1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

x

JON COHEN, on behalf of himself and others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v. 

WINK LABS, INC., and I.AM.PLUS 

Electronics Inc., 

Defendants. 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

x

Civil Action No. 1 :20-cv-2809 

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Jury Trial Demanded

Nature of Action

1. Jon Cohen (“Cohen”), on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, brings this

class action complaint against Wink Labs, Inc. (“Wink”), and I.AM.PLUS Electronics Inc. 

(“i.am+”) (collectively “Defendants”), as a result of Defendants’ decision to unilaterally and 

abruptly impose monthly subscription fees to the devices they sold to consumers. 

2. Specifically, Wink announced on May 6, 2020, that owners of Wink devices would

be required to pay $5 per month to keep using the devices they purchased, and if those consumers 

failed to pay the newly imposed $5 monthly fee, Wink would deactivate those devices. 

3. As a result of this fraudulent bait-and-switch pricing scheme, Cohen alleges that

Defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“CFA”), 

violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”), violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse 

Act (“CFAA”), made both negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations, trespassed on Cohen’s 

chattels, and breached express and implied warranties to consumers. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:1
2

Parties

4. Cohen is a natural person who at all relevant times resided in Cook County, Illinois.

5. Cohen purchased a Wink Hub 2 on January 7, 2017.

6. Wink is a corporation headquartered in New York, New York, and incorporated in 

Delaware. 

7. Wink produces and sells software and hardware that connects with and controls 

smart home devices and home automation devices from a consolidated user interface. 

8. Upon information and belief, Wink disseminated the misrepresentations and 

advertisements at issue from its headquarters in New York.

9. i.am+ is a Delaware corporation and “a Hollywood-based technology company 

whose mission is to create technology hits that create a ripple effect across pop culture. Our vision 

is to create a community of creatives and coders and believe that through music and technology as 

the first step, we can usher in a powerful new era built on AI.”1

10. In 2017, i.am+ purchased Wink,

2 and offers Wink products on its home page along 

with Omega contextual AI products.3

Jurisdiction and Venue

11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under the Class Action 

Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), because, upon information and good faith belief, there are more 

1 https://iamplus.com/company/ (last visited May 8, 2020). 

2 https://www.cnet.com/news/will-iams-i-am-buys-home-hub-manufacturer-wink/ (last 

visited May 8, 2020). 

3 https://iamplus.com/ (last visited May 8, 2020).

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:2
3

than 100 members of the proposed classes, some members of the proposed classes and Defendants

are citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants have

sufficient minimum contacts with Illinois such that the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court over 

Defendants is consistent with notions of fair play and substantial justice. 

13. Defendants conduct business in Illinois and otherwise avail themselves of the 

protections and benefits of Illinois law through the promotion, marketing, and sale of Wink 

products in Illinois, and this action arises out of or relates to these contacts.

14. Moreover, Defendants’ wrongful conduct at issue foreseeably affects consumers in 

Illinois. 

15. Venue is proper before this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as a substantial part 

of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in this District, and a substantial part of the property 

that is the subject of the action is situated in this District.

16. Indeed, Plaintiff purchased his Wink product in Illinois, and uses his Wink product 

in Illinois.

Factual Allegations

17. The “smart home” and “home automation” market is a growing segment of 

consumer electronics, covering a range of household devices that are “smart,” in that they can be 

controlled or programmed to operate in different ways than simple, analog devices traditionally 

purchased for a consumer’s home.

18. For example, a “smart” light bulb can brighten or dim automatically under certain 

conditions set by a home automation system, or a “smart” thermostat can automatically adjust a 

home’s temperature based on the time of day, weather, or even the home’s occupancy. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:3
4

19. To control and synchronize all of these various devices, Wink produced and 

advertised the Wink Hub and later, the Wink Hub 2 (together, the “Wink Hub”) as a unifying 

automation platform that could control all of the smart home devices in a consumer’s home. 

20. The Wink Hub is an electronic computerized hub capable of connecting to home 

internet connections to synchronize the functionality of various smart home devices through the 

use of an accompanying software application. 

21. Of note, where some Wink competitors required a monthly fee to use their 

product(s), Defendants advertised that the Wink Hub was different in that it did not require a 

monthly fee.4

22. Specifically, the Wink Hub was advertised with the following traits, in both online 

product descriptions, press releases, and product packaging:

4 See, e.g., https://www.cnet.com/reviews/wink-hub-review/ (last visited May 8, 2020) 

(comparing the Wink Hub to other products, noting that for its competitor, “[y]ou have to pay a 

$10 monthly fee to get the most from it.”). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:4
5

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:5
6

23. Relying, in part, on Wink’s representations that its products would not require a 

subscription fee—while many of Wink’s competitors in the smart home and home automation 

market did require those fees—Cohen decided to purchase a Wink Hub, and later a Wink Hub 2.

24. Specifically, on January 7, 2017, Cohen purchased a Wink Hub 2 for $99 from 

Home Depot, an authorized retailer of Wink products.

25. From 2017 through the present, Cohen has used his Wink Hub to control and 

operate various home automation and smart home devices without significant problems or service 

interruptions. 

26. Then, on May 6, 2020, Wink announced that consumers will need to start paying 

the company $5 per month, beginning May 13, 2020 to continue using its devices:

Wink’s mission for the past 5+ years has been to provide users with a ‘Simpler, 

Smarter Home,’ while maintaining privacy for our customers. Our approach to 

simplicity and security has driven our design from the user experience to the 

technology behind the scenes.

We understand that a smart home is something that needs to be trusted and 

dependable, and we recognize that recent events have created some uncertainty 

around the reliability of the system. We apologize for these inconveniences and 

want to share some background information as well as the path forward.

Since 2014, Wink has grown to support more than 4 million connected devices. 

During this time, Wink has relied solely on the one-time fee derived from hardware 

sales to cover ongoing cloud costs, development, and customer support. Providing 

users with local and remote access to their devices will always come at a cost for 

Wink, and over the years we have made great progress toward reducing these costs 

so that we can maintain that feature.

Wink has taken many steps in an effort to keep your Hub’s blue light on, however, 

long term costs and recent economic events have caused additional strain on our 

business. Unlike companies that sell user data to offset costs associated with 

offering free services, we do not. Data privacy is one of Wink’s core values, and 

we believe that user data should never be sold for marketing or any purpose.

We have a lot of great ideas on how to expand on Wink’s capabilities and satisfy 

the many requests from our user base. In order to provide for development and 

continued growth, we are transitioning to a $4.99 monthly subscription, starting on 

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:6
7

May 13, 2020. This fee is designed to be as modest as possible. Your support will 

enable us to continue providing you with the functionality that you’ve come to rely 

on, and focus on accelerating new integrations and app features.

Should you choose not to sign up for a subscription you will no longer be able to 

access your Wink devices from the app, with voice control or through the API, and 

your automations will be disabled on May 13. Your device connections, settings 

and automations can be reactivated if you decide to subscribe at a later date.

27. At the same time, Wink unveiled its required subscription page, advertising one of 

the core benefits of the Wink subscription being that a consumer could “retain seamless control 

and monitoring of your smart home devices”—the core purpose of the Wink Hub.

28. Wink’s customers were immediately outraged by this abrupt change, comparing 

Wink’s imposition of a subscription fee as “lies” or a “ransom.”5

29. Bill Fitzgerald, privacy policies researcher for Consumer Reports’ Digital Lab, 

characterized Wink’s conduct as “completely outside what most people think of as what’s normal 

and acceptable—or even possible—when they buy something.”6

30. As a result, Cohen is stuck choosing to either pay $5 a month to keep his $99 device, 

or forfeit the entire functionality of the Wink Hub. 

31. Cohen does not intend to pay a subscription fee to use the Wink Hub that he already 

purchased and paid for in full. 

32. Had Cohen known that the Wink Hub would later require mandatory subscription 

fees to perform its core functionality, he either would not have purchased the Wink Hub, or would 

have paid substantially less for it. 

5 https://www.techhive.com/article/3542631/wink-users-revolt-following-its-sudden-shiftto-a-subscription-model.html (last visited May 8, 2020). 

6 https://www.consumerreports.org/wink/wink-tells-users-pay-up-or-we-will-disablesmart-home-hub/ (last visited May 8, 2020). 

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:7
8

33. Upon information and good faith belief, Wink acted as i.am+’s agent in imposing 

a subscription fee for Wink products and disabling devices for consumers that did not agree to pay 

that monthly fee.

34. Upon information and good faith belief, i.am+ authorized Wink to unilaterally 

impose a subscription fee for Wink products and disable devices for consumers that did not agree 

to pay that monthly fee. 

35. Upon information and good faith belief, i.am+ ratified Wink’s imposition of a 

subscription fee for Wink products and decision to disable devices for consumers that did not agree 

to pay that monthly fee by knowingly accepting the benefits of Wink’s conduct.

Class Allegations

36. Cohen brings this action as a class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

23(a) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of the following classes:

Nationwide Class: All residents of the United States who purchased a Wink Hub or Wink 

Hub 2 on or before May 5, 2020.

Illinois Class: All residents of the State of Illinois who purchased a Wink Hub or Wink 

Hub 2 on or before May 5, 2020.

37. Excluded from the classes are Defendants, their officers and directors, members of 

their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity 

in which Defendants have or had controlling interests.

38. The proposed classes satisfy Rule 23(a)(1) because, upon information and belief,

the class members are so numerous that joinder of all of them is impracticable.

39. The exact number of class members is unknown to Cohen at this time and can only 

be determined through appropriate discovery. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:8
9

40. The proposed classes are ascertainable because they are defined by reference to 

objective criteria. 

41. The proposed classes satisfy Rules 23(a)(2) and 23(a)(3) because Cohen’s claims 

are typical of the claims of the members of the classes. 

42. To be sure, the claims of Cohen and all members of the classes originate from the 

same conduct, practice, and procedure on the part of Defendants, and Cohen possesses the same 

interests and has suffered the same injuries as each member of the proposed classes.

43. Cohen satisfies Rule 23(a)(4) because he will fairly and adequately protect the 

interests of the members of the classes, and he has retained counsel experienced and competent in 

class action litigation.

44. Cohen has no interests that are irrevocably contrary to or in conflict with the 

members of the classes that he seeks to represent.

45. There will be little difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.

46. Issues of law and fact common to the members of the classes predominate over any 

questions that may affect only individual members, in that Defendants have acted on grounds 

generally applicable to the classes.

47. Among the issues of law and fact common to the classes are:

a. Whether the Wink Hub is fit for the ordinary purposes for which the goods are 

used;

b. Whether Wink’s conduct complied with its express warranties regarding the 

Wink Hub;

c. Whether Wink’s conduct complied with implied warranties regarding the Wink 

Hub;

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:9
10

d. Whether Wink’s advertisements regarding the functionality of the Wink Hub

were false or misleading;

e. Whether Wink’s advertisements regarding the Wink Hub’s price were false or 

misleading;

f. Whether Wink engaged in deceptive or unfair acts and practices in violation of 

the CFA;

g. Whether Wink intentionally disabled Wink Hub devices in violation of the 

CFAA;

h. Whether Wink trespassed on the property of the classes by updating and 

disabling Wink Hub devices;

i. Whether i.am+ is liable for Wink’s conduct to the classes; 

j. Whether Defendants’ conduct injured the classes;

k. Whether Defendants were unjustly enriched by their conduct;

l. the availability of damages, punitive damages, and/or injunctive relief; and

m. the availability of attorneys’ fees and costs.

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

adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable. 

49. Furthermore, as the damages suffered by individual members of the classes may be 

relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it impracticable for the 

members of the classes to individually redress the wrongs done to them.

50. As well, even for those class members who could afford to litigate such a claim, it 

would remain an economically impractical alternative. 

51. In the alternative, the classes may also be certified because:

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:10
11

a. the prosecution of separate actions by individual class members would create a risk 

of inconsistent or varying adjudication with respect to individual class members 

that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants;

b. the prosecution of separate actions by individual class members would create a risk 

of adjudications with respect to them that would, as a practical matter, be 

dispositive of the interests of other class members not parties to the adjudications, 

or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests;

c. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the 

classes thereby making appropriate final declaratory and/or injunctive relief with 

respect to the members of the classes as a whole; and/or

d. Certification of specific issues such as Defendants’ liability is appropriate.

52. Adequate notice can be given to class members directly using information 

maintained in Defendants’ records, records of its approved vendors or other third parties, or 

through notice by publication.

Causes of Action

COUNT I

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY 

(On behalf of the Illinois Class)

53. Cohen repeats and re-alleges each and every factual allegation contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 52.

54. Cohen brings this claim on behalf of himself and the Illinois Class.

55. Defendants’ actions, as alleged above, violate the express warranty statute of the 

state of Illinois. 810 ILCS § 5/2-314.

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:11
12

56. Defendants were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to home automation 

devices and “sellers” of home automation device under 810 ILCS 5/2-314.

57. The Wink Hub was at all relevant times a “good” within the meaning of 810 ILCS 

5/2-314.

58. A warranty that the Wink Hub was in merchantable condition and fit for the 

ordinary purpose for which such equipment is used is implied by law pursuant to 810 ILCS 5/2-

314.

59. The Wink Hub is not in merchantable condition and is not fit for the ordinary 

purpose for which home automation devices are used as a result of Defendants’ conduct as 

described herein. 

60. Specifically, Defendants’ actions rendered the Wink Hub as unmerchantable 

because the devices will be disabled and deprived of their basic functionality long before the end 

of their expected useful life. 

61. Cohen would not have purchased a Wink Hub, or would have paid substantially 

less than he did, if he knew that Defendants intended to disable the core functionality of the Wink 

Hub if consumers did not pay a newly-added monthly subscription fee. 

62. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of 

merchantability, Cohen and the other Illinois class members have been damaged in an amount to 

be proven at trial.

COUNT II

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

(On behalf of the Illinois Class)

63. Cohen repeats and re-alleges each and every factual allegation contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 52.

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:12
13

64. Cohen brings this claim on behalf of himself and the Illinois Class.

65. Defendants’ actions, as alleged above, violate the express warranty statute of the 

state of Illinois. 810 ILCS § 5/2-313.

66. Defendants were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to home automation 

devices and “sellers” of home automation device under 810 ILCS 5/2-313.

67. The Wink Hub was at all relevant times a “good” within the meaning of 810 ILCS 

5/2-313.

68. Wink, through its advertisements and product labeling, expressly warranted that the 

Wink Hub could function as a home automation device without requiring that consumers pay a 

monthly subscription fee. 

69. Specifically, Wink advertised that its products had “no long-term contracts or 

required monthly fees.” 

70. However, Wink is now requiring consumers to pay monthly fees in order to operate 

the devices that they have already paid for in full.

71. Cohen would not have purchased a Wink Hub, or would have paid substantially 

less than he did, if he knew that Defendants intended to disable the core functionality of the Wink 

Hub if consumers did not pay newly-added monthly subscription fee. 

72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of express warranties, 

Cohen and the other Illinois class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT

18 U.S.C. § 1030, et seq.

(On behalf of the Nationwide Class) 

73. Cohen repeats and re-alleges each and every factual allegation contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 52.

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:13
14

74. Cohen brings this claim on behalf of himself and the Nationwide Class, or, in the 

alternative, on behalf of the Illinois Class.

75. The Wink Hub is a protected computer within the meaning of the CFAA. 18 U.S.C. 

§1030(e)(2). 

76. Defendant intents to intentionally transmit an update to all Wink Hub devices—or 

the software used to operate those devices—in a manner that requires Wink Hub users to accept 

the update in order to continue using Wink Hub devices. 

77. This update is intended to cause damage to the functionality of Wink Hub and its 

associated software so that owners of the Wink Hub are unable to use their device without 

separately subscribing to and paying a new monthly fee.

78. Cohen and the class members did not provide Defendants with authorization to 

access their Wink Hub devices for purposes of destroying the functionality of their Wink Hub 

devices.

79. The firmware/software update Defendants intentionally transmitted to the Wink 

Hub devices in fact intentionally cause damage to it, resulting in a useless product, unless Cohen 

or class members agree to pay a separate fee to maintain the product’s core functionality.

80. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ intentional disabling of the Wink 

Hub devices, Cohen and the members of the classes sustained damages and other losses in an 

amount to be determined at trial. 

81. Defendants’ conduct damaged Cohen and the members of the classes, who are 

entitled to recover damages, equitable relief, and/or other relief as appropriate, in accordance with 

18 U.S.C. § 1030(g).

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:14
15

COUNT IV

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY

PURSUANT TO THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT

15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq.

(On behalf of the Nationwide Class) 

82. Cohen repeats and re-alleges each and every factual allegation contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 52.

83. Cohen brings this claim on behalf of himself and the Nationwide Class, or, in the 

alternative, on behalf of the Illinois Class.

84. Cohen and the class members are “consumers” within the meaning of the MMWA, 

15 U.S.C. § 2301.

85. Wink is a “supplier” and “warrantor” within the meaning of § 2301.

86. The Wink Hub is a “consumer product” within the meaning of § 2301.

87. Wink made implied warranties arising under state law regarding the Wink Hub

within the meaning of § 2301(7).

88. Wink’s warranties were the basis of the bargain of the contract between Cohen and 

Wink for the sale of the Wink Hub to Cohen.

89. Wink has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to cure its breach of warranties.

90. The amount in controversy of Cohen’s and the class members’ individual claims 

meets or exceeds the sum of $25. 

91. The amount in controversy of this action exceeds the sum of $50,000, exclusive of 

interest and costs, computed on the basis of all claims to be determined in this lawsuit.

92. Further, Wink breached these implied warranties because the Wink Hub does not 

perform as Wink represented or it is not fit for its intended use and Wink affirmatively took steps 

to create the Wink Hub’s failure to perform as it represented; Wink changed the Wink Hub to a 

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:15
16

non-merchantable condition; and because Wink intentionally created the defects and 

nonconformities at issue, and has no intention to cure these defects and nonconformities.

93. Wink violated the MMWA by failing to comply with the implied warranties it made 

to the class by, among other things: (a) selling Wink Hub devices which operate without any 

additional subscription fees, while intending to later charge subscription fees to operate the Wink 

Hub as advertised; (b) disabling the Wink Hub devices of consumers who do not agree to pay 

Wink’s unilaterally-added subscription fee; and (c) warranting that the Wink Hub could be used 

with “no long-term contracts or required monthly fees” while requiring Wink Hub purchasers to 

pay required monthly fees.

94. Resorting to any informal dispute settlement procedure and/or affording 

Defendants another opportunity to cure these breaches of warranties is unnecessary and/or futile. 

95. Any remedies available through any informal dispute settlement procedure would 

be inadequate under the circumstances, as Wink has intentionally created the problems associated 

with the Wink Hub, and, as such, has indicated it has no desire to participate in such a process at 

this time. 

96. Any requirement—whether under the MMWA or otherwise—that Cohen resort to 

an informal dispute resolution procedure and/or afford Wink a reasonable opportunity to cure its 

breach of warranties is excused and thereby deemed satisfied.

97. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the MMWA, Cohen and 

the members of the classes sustained damages and other losses in an amount to be determined at 

trial. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:16
17

COUNT V

VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD ACT

(On behalf of the Illinois Class) 

98. Cohen repeats and re-alleges each and every factual allegation contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 52.

99. Defendants are “persons” as that term is defined in 815 ILCS 505/1(c).

100. Cohen and the members of the Illinois Class are “consumers” as that term is defined 

in 815 ILCS 505/1(e).

101. The CFA prohibits “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 . . . in the conduct of trade or 

commerce . . . whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby.” 815 

ILCS 505/2.

102. In the course of Defendants’ business, Wink concealed and suppressed material 

facts concerning the Wink Hub’s core functionality and ability to operate without a mandatory 

monthly subscription fee, with the intent that Cohen and the Illinois Class would rely on those 

representations to their detriment and Defendants’ benefit. 

103. Wink thus violated the Act by, at minimum, failing to disclose that it intended to 

charge Wink Hub purchasers a monthly $5 subscription fee to maintain the core functionality of 

Wink Hub devices, despite advertising repeatedly that it would impose no monthly fees at any 

time.

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:17
18

104. Wink is affirmatively disabling Wink Hub devices owned by consumers who do 

not agree to pay the newly-imposed monthly subscription fee, notwithstanding its statements and 

advertisements that the Wink Hub would not require such a fee.

105. i.am+ is authorizing and ratifying Wink’s decision to impose new subscription fees 

on its customers. 

106. Defendants knew or should have known that its conduct violates the CFA.

107. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful methods, acts, and 

practices, Cohen and the Illinois Class members incurred actual damages, in that they purchased 

Wink Hub devices that they otherwise would not have, or they paid more than they otherwise 

would have for their Wink Hub devices. 

108. Meanwhile, Defendants have sold more Wink Hub devices than they otherwise 

could have and charged inflated prices for the Wink Hub, thereby unjustly benefiting from their 

conduct.

109. Cohen seeks monetary damages, including punitive damages, appropriate 

injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and other relief as the Court may deem 

necessary, pursuant to 815 ILCS 505/10a.

COUNT VI

TRESPASS TO CHATTELS

(On behalf of the Nationwide Class) 

110. Cohen repeats and re-alleges each and every factual allegation contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 52.

111. On January 7, 2017, and at all relevant times thereafter, Cohen owned and 

possessed an operational Wink Hub device. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 18 of 22 PageID #:18
19

112. On May 6, 2020, Wink announced that, on May 13, 2020, it would—in effect—

unlawfully take from Cohen’s possession and the possession of all class members an operational 

Wink Hub device through its forced update, leaving Cohen and the class members with a worthless 

device, unless Cohen and the class members agreed to pay a new fee to unlock the functionality of 

their device. 

113. By reason of the unlawful taking of their property, Cohen and the class have each 

sustained damages consisting of the fair market value of the property in the amount of 

approximately $99.

COUNT VII

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

(On behalf of the Nationwide Class) 

114. Cohen repeats and re-alleges each and every factual allegation contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 52.

115. Wink made material misrepresentations of fact to Cohen and the class concerning 

the core functionality and price of the Wink Hub, as well as consumers’ ability to operate the Wink 

Hub after purchasing the device. 

116. At the time the representations were made, Defendants knew, or by the exercise of 

reasonable care, should have known that the statements were false and that Defendants would 

impose additional fees for continued operation of the Wink Hub.

117. Wink made such claims about the Wink Hub with the intent to induce Cohen and 

the class members to purchase Wink Hubs.

118. Plaintiff and the class members justifiably relied upon Wink’s misrepresentations 

about the functionality and pricing structure of the Wink Hub.

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 19 of 22 PageID #:19
20

119. Cohen and the class members have suffered harm as the result of Defendants’

misrepresentations and omissions of material fact.

COUNT VIII

FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION

(On behalf of the Nationwide Class) 

120. Cohen repeats and re-alleges each and every factual allegation contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 52.

121. Wink made material misrepresentations of fact to Cohen and the class concerning 

the core functionality and price of the Wink Hub, as well as consumers’ ability to operate the Wink 

Hub after purchasing the device. 

122. At the time the representations were made, Defendants knew that their statements 

were false and that Defendants would impose additional fees for continued operation of the Wink 

Hub.

123. In the alternative, Defendants intentionally contradicted their prior representations 

to consumers in order to fraudulently obtain additional payments from their customers, while 

threatening to disable Wink Hub devices if the owners of those devices did not pay those newly 

imposed fees.

124. Wink made such claims about the Wink Hub with the intent to induce Cohen and 

the class members to purchase Wink Hubs.

125. Plaintiffs and the class members justifiably relied upon Wink’s misrepresentations 

about the functionality and pricing structure of the Wink Hub.

126. Cohen and the class members have suffered harm as the result of Defendants’

misrepresentations and omissions of material fact.

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 20 of 22 PageID #:20
21

COUNT IX

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

(On behalf of the Nationwide Class)

127. Cohen repeats and re-alleges each and every factual allegation contained in 

paragraphs 1 through 52.

128. Cohen brings this claim on behalf of himself and the Nationwide Class.

129. Defendants have benefitted from selling at an unjust profit Wink Hub devices

whose value is diminished by Defendants’ decision to impose monthly fees on Wink customers in 

order to use the devices they already paid for—in full—or face deactivation of their devices, and 

Cohen and the class members have accordingly overpaid for the Wink Hub.

130. Defendants have received and retained unjust benefits from Cohen and the class 

members, and inequity has resulted.

131. It is inequitable and unconscionable for Defendants to retain these benefits.

132. Defendants knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of their fraudulent conduct.

133. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, the amount of their unjust enrichment 

should be disgorged and returned to Cohen and the class members, in an amount to be proven at 

trial.

Conclusion

WHEREFORE, Cohen respectfully requests relief and judgment as follows:

A. Determining that this action is a proper class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure;

B. Adjudging and declaring that Defendants violated the CFA, violated the MMWA,

violated the CFAA, made both negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations, trespassed 

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 21 of 22 PageID #:21
22

on Cohen’s chattels and the chattels of the classes, and breached their express and 

implied warranties to Cohen and the classes;

C. Declaring that Defendants have engaged in the wrongful conduct alleged;

D. Awarding Cohen and members of the classes actual, consequential, and/or 

compensatory damages, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

E. Awarding injunctive relief, including but not limited to restitution to Cohen and 

members of the classes;

F. Awarding Cohen and members of the classes their reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees 

incurred in this action, including expert fees; and

G. Awarding other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

TRIAL BY JURY

Cohen is entitled to and hereby demands a trial by jury.

Dated: May 8, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Aaron D. Radbil

Aaron D. Radbil

Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC

401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540

Austin, TX 78701

Tel: (512) 322-3912

aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

Counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed classes

Case: 1:20-cv-02809 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/08/20 Page 22 of 22 PageID #:22