 Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding  paragraphs of this complaint.    Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the proposed Class against  Vigo.    Vigo, as the designer, manufacturer, marketer, distributor, and/or seller, expressly  warranted that its Octopus Products contained octopus.      In fact, the Octopus Products contain squid instead of octopus and Vigo’s express  warranties that the Octopus Products contained octopus are therefore false.      As a direct and proximate cause of Vigo’s breach of express warranty, Plaintiff and  Class members have been injured and harmed because:  (a) they would not have purchased the  Octopus Products on the same terms if they had known the true facts that the Octopus Products  contained squid instead of octopus; (b) they paid a price premium for the Octopus Products due to  Vigo’s  promises that it contained octopus; and (c) Vigo’s Octopus Products did not have the  characteristics, ingredients, uses or benefits, as promised.   Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding  paragraphs of this complaint.    Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding  paragraphs of this complaint.    Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the proposed Class against  Vigo.    Plaintiff and Class members conferred benefits on Vigo by purchasing the Octopus  Products.      Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding  paragraphs of this complaint.    Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the proposed Subclass  against Vigo.    California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(5), prohibits  “[r]epresenting that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses,  benefits, or quantities which they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status,  affiliation, or connection which he or she does not have.”    California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(9), prohibits  “[a]dvertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised.”    Vigo violated this provision by misrepresenting that its Octopus Products contained  octopus when in fact they contained squid.    Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding  paragraphs of this complaint.    Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the proposed Subclass  against Vigo.    Vigo is subject to California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code  §§ 17200, et seq.  The UCL provides, in pertinent part: “Unfair competition shall mean and include  unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading  advertising ….”    Vigo’s  misrepresentations and other conduct, described herein, violated the  “unlawful” prong of the UCL by violating the CLRA as described herein; the FAL as described  herein; and Cal. Com. Code § 2607.    Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding  paragraphs of this complaint.    Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the proposed Subclass  against Vigo.    California’s False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq.,  makes it “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated  before the public in this state, ... in any advertising device ... or in any other manner or means  whatever, including over the Internet, any statement, concerning ... personal property or services,  professional or otherwise, or performance or disposition thereof, which is untrue or misleading and  which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or  misleading.”    Vigo committed acts of false advertising, as defined by §17500, by misrepresenting  that its Octopus Products contained octopus when in fact they contained squid.    Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding  paragraphs of this complaint.    Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the proposed Class against  Vigo.    As discussed above, Vigo misrepresented that the Octopus Products contained  octopus when in fact they contained squid.  Vigo had a duty to disclose this information.    At the time Vigo made these representations, Vigo knew or should have known that  these representations were false or made them without knowledge of their truth or veracity.    At an absolute minimum, Vigo negligently misrepresented and/or negligently  omitted material facts about the Octopus Products.    The negligent misrepresentations and omissions made by Vigo, upon which Plaintiff  and Class members reasonably and justifiably relied, were intended to induce and actually induced  Plaintiff and Class members to purchase the Octopus Products.    Plaintiff and Class members would not have purchased the Octopus Products if the  true facts had been known.    Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all preceding  paragraphs of this complaint.    Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the proposed Class against  Vigo.    As discussed above, Vigo provided Plaintiff and Class members with false or  misleading material information and failed to disclose material facts about its Octopus Products,  including but not limited to the fact that it contained squid when the product was represented to  contain octopus.  These misrepresentations and omissions were made with knowledge of their  falsehood.    The misrepresentations and omissions made by Vigo, upon which Plaintiff and  Class members reasonably and justifiably relied, were intended to induce and actually induced  Plaintiff and Class members to purchase the Octopus Products.    Vigo’s fraudulent actions caused damage to Plaintiff and Class members, who are  entitled to damages and other legal and equitable relief as a result.  Breach of the Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose   Breach of Express Warranty   Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability   Fraud   Negligent Misrepresentation   Unjust Enrichment   Violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act,  California Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq.  (Injunctive Relief Only)   Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law,  California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.   Violation of California’s False Advertising Law,  California Business & Professions Code §§ 17500, et seq.  