 Fitbit is manufacturer of activity trackers founded in 2007 and headquartered in  San Francisco, California.  Its products’ functions have included, among other things, step  counting, distance calculating, calorie calculating, and sleep monitoring.      In October 2014, Fitbit announced a new feature: wrist-based heart rate  monitoring.  The two products equipped with this technology, dubbed PurePulse, are the Charge  HR and the Surge, which typically retail at approximately $1505 and $250 respectively.  Those  products are shown below:  I.  Fitbit Falsely Claims the PurePulse Trackers Consistently Record Accurate Heart  Rate.    Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a class action on their own behalf and on behalf of  all other persons similarly situated as members of the proposed Class, pursuant to Federal Rules  of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), and/or (b)(1), (b)(2), and/or (c)(4).  This action satisfies the  numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements of  those provisions.      Because this Complaint is brought in California, California’s choice of law  regime governs the state law allegations in this Complaint.     Under California’s governmental interest/comparative impairment choice of law  rules, California law applies to the claims of all Class members, regardless of their state of  residence or state of purchase.      Because Fitbit is headquartered—and made all decisions relevant to these  claims—in California, California has a substantial connection to, and materially greater interest  in, this the rights, interests, and policies involved in this action than any other state.      Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.    This claim is brought on behalf of the Nationwide Class and California Subclass  to seek injunctive  relief as well as monetary damages against Fitbit under California’s  Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.    Fitbit is a “person” as defined by the CLRA.  Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(c).    Plaintiffs and Class members are “consumers” within the meaning of the CLRA,  as defined by Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(d), who purchased one or more PurePulse Trackers.    The CLRA prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any  person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of goods or services  to any consumer[.]”  Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a).      Fitbit engaged in unfair or deceptive trade practices that violated Cal. Civ. Code §  1770(a), as described above and below, by, among other things, failing to disclose the defective  nature of the PurePulse Trackers, representing that the PurePulse Trackers had characteristics  and benefits that they do not have (e.g., the ability to consistently record accurate heart rates,  even during high-intensity exercise), representing that the PurePulse Trackers were of a  particular standard, quality, or grade when they were of another, and advertising PurePulse  Trackers with the intent not to sell them as advertised.  See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1770(a)(5), (a)(7),  (a)(9).     Fitbit knew, should have known, or was reckless in not knowing that its products  did not have the qualities, characteristics, and functions it represented, warranted, and advertised  them to have.      Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.    Plaintiffs bring this cause of action for themselves and on behalf of the  Nationwide Class and California Subclass.    California Business & Professions Code § 17200 prohibits acts of “unfair  competition,” including any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice” and “unfair,  deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.”  Fitbit’s conduct related to the Heart Rate Defect  violated each of this statute’s three prongs.    Fitbit committed an unlawful business act or practice in violation of Cal. Bus. &  Prof. Code § 17200, et seq., by their violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ.  Code § 1750, et seq., as set forth above, by the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint.   CHOICE OF LAW ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................ 19  CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................. 20  PRAYER FOR RELIEF ................................................................................................................. 38  I.  Fitbit Falsely Claims the PurePulse Trackers Consistently Record Accurate  Heart Rate. ........................................................................................................................ 6  II.  The PurePulse Trackers Fail to Consistently Record Accurate Heart Rate As  Promised and Warranted. ............................................................................................... 11  III. Fitbit Attempted to Keep Class Members Out of Court Through An  Unconscionable Post-Purchase Agreement, Which Class Members Were  Required to Accept in Order to Render Operational the PurePulse Trackers They  Already Purchased. ......................................................................................................... 13  Violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”),   Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.   Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law,  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Based On the Heart Rate Defect   Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law,  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq. – Based On the Post-Purchase “Terms of Service”  