supplements include: (1) Triple Strength Glucosamine 

Chondroitin plus MSM (“Up & Up Triple Strength”) (the Product purchased by Plaintiff); and (2) Advanced 

Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex (“Up & Up Advanced”) (collectively, “Up & Up Glucosamine” or the 

“Products”). 2 Up & Up Advanced.

3 This representation is made on the front of the Up & Up Triple Strength package/label and on the side of the Up & 

Up Advanced package/label. This representation is really an analogue to the “renew” and “rebuild” cartilage 

representations. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:80
- 2 -

“lubricate joints”

4

or “supports mobility and flexibility.”5 On the front of each box of

Defendant’s Products, where consumers cannot miss it, Defendant claims that the Products will 

help to “rebuild” or “renew” cartilage and “lubricate joints” or support “joint mobility and 

flexibility”. Defendant primarily markets these products to and they are purchased primarily by 

persons suffering from osteoarthritis. Persons who experience joint ailments and persons who 

seek to prevent joint ailments constitute the remainder of consumers who purchase these 

products. 

2. Thus, prominently displayed on the Products’ labels are the deceptive taglines: 

“rebuild cartilage/renew cartilage”, help “maintain the structural integrity of joints”, and

“lubricate joints/supports joint mobility and flexibility” (collectively referred to as “the joint 

health benefit representations”). No limitations accompany these taglines such that the takeaway is that the Products 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.

3. In truth, the Products do not rebuild or renew cartilage, lubricate joints or 

improve joint mobility or flexibility. 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 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 Products, the failure of Target to 

disclose the facts regarding these studies also constitutes deception by omission or concealment. 

Thus, Target’s joint health benefit representations and omissions are false, misleading and 

 4 Up & Up Advanced.

5 Up & Up Triple Strength.

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 2 of 20 PageID #:81
- 3 -

reasonably likely to deceive the public.

4. Despite the deceptive nature of Defendant’s representations, Defendant conveyed 

and continues to convey its uniform joint health benefit representations at the point of purchase 

on the front of its Products’ packages and labeling. The only reason that any consumer would 

purchase the Up & Up Glucosamine Products is to obtain joint health benefits, which Up & Up 

Glucosamine does not provide.

5. As a result of Defendant’s deceptive representations, consumers - including 

Plaintiff and other members of the proposed Class - have purchased a Product that does not 

perform as advertised. 

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

Illinois residents and residents of states with Consumer Fraud Laws similar to that of Illinois 

under the facts particular to this case, who purchased the Products, to (1) halt the dissemination 

of these false and misleading representations, (2) correct the false and misleading perception it 

has created in the minds of consumers, and (3) obtain redress for those who have purchased the 

Up & Up Glucosamine Products.6 Plaintiff alleges violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud 

Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 502/1, et seq.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

 6

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-07972 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 3 of 20 PageID #:82
- 4 -

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 the members of the 

Class are citizens of a state different from Defendant. 

8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant is 

authorized to do and does conduct business in Illinois. Defendant has marketed, promoted, 

distributed, and sold the Up & Up Glucosamine Products in Illinois, and Defendant has 

sufficient minimum contacts with this State and/or sufficiently avails itself of the markets in this 

State through its promotion, sales, and marketing within this State to render the exercise of 

jurisdiction by this Court permissible.

9. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a) and (b) because a 

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred while he

resided in this judicial district. Venue is also proper under 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) because 

Defendant transacts substantial business in this District.

PARTIES

10. Plaintiff Nick Pearson resides in Cook County, Illinois. In or around June 2011, 

Plaintiff Pearson was exposed to and saw Defendant’s joint health benefit representations (i.e.. 

that the Product supported renewal of cartilage, helped maintain the structural integrity of joints

and supported mobility and flexibility) by reading the package/label of Defendant’s Up & Up 

Triple Strength Product at a Target store in Chicago, Illinois. He paid approximately $20 or 

more for a bottle of the Product. At the time that he purchased Defendant’s Product, Plaintiff 

was deceived in some manner by Defendant in that he believed (1) that Defendant’s Product

would provide him some or all of the benefits represented by Defendant on the packaging and 

(2) that it was proven to be and was effective for the representations made on the packaging –

that the Product would help to renew cartilage, help maintain the structural integrity of joints, 

and support joint mobility and flexibility. Had Plaintiff known the truth about Defendant’s 

misrepresentations and omissions, including that the scientific evidence demonstrated that these 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 4 of 20 PageID #:83
- 5 -

Products were not effective as represented by Defendant, Plaintiff would not have purchased 

Defendant’s Product. Plaintiff used the Product as directed and, consistent with the scientific 

evidence that the Product was not effective, the Product did not work. As a result, Plaintiff was 

deceived in some manner into purchasing the Product and suffered injury in fact and lost 

money. 

11. Defendant Target Corporation is incorporated under the laws of the state of 

Minnesota. Defendant’s corporate headquarters is located at 1000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, 

Minnesota 55403. Defendant distributes markets and sells the Up & Up Glucosamine Products 

to tens of thousands of consumers nationwide, including in Illinois.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

The Up & Up Glucosamine Products

12. Since 2009, Defendant has distributed, marketed, and sold the Up & Up 

Glucosamine line of joint health dietary supplements. These Products include: (1) Triple 

Strength Glucosamine Chondroitin plus MSM; and (2) Advanced Glucosamine Chondroitin 

Complex. 

13. The Up & Up Glucosamine Products are sold online and in Target stores 

nationwide. The Up & Up Advanced Product is available in 90 count bottles, retailing for 

approximately $12. The Up & Up Triple Strength Product is available in 120 and 200 count 

bottles, retailing for approximately $21 and $29, respectively. The following are screen shots of 

the Up & Up Glucosamine Products: 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 5 of 20 PageID #:84
- 6 -

14. Since the Products’ launch, Target has consistently conveyed the message to 

consumers throughout Illinois and the United States that the Products help to rebuild or renew 

cartilage, and improve joint mobility and flexibility or lubricate joints 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.

15. The first identified primary active ingredient in both of the 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. 

16. The second primary active ingredient in Defendant’s 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.

17. 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, 

Defendant’s Products also contain methylsulfonylmethane (“MSM”). As more fully discussed 

below, MSM is also not effective in providing the joint health benefits represented by 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 6 of 20 PageID #:85
- 7 -

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 Up & Up Glucosamine Chondroitin Products.

18. Defendant’s Products also contain other ingredients such as Hyuralonic Acid (Up 

& Up Advanced and Triple Strength), an “Antioxidant proprietary extract” ( Chinese Skullcap 

(root) and Black Catechu (wood)) (Up & Up Advanced), Boswellia Serrata (Indian 

Frankincense) (Up & Up Triple Strength), but Defendant makes none of the joint health benefit 

representations for these ingredients. For example, on the Up & Up Advanced side panel, 

Defendant states that its “Antioxident proprietary extract” helps protect joints from harmful 

oxidants” – whatever that might mean. Likewise, on the Up & Up Advanced side panel, 

Defendant represents that Hyaluronic Acid is a “key tissue and joint component”. While 

literally true, taking Hyaluronic Acid orally cannot provide any joint health benefits because the 

high molecular weight of this ingredient is too large for the body to digest and put into the 

bloodstream, let alone provide joint health benefits. 

19. In contrast, on the front of both Products’ package/label, Defendant makes the 

joint health benefit representations underneath the words “glucosamine chondroitin”. Thus, it is 

clear from the Products’ packaging/labels, despite the inclusion of these other ingredients, 

Defendant is representing that glucosamine and chondroitin are the primary active ingredients 

that purport to provide the joint health benefits represented for both Products.

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

ingredients in Defendant’s Products, glucosamine and chondroitin, alone or in combination, are

ineffective, Target continues to represent on the Products’ packaging and labeling that they 

provide the joint health benefits for adults of all ages, without any limitation on which joints or

what joint related ailments the Products provide these joint health benefits. Front and side 

shots of the two Up & Up Glucosamine Product labels appear as follows:

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 7 of 20 PageID #:86
- 8 -

FRONT RIGHT SIDE

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 8 of 20 PageID #:87
- 9 -

FRONT RIGHT SIDE

Scientific Studies Confirm That Up & Up Glucosamine Products Are Not Effective.

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

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

represented joint health benefits.7

22. 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 

 7 Many of these studies focus on patients with osteoarthritis and osteoarthritis of the knee, because the vast majority 

of purchasers of glucosamine chondroitin Products buy these Products for relief of the symptoms of osteoarthritis 

and osteoarthritis of the knee is the most common arthritic condition. Moreover, studies involving patients with 

osteoarthritis and patients with osteoarthritis of the knee are deemed, by experts in the field, to be a proxy for 

whether these products provide any of the represented joint health benefits, regardless of whether or not a consumer 

may have osteoarthritis. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 9 of 20 PageID #:88
- 10 -

osteoarthritis – in short, it was ineffective.

23. 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

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.

24. 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 

Study at 806.8 Subsequent GAIT studies in 2008 and 2010 reported that glucosamine and 

chondroitin did not rebuild cartilage9 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);

 8 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.

9 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 Osteoarthritis

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-07972 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 10 of 20 PageID #:89
- 11 -

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). 

25. 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.

26. 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. 

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

Chondroitin, Or Placebo In Patients With Osteoarthritis Of 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.

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

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 11 of 20 PageID #:90
- 12 -

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). 

29. Scientific studies also confirm that MSM is 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”).

The impact of Defendant’s wrongful conduct

30. Despite the existence of numerous clinical studies that have found the 

ingredients in Defendant’s Products to be ineffective for the joint health benefits that it 

represents on the Products’ package/labels, Defendant continues to unequivocally claim that its 

Up & Up Glucosamine Products are effective and provide these joint health benefits –without 

limitation and thus for adults of all ages and for all manner and stages of joint related ailments. 

As the distributor of the Up & Up Glucosamine Products, Defendant possesses specialized 

knowledge regarding the content and effects of the ingredients contained in its Up & Up 

Glucosamine Products and 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 2009 when it began selling its Up & Up 

Glucosamine Chondroitin Products, Defendant 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 Up & Up Glucosamine Chondroitin Products to be ineffective in 

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

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

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 12 of 20 PageID #:91
- 13 -

representations. Plaintiff purchased and consumed one of Defendant’s Products 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. 

Target’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 one of Defendant’s 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. Plaintiff and the Class members have been injured in fact in their purchases of 

these Products in that they were deceived into purchasing Products that do not perform for the 

only reason that they would have purchased these Products – joint health benefits. As a resultt, 

Plaintiff and the Class members have suffered economic damage in their purchases of these 

Products.

34. Defendant, by contrast, reaped profits from its false marketing and sale of these 

Products.

CLASS 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: 

Multi-State Class Action

All persons who, within the applicable statute of limitations under 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 13 of 20 PageID #:92
- 14 -

their respective state’s consumer fraud act,10 purchased Up & Up 

Triple Strength Glucosamine Chondroitin plus MSM and/or Up & 

Up Advanced Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex.

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

affiliates, officers and directors, and those who purchased the Up & 

Up Glucosamine Products for the purpose of resale. 

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

similarly situated Illinois 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: 

Illinois Class Action

All Illinois residents who, within the applicable statute of limitations, 

purchased Up & Up Triple Strength Glucosamine Chondroitin plus 

MSM and/or Up & Up Advanced Glucosamine Chondroitin 

Complex.

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

affiliates, officers and directors, and those who purchased the Up & 

Up Glucosamine 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 or omissions discussed herein that Defendant 

made about its Products were or are misleading, or likely to deceive;

· Whether Plaintiff and the Class members were deceived in some manner 

by Defendant’s representations;

· Whether the alleged conduct constitutes violations of the laws asserted 

 10 See footnote 6 for the preliminary listing of said states. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 14 of 20 PageID #:93
- 15 -

herein;

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

measure of their losses as a result of those injuries; 

· Whether Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to an award of 

compensatory/actual damages; and

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

other equitable relief.

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 15 of 20 PageID #:94
- 16 -

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 Defendant’s Products. Plaintiff is advancing the same 

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

40. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the 

members of the Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in both 

consumer protection and class litigation.

41. 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.

42. 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.

43. 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 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 16 of 20 PageID #:95
- 17 -

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 the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act

44. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the 

paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

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

46. In Illinois, the “Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act” 815 Ill. 

Comp. Stat. 502/1, et seq. (“the Act”), like the consumer fraud acts of numerous other states 

across the nation, prohibits deceptive acts and practices in the sale of such Products as 

Defendant’s Up & Up Glucosamine Products.

47. Plaintiff and the Class were injured by Defendant’s deceptive misrepresentations, 

concealments and omissions and these misrepresentations, concealments and omissions were 

material and deceived Plaintiff and the Class.

48. Defendant does business in Illinois, sells and distributes its Up & Up 

Glucosamine Products in Illinois, and engaged in deceptive acts and practices in connection with 

the sale of its Up & Up Glucosamine Products in Illinois and elsewhere in the United States.

49. Defendant’s Products purchased by Plaintiff and the Class were “consumer 

items” as that term is defined under the Act.

40. Defendant misrepresented and deceptively concealed, suppressed and/or omitted 

the material information known to Defendant as set forth above concerning its Up & Up 

Glucosamine Products which has caused damage and injury to Plaintiff and the Class.

41. Defendant’s deceptive acts occurred in a course of conduct involving trade and 

commerce in Illinois and throughout the United States. 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 17 of 20 PageID #:96
- 18 -

42. Defendant’s deceptive acts proximately caused actual injury and damage to 

Plaintiff and the Class.

43. Defendant intended Plaintiff and all Class members to rely on its representations 

regarding the joint health benefits of its Products.

44. The conduct of the Defendant constituted a consumer fraud under the Illinois 

Consumer Fraud Act and similar laws in other states.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the Class pray as follows:

a. That the Court enter an order certifying this action as a class action either as a 

multi-state class or, in the alternative, as an Illinois class;

b. That the Court enter an Order against Defendant awarding to Plaintiff and the Class 

compensatory/actual damages;

c. That the Court enter an order granting declaratory and injunctive relief as permitted 

by law or equity, including enjoining Defendant from continuing the unlawful 

practices as set forth herein;

d. Attorneys’ fees, expert fees and costs; and

e. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: June 14, 2012

By: s/Stewart Weltman

LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN

STEWART WELTMAN Of Counsel

122 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1850

Chicago, Illinois 60603

Telephone: 312-427-3600

Of Counsel:

ELAINE A. RYAN 

PATRICIA N. SYVERSON

LINDSEY M. GOMEZ GRAY

2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 1000

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone: 602-274-1100

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 18 of 20 PageID #:97
- 19 -

BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN

& BALINT, P.C.

TODD D. CARPENTER 

600 West Broadway, Suite 900

San Diego, California 92101

Telephone: (619) 756-6978

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 19 of 20 PageID #:98
- 20 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 14th day of June, 2012, a copy of the 

foregoing First 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

Case: 1:11-cv-07972 Document #: 21 Filed: 06/14/12 Page 20 of 20 PageID #:99