KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP - Chimicles & Tikellis LLP · LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.; LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 2:17-cv-01039-MWF-PLA

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Brian S. Kabateck (152054)Lina Melidonian (245283) Drew R. Ferrandini (285102) KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP Engine Company No. 28, Bldg. 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 217-5000 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] [Additional Counsel on Signature Page] Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OSCAR HERRERA, BENJAMIN RHODE, WILLIAM EVANS, JASON MALLEK, MELORA HARDWICK, CRYSTAL DAVENPORT, KAREN TRACY, ROYCE HAZELTON, SHAWN STALLARD, and KIM NIES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.; LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01039-MWF-PLA FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 2:17-cv-01039-MWF-PLA Document 27 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 90 Page ID #:101

i FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE .................................................................................... 3 PARTIES ....................................................................................................................... 4 A. California Plaintiffs ................................................................................... 4 B. Florida Plaintiff ......................................................................................... 9 C. Illinois Plaintiff ....................................................................................... 10 D. Maryland Plaintiff ................................................................................... 13 E. New York Plaintiff .................................................................................. 15 F. Texas Plaintiff ......................................................................................... 16 G. Utah Plaintiff ........................................................................................... 18 H. Washington Plaintiff ............................................................................... 21 I. Defendants .............................................................................................. 23 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ...................................................................................... 25 A. The LG G4 Smartphone ........................................................................... 25 B. The LG V10 Smartphone ......................................................................... 28 C. The LG Nexus 5X Smartphone ................................................................ 32 D. The Widespread Bootloop Defect Becomes Apparent in All of the Class Phones ........................................ 34 E. The Bootloop Defect’s Impact on Consumers ......................................... 39 LG G4 Complaints ................................................................................... 39


ii FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LG V10 Complaints ................................................................................. 43 LG Nexus 5X Complaints ........................................................................ 47 F. LG’s Continued Failure to Remedy the Bootloop Failure ....................... 49 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................ 53 CAUSES OF ACTION ................................................................................................ 57 COUNT I VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200, et seq.) (“UCL”) ................................ 57 COUNT II VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 1750, et seq.) (“CLRA”) . 57 COUNT III VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S FALSE ADVERTISING LAW (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17500, et seq.) (“FAL”) ............................... 62 COUNT IV VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE & UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT (“FDUTPA”) FLA. STAT. §§ 501.204, et seq.) ............... 64 COUNT V VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT (“Illinois CFA”) 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 505/1, et seq. ............................................................................ 65 COUNT VI VIOLATIONS OF THE MARYLAND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT MD. CODE COM. LAW §§ 13-101, et seq. (“MCPA”) ........................ 68 COUNT VII VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 349 N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW § 349 ................................................................. 71 COUNT VIII VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 350 N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW § 350 ................................................................. 72 COUNT IX VIOLATIONS OF THE TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE §§ 17.41, et seq. (“TDTPA”) ..................... 73 COUNT X VIOLATION OF UTAH CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES ACT (UTAH CODE ANN. § 13-11-1, et seq.) (“CSPA”) ............................... 76


iii FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COUNT XI VIOLATIONS OF THE WASHINGTON CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT WASH. REV. CODE §§ 19.86, et seq. (“WCPA”) ....... 79 COUNT XII FRAUD/FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT ....................................... 81 COUNT XIII UNJUST ENRICHMENT .................................................................... 83 PRAYER FOR RELIEF .............................................................................................. 84 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ................................................................................... 85


- 1 - FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Oscar Herrera, Benjamin Rhode, William Evans, Jason Mallek,

Melora Hardwick, Crystal Davenport, Karen Tracy, Royce Hazelton, Shawn

Stallard, and Kim Nies, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

bring this class action against Defendants LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (“LG USA”)

and LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (“LGEMU”) (collectively

“Defendants” or “LG”), and in support thereof aver the following based upon

personal information and the investigation of their counsel:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a class action lawsuit brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of

themselves and a class of similarly situated consumers who purchased LG G4,

V10, and Nexus 5X model smartphones (the “Phones” or “Class Phones”) that

suffer from the so-called “bootloop” defect (“the Bootloop Defect”). Each of the

Plaintiffs have been injured as a result of experiencing this known defect in Class

Phones. As the numerous complaints posted on product reviews, blogs and other

consumer resources reveal, countless consumers have also experienced bootlooping

in their Phones. At all times during the Class Period, Defendants knew of or should

have known of the Bootloop Defect (discussed below) in Class Phones, and failed

to disclose it in order to increase their sales of Class Phones.

2. Bootlooping often manifests in the Phones without warning, and puts

them into a death-spiral wherein affected Phones will suddenly switch off and then

turn back on, and remain stuck on LG’s “Life’s Good” or the Google start-up

screen. This process typically repeats over and over in Class Phones. When this

occurs, the Class Phones are completely unresponsive and non-functional, and they

fail to proceed past the start-up screen and on to the home screen.

3. The Bootloop Defect manifests both while Class Phones are inside

and outside of the warranty period. As discussed in more detail below, it is



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

reportedly caused by a problem with a loose contact or solder issue in the main

board in Class Phones. This hardware reportedly causes the Class Phones to

overheat.

4. Whatever the origin of the problem may be, it has left consumers

across the country with LG smartphones that do not work as intended and, in

instances where the Bootloop Defect manifests even slightly outside of the

warranty period, with no recourse. Even in instances where Defendants have

replaced Class Phones under warranty, instead of undertaking a recall of offering

some other adequate remedy, consumers have to wait several days or weeks to

receive an accommodation, which often ends up being a refurbished G4, V10, or

Nexus 5X phone that suffers from the same Bootloop Defect. For those Class

Phones that manifest the Defect out of warranty, LG typically declines to provide

any remedy whatsoever, leaving consumers (including multiple Plaintiffs) to

procure a replacement at their own expense. Consumers have also reported losing

photos, personal information, and data that was stored on their Class Phones, and

being denied warranty coverage under the pretense that the screen is scratched or

cracked (but otherwise in warranty and working but for the Bootloop Defect).

5. Despite the fact that Defendants were aware or should have been

aware of the Bootloop Defect, they fail to disclose the Bootloop Defect to

purchasers of Class Phones. They then cashed in on this omission by routinely

refusing to provide repairs free of charge. Upon information and belief, some

mobile phone providers have charged consumers a “warranty” fee or similar fee

when the Phones have exhibited the Bootloop Defect while still in the warranty

period.

6. As a result of the Bootloop Defect and the monetary costs associated

with repairs, Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered injury in fact, incurred

damages, and have otherwise been harmed by Defendants’ conduct.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek redress for Defendants’ violations of

California state consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs also seek recovery for

monetary and equitable relief for Defendants’ fraud, unjust enrichment, and

declaratory relief.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because it arises under the laws of the United States and

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) because: (i) there are 100 or more class members;

(ii) there is an aggregate amount in controversy exceeding $5,000,000, exclusive

of interest and costs; and (iii) because at least one plaintiff and defendants are

citizens of different states. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state

law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

9. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391

because Defendants transact business in this district, are subject to personal

jurisdiction in this district, and are therefore deemed to be citizens of this district.

Additionally, Defendants have advertised in this district and have received

substantial revenue and profits from their sales of Class Phones in this district;

therefore, a substantial part of the events and/or omissions giving rise to the claims

occurred, in part, within this district.

10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they

have conducted substantial business in this judicial district and intentionally and

purposefully placed the Class Phones into the stream of commerce within this

district and throughout the United States.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PARTIES

A. California Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Oscar Herrera

11. Plaintiff Oscar Herrera is an adult individual residing in Paso

Robles, California. On November 30, 2015, he purchased a LG V10 smartphone

from a Verizon store located in San Luis Obispo, California. Plaintiff Herrera paid

$672.00 for his Phone (serial number 510KPNY0013975), in addition to a phone

cover and glass screen protector that he also bought.

12. When Plaintiff Herrera purchased his Class Phone, an employee at

the Verizon store handled the Phone setup process. Mr. Herrera did not have to use

the LG website to set up his Phone and he played no role in the setup process. At

no time before, during, or after he purchased his V10 Phone was Mr. Herrera ever

made aware of the existence of any purported arbitration clause relating to his

Class Phone. At the time of his purchase, Plaintiff Herrera was unaware that LG’s

warranty purported to have him waive all of his rights to a jury trial and to litigate

disputes in a class action lawsuit.

13. Shortly after the one year warranty on Plaintiff Herrera’s Class

Phone expired, he experienced the Bootloop Defect, which rendered his Phone

completely useless.

14. Plaintiff Herrera continues to pay $15 per month for his Class Phone

under the terms of his contract with Verizon.

15. As a result of the Bootloop Defect and Plaintiff Herrera’s Class

Phone bootlooping, Plaintiff Herrera permanently lost photographs and other data

stored on his Phone.

16. Plaintiff has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of Defendants’

omissions and/or misrepresentations associated with the Bootloop Defect,

including, but not limited to, loss of use, loss of intellectual property, out-of-



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

pocket losses, treble and punitive damages, future repairs, and diminished value of

his Class Phone.

17. Plaintiff Herrera would not have purchased his Class Phone had he

known that it contained the Bootloop Defect.

Plaintiff Benjamin Rhode

18. Plaintiff Benjamin Rhode is an adult individual residing in San

Jacinto, California. On November 10, 2015, Plaintiff Rhode purchased an LG V10

smartphone from an AT&T store located in Redlands, California. The purchase

price for Plaintiff Rhode’s Class Phone was $755.99. His Class Phone bears the

following serial number: 353074070265077.

19. Plaintiff Rhode purchased his LG V10 smartphone based largely

upon LG advertisements indicating that V10 Phones are highly durable and made

with superior craftsmanship. One of the advertisements he viewed (depicted infra)

touted the Phone’s “Stainless steel and superior craftsmanship combine to give

you unrivaled durability for whatever life drops.”

20. When Plaintiff Rhode purchased his Class Phone, an employee at the

AT&T store handled the Phone setup process for him. The box that Plaintiff

Rhode’s V10 Phone was packaged in did not have an arbitration clause printed or

displayed on it. At no time before he purchased or at the time he purchased his

V10 Phone was Plaintiff Rhode ever made aware of the existence of any purported

arbitration clause relating to his Class Phone. At the time of his purchase, Plaintiff

Rhode was unaware that LG’s warranty purported to have him waive all of his

rights to a jury trial and to litigate disputes in a class action lawsuit.

21. On February 3, 2017, Plaintiff Rhode’s Class Phone experienced the

Bootloop Defect, rendering his Class Phone completely useless.

22. Plaintiff Rhode contacted LG customer service and was informed

that there was nothing LG could do. LG’s customer service representative



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

indicated that Plaintiff could seek a repair, but that Plaintiff would be responsible

for the costs of shipping and repair. Plaintiff then went to an AT&T store and the

most the store could offer was an $80 trade-in value, which Plaintiff declined as he

still (at the time) had a $300 balance on his Class Phone.

23. Plaintiff contacted an LG customer service representative again and

was told to ship his Class Phone to LG at his expense and that he would have to

pay for any repairs. When Plaintiff asked about the cost for the diagnosis and

repair, LG refused to give him a quote for the price, and the customer service

representative hung up on him.

24. Plaintiff was first forced to reactivate an old cell phone as his V10 is

completely useless, but eventually Plaintiff had to purchase a brand new Motorola

phone at a cost of approximately $320. Because his Class Phone is no longer

operable, Plaintiff Rhode has lost access to photos, documents, and other personal

intellectual property stored on his Class Phone.

25. Plaintiff continues to pay the balance due on his V10, which is

approximately $24 a month.

26. Plaintiff Rhode has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of

Defendants’ omissions and/or misrepresentations associated with the Bootloop

Defect, including, but not limited to, loss of use, treble and punitive damages,

future repairs, and diminished value of his Class Phone.

27. Plaintiff Rhode would not have purchased his Class Phone had he


Plaintiff William Evans

28. Plaintiff William Evans is an adult individual residing in Temecula,

California. On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff Evans purchased an LG V10 smartphone

from a T-Mobile store located in Oceanside, California. The purchase price for

Plaintiff Evans’ Class Phone was $599.99. His Class Phone bears the following



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

serial number: 602KPNY399623. The Class Phone was purchased using T-

Mobile’s Equipment Installment Plan, with $0 down, and payments of $25 each

month (plan no. 20160325487224). At the same time, using the same payment

plan, Plaintiff purchased a screen protector (LG V10 PureGear Roll-On Glass

Screen Protector), and a case (LG V10 Incipio DualPro Case) to protect the phone

from damage.

29. When Plaintiff Evans purchased his Class Phone, an employee at the

T-Mobile store handled the Phone setup process for him. Plaintiff does not recall

ever receiving a box for his Class Phone. At no time before, during, or after he

purchased his V10 Phone was Plaintiff Evans ever made aware of the existence of

any purported arbitration clause relating to his Class Phone. At the time of his

purchase, Plaintiff Evans was unaware that LG’s warranty purported to have him

waive all of his rights to a jury trial and to litigate disputes in a class action

lawsuit.

30. On or about February 1, 2017, Plaintiff Evans noticed his Class

Phone beginning to freeze, and it became non-responsive to touch inputs and the

buttons located on the back of the phone. In the days the followed, these issues

became more persistent.

31. On February 6 and 7, 2017, Plaintiff Evans’s Class Phone began to

restart itself after a minute or so of being frozen.

32. On February 14, 2017—a little over ten months after he purchased

his Class Phone, and within its one-year warranty period—Plaintiff Evans’ Class

Phone experienced the Bootloop Defect, rendering it completely useless.

33. Plaintiff Evans contacted T-Mobile on February 15, 2017 to request

a replacement Phone or a repair under his warranty. During this call, a T-Mobile

representative informed Plaintiff that because his Class Phone had a minor crack

on the screen, they would not be able to service the Class Phone under the



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

warranty. T-Mobile indicated that Plaintiff would have to seek a replacement

through his insurance, which would require him to pay a $175 deductible. Plaintiff

declined to do so.

34. On February 24, 2017, Plaintiff Evans contacted LG directly to

inquire about a warranty repair or replacement. LG also declined to provide any

fix or replacement under the warranty and told him that because of the crack he

would have to pay to repair the phone.

35. Prior to the manifestation of the Bootloop Defect in Plaintiff’s Class

Phone, his Class Phone was fully functional despite the minimally cracked screen.

36. Plaintiff’s Class Phone has been rendered an expensive paper weight

that is completely inoperable and for which he still owes payments.

37. As a result of the Bootloop Defect and Plaintiff Evans’s Class Phone

bootlooping, Plaintiff Evans permanently lost photographs, videos, work and

personal text and text attachments, and documents stored on his Phone.

38. Because Defendants would not provide warranty coverage (despite

the fact that the Bootloop Defect manifested within the warranty period), Plaintiff

has been forced to purchase a new phone.

39. Plaintiff Evans has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of


Defect, including, but not limited to, loss of use, loss of photos and other

intellectual property; treble and punitive damages; and diminished value of his

Class Phone.

40. Plaintiff Evans would not have purchased his Class Phone had he




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

B. Florida Plaintiff

Plaintiff Jason Mallek

41. Plaintiff Jason Mallek is an adult individual residing in Spring Hill,

Florida. In or about December 2015, Plaintiff Mallek purchased an LG G4

smartphone from a Verizon store located in Spring Hill, Florida. The retail price

for Plaintiff Mallek’s Class Phone was $550, and Plaintiff pays this amount in

monthly installments of $23.07. His Class Phone bears the following serial

number: 357903068732191.

42. Plaintiff Mallek purchased his LG G4 smartphone as a gift for his

son based largely upon LG’s advertisements and reviews indicating that G4

Phones are high quality phones. Plaintiff’s Class Phone is in his own name, and

was purchased by Plaintiff on his own phone plan.

43. After Plaintiff Mallek purchased his Class Phone, he gave it as a gift

to his son and they remotely activated the phone. Plaintiff does not recall any type

of setup for the Phone. Plaintiff Mallek no longer has the box for his Class Phone

but does not recall there being any purported arbitration clause on the box for the

G4. At no time before, during, or after he purchased his G4 Phone was Plaintiff

Mallek ever made aware of the existence of any purported arbitration clause

relating to his Class Phone. At the time of his purchase, Plaintiff Mallek was

unaware that LG’s warranty purported to have him waive all of his rights to a jury

trial and/or to litigate disputes in a class action lawsuit.

44. In January 2017, Plaintiff Mallek’s Class Phone experienced the

Bootloop Defect, rendering his Class Phone completely useless.

45. Plaintiff Mallek first contacted Verizon, and they attempted to

troubleshoot the issue. None of Verizon’s troubleshooting methods fixed the

Phone. Verizon indicated that Plaintiff could get a new phone through insurance

but that this would requirement payment of an insurance deductible of $150.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff Mallek then called LG customer service and was informed that because

the Phone was out of warranty, the company was not liable for anything and there

was nothing it could do for him. Plaintiff also followed up with an e-mail to LG

and LG never responded.

46. After two days of being without a phone, Plaintiff Mallek opted to

submit an insurance claim to obtain a replacement phone. This cost Plaintiff $150

out of pocket.

47. Because his Class Phone is no longer operable, Plaintiff Mallek has

lost access to photos, documents, and other personal intellectual property stored on

his Class Phone.

48. Plaintiff Mallek has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of


Defect, including, but not limited to, out of pocket losses, loss of use, and

diminished value of his Class Phone.

49. Plaintiff Mallek would not have purchased his Class Phone had he


C. Illinois Plaintiff

Plaintiff Melora Hardwick

50. Plaintiff Melora Hardwick is an adult individual residing in Park

Forest, Illinois. On or about February 9, 2016, Plaintiff Hardwick purchased an LG

G4 smartphone from a Sprint store located in Matteson, Illinois. Plaintiff paid

$219.99 for her Class Phone. The serial number on this Phone was:

089675085404276240.

51. Plaintiff Hardwick purchased her LG G4 smartphone based largely

upon LG’s advertisements and reviews indicating that G4 Phones are high quality

Phones.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

52. When Plaintiff Hardwick purchased her Class Phone, an employee at

the Matteson Sprint store handled the Phone setup process. Plaintiff did not have

to use the LG website to set up her Phone and she played no role in the setup

process. At no time before, when, or after she purchased her G4 Phone was

Plaintiff Hardwick ever made aware of the existence of any arbitration clause

relating to her Class Phone. No one at the Sprint store mentioned an arbitration

provision to her. At the time of her purchase, Plaintiff Hardwick was unaware that

LG’s warranty purported to have her waive all of her rights to a jury trial and to

litigate disputes in a class action lawsuit. The box in which Plaintiff’s LG G4 was

packaged also did not have anything on it mentioning arbitration.

53. Issues with Plaintiff’s Phone began on November 5, 2016. Plaintiff

was in the middle of sending a text message when her Phone became very hot and

the screen went black. The Phone was still on but she was unable to get the screen

to respond. Plaintiff turned the Phone off by removing the battery. After a few

minutes of letting the Phone cool off, Plaintiff reinserted the battery and attempted

to boot up her Phone. The Phone booted to the “Life’s Good” screen and then

progressed to the Sprint screen. After several minutes, the Phone would not move

past this screen. The Phone once again became very hot and Plaintiff removed the

battery.

54. Several hours later, Plaintiff attempted to boot up the Phone once

more. Again, the screen lit up and displayed the LG “Life’s Good” screen, but

would not boot past this screen. The Phone also began to overheat. Plaintiff had

thus experienced the Bootloop Defect.

55. Plaintiff scheduled an appointment with the Sprint store for

November 6, 2016. She spoke with a repair technician at Sprint who informed her

that Sprint would have to send the Phone out for repairs. This technician also told

Plaintiff that the LG G4 has a “glitch” in that during Phone charging, and a part



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

inside of the Phone that is “not properly soldered” will “disengage.” Sprint sent the

Phone out for repairs.

56. Plaintiff had insurance on her Phone through Sprint. On November

12, when the Phone was returned to the Sprint store, it had not been repaired, and

Plaintiff was simply given a refurbished G4 Phone. Plaintiff Hardwick was assured

this problem would not occur anymore.

57. During the time she did not have her Phone, Plaintiff had to pay for a

loaner Samsung phone in the amount $220.35, which included a price for the

loaner, activation of this loaner line, and taxes. She was ultimately refunded only

$100 relating to the loaner.

58. On March 3, 2017, while Plaintiff was listening to music on her

refurbished G4 Phone, the Phone became hot and the screen went black once

again. She scheduled another appointment with the Sprint store. This Phone, too,

experienced the Bootloop Defect. The next day, Plaintiff was told that the

refurbished G4 Phone would need to be sent out for repair and that Plaintiff would

again need to purchase a new line and pay for a loaner phone. She paid the same

amount ($220.35) out of pocket for this loaner, and was again only refunded about

$100 of this amount. The repair technician again indicated that the issue was due

to a bad solder in G4 Phones. Sprint again ultimately provided a refurbished G4

Phone. This time, a service representative at the Sprint store informed Plaintiff that

she should “get out” of her contract and invest in either a Samsung or an iPhone.

59. Dismayed with her experiences, Plaintiff contacted Sprint directly on

March 16 and spoke with a different Sprint representative. She was instructed to

call LG and was not provided any other information other than that she would

have to send her Phone to LG and that LG would take care of her concerns.

60. As a result of the Bootloop Defect, Plaintiff experienced multiple

days of loss of use of her G4 Phones.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

61. She was also assessed a fee on her Sprint bills in conjunction with

obtaining a refurbished G4 Phone on two different occasions. This amount was in

addition to the payments she made for loaner phones.

62. Furthermore, because her G4 Phones became inoperable, Plaintiff

Hardwick has lost access to photos, documents, and other personal intellectual

property stored on the Phones.

63. Each time that Plaintiff experienced the Bootloop Defect and was

provided a refurbished G4, she did not want another G4 Phone but was required to

receive one under the terms of her contract.

64. Plaintiff Hardwick has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of


Defect, including, but not limited to, out of pocket losses, loss of use, diminished

value, and loss of personal items.

65. Plaintiff Hardwick would not have purchased her Class Phone had

she known that it contained the Bootloop Defect.

D. Maryland Plaintiff

Plaintiff Crystal Davenport

66. Plaintiff Crystal Davenport is an adult individual residing in

Rhodesdale, Maryland. On January 6, 2016, she purchased an LG V10 from an

AT&T store located in Seaford, Delaware. Plaintiff Davenport paid $699.99 for

her Phone. Her Class Phone bears the following IMEI number: 353074-07-

150197-5.

67. When Plaintiff Davenport purchased her Class Phone, an employee

at the AT&T store handled the Phone setup process. Plaintiff did not have to use

the LG website to set up her Phone and played no role in the setup process. At no

time before, during, or after she purchased her V10 Phone was Plaintiff Davenport

ever made aware of the existence of any purported arbitration clause relating to her



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Class Phone. No employees at the AT&T store ever mentioned an arbitration

provision to her. At the time of her purchase, Plaintiff Davenport was unaware that

LG’s warranty purported to have her waive all of her rights to a jury trial and to

litigate disputes in a class action lawsuit.

68. In or about December 2016, Plaintiff Davenport’s Phone began to

bootloop. Her Phone turned off and would not turn back on. When Plaintiff tried to

turn the Phone on, the screen would initially light up, proceed to display the

AT&T symbol on the screen, then transition to display a blue circle, after which it

would fail to proceed through the boot-up process any further and turn off.

69. Plaintiff Davenport tried to charge the Phone and replaced the

battery, but neither stopped the Phone from bootlooping.

70. Plaintiff Davenport submitted a claim to her insurance for the

defective device. She paid a $168 deductible and received a replacement V10.

71. Plaintiff Davenport’s replacement V10 is now showing warning

signs that it may soon bootloop. It sometimes heats up unexpectedly, at which time

the battery must be removed in order to turn the Phone off and prevent it from

overheating. Then, sometimes when the battery is reinserted and the Phone is

powered up again, the boot-up process takes an extended amount of time, lagging

at the blue circle display before finally proceeding through the boot-up process.

72. As a result of the Bootloop Defect and her Phone bootlooping,

Plaintiff Davenport permanently lost photographs and other intellectual property

stored on her Phone.





her Class Phone.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

74. Plaintiff would not have purchased her Class Phone had she known

that it contained the Bootloop Defect.

E. New York Plaintiff

Plaintiff Karen Tracy

75. Plaintiff Karen Tracy is an adult individual residing in Buffalo, New

York. In or about August 2015, Plaintiff Tracy purchased an LG G4 smartphone

from a Verizon store located in West Seneca, New York. The retail price for

Plaintiff Tracy’s Class Phone was $600. At the time of the purchase, Plaintiff also

purchased an LG G4 Incipio phone case for $24.99 and a Plantronics M55

Bluetooth Head for $59.99. Her Class Phone bears the following serial number:

505KPJP0130076.

76. A customer service representative at the Verizon store set up

Plaintiff’s Class Phone. The AT&T G4 box in which Plaintiff’s Phone was

packaged mentioned nothing about arbitration. At no time before, during, or after

Plaintiff’s Class Phone was purchased was Plaintiff Tracy ever made aware of the

existence of any purported arbitration clause relating to her Class Phone. At the

time of the purchase, Plaintiff Tracy was unaware that LG’s warranty purported to

waive all rights to a jury trial and/or to litigate disputes in a class action lawsuit.

77. In or about August 2016, Plaintiff Tracy was using her Class Phone

when the Phone suddenly began to freeze. The only way to unfreeze the Phone

was by removing her battery and reinserting the battery. She called Verizon and a

representative walked her through a hard reset, informing Plaintiff that her Phone

was out of warranty. However, approximately two weeks after the Phone began

freezing, the Phone experienced the Bootloop Defect and would not boot up past

the LG “Life’s Good” screen.

78. Having been informed that the Phone was out of warranty, Verizon

offered the opportunity for Plaintiff Tracy to purchase an extended warranty for



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

$12 per month. Because she still owed approximately $300 on her Class Phone,

Plaintiff Tracy purchased the warranty extension and received a replacement G4

Phone through the insurance. The replacement G4 lasted until approximately

February 2017 when Plaintiff could no longer use the replacement due to an

unrelated battery issue in the Phone.

79. Plaintiff ended up paying off the balance of her Phone with a lump

sum payment and cancelled her warranty extension in or about February 2017.

80. Because of the Bootloop Defect, Plaintiff’s Class Phone was rendered

inoperable and she was forced Plaintiff to pay six months of extended warranty

payments at $12 per month, out of pocket, lest she purchase a brand new phone.

Plaintiff also lost use of her Class Phone, in addition to losing photos, videos, and

other personal intellectual property stored on her Class Phone.

81. Plaintiff Tracy has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of



value of her Class Phone, and loss of personal intellectual property.

82. Plaintiff Tracy would not have purchased her Class Phone had she


F. Texas Plaintiff

Plaintiff Royce Hazelton

83. Plaintiff Royce Hazelton is an adult individual residing in Azle,

Texas. In or about March 2016, she purchased an LG V10 from an AT&T store

located in Fort Worth, Texas. The retail price for Plaintiff Hazelton’s Class Phone

was $699.99, and Plaintiff was to pay this amount in monthly installments of

$23.34.

84. When Plaintiff Hazelton purchased her Class Phone, an employee at

the AT&T store handled the Phone setup process in its entirety. Plaintiff did not



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

have to use the LG website to set up her Phone and sheplayed no role in the setup

process. At no time before, during, or after she purchased her V10 Phone was

Plaintiff Hazelton ever made aware of the existence of any purported arbitration

clause relating to her Class Phone. No employees at the AT&T store mentioned an

arbitration provision to her. If they did, Plaintiff Hazelton would not have

purchased her Phone and would have purchased a different smartphone instead.

Plaintiff Hazelton no longer has the box for her Class Phone but does not recall

there being an arbitration clause on the box for the LG V10. At the time of her

purchase, Plaintiff Hazelton was unaware that LG’s warranty purported to have

her waive all of her rights to a jury trial and to litigate disputes in a class action

lawsuit.

85. In or about December 2016, Plaintiff Hazelton’s Phone experienced

the Bootloop Defect. Her Phone would go through the boot-up process four to five

times, freezing at the LG “Life’s Good” screen each time, and then cease

functioning.

86. Plaintiff Hazelton took her Phone to an AT&T store in Azle, Texas,

where she was told the bootloop was a manufacturing problem and that she would

need to purchase a new phone.

87. Plaintiff Hazelton subsequently submitted a claim to her insurance

for the defective Phone. On January 6, 2017, Plaintiff was charged $112

deductible and received a replacement V10. When Plaintiff was given the

replacement V10, she did not want this Phone, but she was told that she did not

have any other choice and that she was required to receive the same Phone.

88. Recently, Plaintiff’s current LG V10 has begun to have battery

issues that she experienced with her previous bootlooped V10, and Plaintiff is

concerned that this Phone is on the verge of experiencing the Bootloop Defect.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

89. As a result of the Bootloop Defect and her Phone bootlooping,

Plaintiff Hazelton permanently lost photographs, videos (including sentimental

photos and videos of her granddaughter) and other intellectual property stored on

her Phone.





her Class Phone.

91. Plaintiff would not have purchased her Class Phone had she known


G. Utah Plaintiff

Plaintiff Shawn Stallard

92. Plaintiff Shawn Stallard is an adult individual residing in Saint

George, Utah. On September 28, 2015, he purchased an LG G4 from the Verizon

kiosk in the Costco store located in Washington, Utah. The retail price of Plaintiff

Stallard’s Phone was $549.99, which he paid in installments of $22.91 or $23.06.

His Class Phone bears the following IMEI number: 357903065829222.

93. Plaintiff Stallard based his Phone purchase on prior experience

owning LG smartphones and satisfaction with prior LG models. He also

understood the G4 to be a “flagship” model, which he understood meant it was

high quality.

94. When Plaintiff Stallard purchased his Class Phone, an employee at

the Verizon kiosk handled the Phone setup process. Plaintiff did not have to use

the LG website to set up his Phone and played no role in the setup process. At no

time before, during, or after he purchased his G4 Phone was Plaintiff Stallard ever

made aware of the existence of any purported arbitration clause relating to his



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Class Phone. No employees at the Verizon store mentioned an arbitration

provision to him. At the time of his purchase, Plaintiff Stallard was unaware that

LG’s warranty purported to have his waive all of his rights to a jury trial and to

litigate disputes in a class action lawsuit.

95. On February 26, 2017, Plaintiff Stallard’s Phone began to bootloop

without warning. His Phone turned off unexpectedly and then began to reboot, but

failed to completely boot-up, heating up and hanging on the initialization screen

instead. Plaintiff Stallard removed and replaced the battery in an effort to fix the

problem, but the Phone still would not proceed through the boot-up process.

96. That night, Plaintiff researched the problem he was experiencing

with his G4 online and for the first time became aware of the G4’s Bootloop

Defect. In his online research, he found widespread reports of the Bootloop Defect

from other consumers.

97. On February 27, 2017, Plaintiff Stallard visited a local Verizon store.

A store employee inspected the Phone for physical or water damage and confirmed

that there was none. The store employee also confirmed to Plaintiff Stallard that

his Phone was experiencing the Bootloop Defect and directed Plaintiff to contact

LG for repair because the Bootloop Defect had manifested outside of LG’s one-

year limited warranty.

98. That night, Plaintiff contacted LG customer support via online chat.

The LG representative informed Plaintiff Stallard that, because the Bootloop

Defect had manifested outside of LG’s one-year limited warranty, the only option

LG would offer him was a repair service, the cost of which Plaintiff would have to

pay. The LG representative also appeared to disclaim LG’s earlier public statement

regarding LG’s commitment to provide redress to consumers related to the

Bootloop Defect in the G4. An excerpt from the transcript of the chat is below:



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

99. After researching other consumers’ costs related to Bootloop Defect

repair service for the G4, which reportedly were $150 or more, Plaintiff Stallard

bought a Motorola Moto Z Play Droid smartphone at a cost of $408 to replace his

G4. Plaintiff Stallard also had to pay an upgrade fee of $37 to Verizon in

connection with buying the replacement smartphone.

100. Plaintiff Stallard had used his Phone to conduct business. The loss of

his Phone’s functionality caused by the Bootloop Defect increased overhead costs

for his business, including time spent on determining the problem, communicating

with Verizon and LG regarding the problem, and the expense of his replacement

smartphone.





his Class Phone.

102. Plaintiff would not have purchased his Class Phone had he known


H. Washington Plaintiff

Plaintiff Kim Nies

103. Plaintiff Kim Nies is an adult individual residing in Yacolt,

Washington. On or about November 12, 2015, Plaintiff and her husband purchased

an LG V10 smartphone from an AT&T store located in Vancouver, Washington.

The retail price for Plaintiff Nies’ Class Phone was $699.99, and Plaintiff pays off

this amount in monthly installments of $23.34. At the time of the purchase,

Plaintiff also purchased an LG V10 Incipio DualPro Black phone case for $29.99

and a Gadget Guard-LG V10 Black Ice for $39.99. Her Class Phone bears the

following serial number: 510KPNY015079.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

104. After Plaintiff Nies purchased her Class Phone, she completed the

setup of the Phone. She has no recollection of having to click through any

arbitration agreement to complete setup. The AT&T V10 box in which Plaintiff’s

Phone was packaged mentioned nothing about arbitration. At no time before,

during, or after Plaintiff’s Class Phone was purchased were Plaintiff Nies or her

husband ever made aware of the existence of any purported arbitration clause

relating to her Class Phone. At the time of the purchase, Plaintiff Nies and her

husband were unaware that LG’s warranty purported to waive all rights to a jury

trial and/or to litigate disputes in a class action lawsuit.

105. On February 11, 2017, Plaintiff Nies was using her Class Phone

when it suddenly turned off. She attempted to turn the Phone back on but it would

not boot up past the LG “Life’s Good” screen. After repeatedly trying to turn her

Phone back on, Plaintiff and her husband called AT&T support. AT&T had

Plaintiff and her husband attempt a factory reset but this did not resolve the issue.

Because the Phone was three months out of warranty, AT&T instructed that

Plaintiff would have to contact LG for further assistance.

106. On February 13, 2017, Plaintiff’s husband contacted LG and

explained the issue with her Phone. Plaintiff and her husband completed the steps

required to send the phone into LG for diagnosis and repair. LG indicated the issue

was a power freeze, but that the Phone was out of warranty and that the repair

would cost $78.05, or that Plaintiff could pay $194.04 for a repair with a full

refurbish. Plaintiff chose the cheaper repair option for $78.05.

107. Plaintiff’s Class Phone was repaired and returned to Plaintiff on

March 13, 2017.

108. Because of the Bootloop Defect, Plaintiff’s Class Phone was

rendered inoperable and required Plaintiff to pay $78.05 out of pocket for a repair.

Plaintiff also lost use of her Class Phone for over a month. Furthermore, Plaintiff



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Nies has lost photos, videos, and other personal intellectual property stored on her

Class Phone.

109. Plaintiff Nies has suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of



value of her Class Phone, and loss of personal intellectual property.

110. Plaintiff Nies would not have purchased her Class Phone had she


I. Defendants

111. Defendant LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (“LGUSA”) is, upon

information and belief, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the

state of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 1000 Sylvan

Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632.

112. Defendant LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (“LGEMU”) is,

upon information and belief, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of

the state of California, with its principal place of business located at 1000 Sylvan

Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632. LGEMU is engaged in the business

of manufacturing, distributing, and selling LG consumer products, including G4,

V10, and Nexus 5X smartphones, as well as providing sales and marketing support

for LG in North America.

113. DOES 1 to 10 are now, and/or at all times mentioned in this complaint,

licensed to do business and/or actually doing business in the State of California.

Plaintiffs do not know the true names or capacities, whether individual, partner or

corporate, of DOES 1 to 10 and for that reason, DOES 1 to 10 are sued under such

fictitious names. Plaintiffs will seek leave of court to amend this complaint to allege

such names and capacities as soon as they are ascertained.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

114. Defendants, and each of them, are now, and/or at all times mentioned

in this complaint were in some manner legally responsible for the events,

happenings and circumstances alleged in this complaint. Defendants proximately

caused Plaintiffs, all others similarly situated to be subjected to the unlawful

practices, wrongs, complaints, injuries, and/or damages alleged in this complaint.

Defendants, and each of them, are now, and/or at all times mentioned in this

complaint were the agents, servants, and/or employees of some or all other

Defendants, and vice-versa, and in doing the things alleged in this complaint,

Defendants are now and/or at all times mentioned in this complaint were acting

within the course and scope of that agency, servitude, and/or employment.

115. Defendants, and each of them, are now, and/or at all times mentioned

in this complaint members of, and/or engaged in, a joint venture, partnership and

common enterprise, and acting within the course and scope of, and in pursuance of

said joint venture, partnership, and common enterprise. Furthermore, Defendants,

may have been the alter ego and acting in the same or similar capacity as

Defendants, in the treatment of Plaintiffs, such that it would be unjust to provide

separate legal treatment of said Defendants who, at all relevant times, acted jointly

and severally to deprive Plaintiffs of their rights under state and federal law.

Defendants, and each of them, at all times mentioned in this complaint concurred

and contributed to the various acts and omissions of each and every one of the other

Defendants in proximately causing the complaints, injuries, and/or damages alleged

in this complaint. Defendants, and each of them, at all times mentioned in this

complaint approved of, condoned and/or otherwise ratified each and every one of

the acts and/or omissions alleged in this complaint.

116. Defendants, and each of them, at all times mentioned in this complaint

aided and abetted the acts and omissions of each and every one of the other

Defendants thereby proximately causing the damages alleged in this complaint.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. The LG G4 Smartphone

117. In April of 2015, LG held events in New York, London, Paris, Seoul,

Singapore, and Istanbul announcing the release of its new LG G4 smartphone. The

tagline for the event was “See the Great. Feel the Great,” with the “G” rendered as

the logo used for the G4.1

118. At the launch event, then-President and CEO of LG Juno Cho stated,

“We are living up to our promise of Innovation for a Better Life with a fashionable,

premium smartphone that is more focused on delivering a balanced user experience

that can compete with the best of the best.”2

119. Another speaker at the event, Dr. Paul E. Jacobs, stated LG had

collaborated with Qualcomm Technologies3 to “expertly tune the technologies and

make several of the LG G4’s unique features possible . . . . The resulting G4

smartphone is an ideal example of how the best optimized technologies come

together to meet consumers’ needs.”4

120. In LG’s press release announcing the launch of the G4, LG stated it

had “paid special attention to the materials utilized in” the G4. LG also noted “the

LG G4 has no trouble getting through a full day of normal use.” LG noted that it

had partnered with others to “enhance the overall user experience of the G4.”5

121. The G4 was equipped with a Qualcomm® Snapdragon™ 808

Processor with X10 LTE; 5.5-inch Quad HD IPS Quantum Display (2560 x 1440,

1 http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/30/8317225/lg-g4-announcement-event-date (last visited March 1, 2017). 2 http://www.lgnewsroom.com/2015/04/lg-g4-the-most-ambitious-smartphone-yet/ (last visited March 1, 2017) 3 Qualcomm Inc. is an American multinational semiconductor and telecommunications equipment company that designs and markets wireless telecommunications products and services. 4 Id. 5 Id.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

538ppi); 3,000mAh removable battery; rear 16-megapixel and front 8-megapixel

cameras; and 32GB of memory and a microSD slot.6

122. The G4’s camera and photography features were particularly

prominent in LG’s advertising of the G4. New features in the Phone were designed

“to capture beautiful imagines” even under less than ideal conditions and to

“allow[] 80 percent more light to reach” the camera’s sensor. The G4’s new image

stabilization was touted as doubling the performance of former models. In addition,

the G4 included a new Manual Mode, which “allows experienced photographers the

ability to exercise more artistic expression by letting them directly control the

focus, shutter speed, ISO, exposure compensation and white balance for every shot.

Advanced photographers can also save their photos in RAW format, in addition to

JPEG, for more precise editing with no loss of details.”7

123. The G4 was released on April 29, 2015 in Korea and was available in

the United States beginning May 27, 2015.8 An image of the G4 is below:

6 Id. 7 Id. 8 http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/27/8670345/lg-g4-now-available-in-us (last visited March 1, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

124. The LG G4 smartphone was and is sold at AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile,

and other retailers for approximately $600 or more.9

125. In a full-page ad in the September 2015 edition of GQ, LG called the

G4 “the most powerful tool” in a businessman’s pocket, stating it was “sharp” and

“functional.”10 An image of that ad is below:

9 Id. 10 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/lgg4-phone-advertisement-september-issue-gq-magazine-roger-erickson (last visited March 1, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

126. As recently as March 23, 2017, LG’s website advertises the G4 as a

“ground-breaking camera and display, [with] cutting-edge design and fabrication.”

It alludes to the G4 Phone as LG’s “boldest and most brilliant yet” and calls the

G4 “the perfect balance of speed and endurance.” The webpage contains no

mention of the Bootloop Defect.11

B. The LG V10 Smartphone

127. In July 2015, then-President and CEO of LG Cho Jun-ho hinted at a

“super premium phone” to be delivered later in the year. The Phone was

11 http://www.lg.com/us/mobile-phones/g4 (last visited March 23, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

apparently to be a “niche” market device for “premium” users.12 The phone LG’s

President was referring to would later be revealed as the V10.

128. On October 1, 2015, the LG V10 smartphone was unveiled. It was

advertised by Defendants as “a smartphone with creativity in mind” that featured

“multimedia capabilities never before seen in a mobile device.” It was designed to

“provide a rich multimedia experience” for “savvy consumers.” Defendants’ initial

press release announcing the V10 described the V10 and its capabilities as “high-

grade,” “distinctive,” “impressive,” “tough,” “resilient,” “advanced,” and “best-in-

class.”13 An image of the V10 is below:

129. The LG V10 smartphone first went on sale in the United States on

October 27, 201514 and has been sold at AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and other

retailers for $600 or more, depending on the store where consumers make their

purchase.15

12 http://www.phonearena.com/news/LG-to-release-a-super-premium-phone-this-year-tips-CEO-is-that-you-G4-Pro_id71867 (last visited February 6, 2017). 13 http://www.lgnewsroom.com/2015/10/lg-unveils-v10-a-smartphone-designed-with-creativity-in-mind/ (last visited February 6, 2017). 14 http://www.gottabemobile.com/lg-v10-release-date-and-deals-emerge/ (last visited March 1, 2017). 15 http://www.phonearena.com/news/LG-V10-price-and-release-date_id74325 (last



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

130. The V10 has two displays and two five-megapixel front cameras.

The Phone also comes with a specialized manual video mode, allowing users to

manipulate the shutter speed, recording settings, ISO, frame rate, focus and white

balance, as well as comes with the following features: microSD slot, 64GB of

storage, 4GB of RAM, sixteen-megapixel rear camera, a Snapdragon 808

processor, and a 3,000mAh removable battery.16 The V10 utilized a stainless steel

frame that Defendants dubbed the “Dura Guard” frame.17

131. An excerpt of an image from an early advertisement for the Phone,

which touts its ability to expand memory and save photos, is below:

132. LG specifically promotes the camera and image, video, and audio

capture capabilities of the V10, as it had done with the G4, stating “the LG V10

offers users the ultimate in video capturing, editing and sharing.” Noting that the

visited February 6, 2017). 16 http://www.techtimes.com/articles/90285/20151002/lg-unveils-v10-smartphone-with-two-front-cameras-and-two-screens.htm (last visited February 6, 2017). 17 https://www.neowin.net/news/lg-unveils-v10-a-premium-smartphone-with-dual-displays-and-dual-front-facing-cameras (last visited February 6, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

V10 had “impressive professional-level video and audio capabilities,” LG claimed

“V10 owners can shoot as much 4K video as they want.”18

133. LG touts its V10 smartphones as being designed with “superior

craftsmanship,” and states the following about these phones:

“While the LG V10 lets you capture beautiful moments, it’s also a work of art in its own right—boasting elegant, yet durable stainless steel craftsmanship, plus a beautiful main screen and convenient second screen to put everything you need in one place.19 (emphasis added).

134. Another V10 advertisement touts the V10’s supposed craftsmanship

and durability, identifying that “Stainless steel and superior craftsmanship

combine to give you unrivaled durability for whatever life drops”, right above a

picture of the V10 Phone opened up so that the interior can be seen. This

advertisement is seen below:

18 http://www.lgnewsroom.com/2015/10/lg-unveils-v10-a-smartphone-designed-with-creativity-in-mind/ (last visited March 1, 2017). 19 http://www.lg.com/us/mobile-phones/v10#legal (last visited February 27, 2017) (emphasis added).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

135. Furthermore, LG’s limited manufacturer’s warranty for V10 Class

Phones expressly warrants that V10 smartphones “will be free from defects in

material and workmanship.”20

C. The LG Nexus 5X Smartphone

136. LG unveiled its Nexus 5X on September 30, 2015.21 The Nexus 5X

was a “collaborative” effort by LG and Google, Inc. (“Google”), with the Phone

being manufactured by LG and marketed using Google’s Google and Nexus

trademarks, as well as LG’s LG trademark.

137. In the press release LG issued unveiling the Nexus 5X, LGEMU

president and CEO Juno Cho stated, “This time, we wanted to deliver the best

hardware . . . and we’re very proud of what we’ve accomplished together.” LG 20 http://www.lg.com/us/mobile-phones/v10/legalterms (last visited February 18, 2017). 21 http://www.lgnewsroom.com/2015/09/nexus-5x-lg-and-google-collaborate-on-the-most-advanced-nexus-phone-to-date/ (last visited March 16, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

also stated the Nexus 5X delivers “impressive performance,” “the best of . . . LG

know-how in a single package,” and “smooth and effortless performance for any

demanding task.” 22

138. The Nexus 5X was powered by a Qualcomm Snapdragon 808

Processor, featured a 5.2-inch 423ppi Full HD IPS display with advanced In-Cell

Touch technology, and sported a 12.3MP rear camera and a 5MP front camera.23

An image of the Nexus 5X is below:24

139. LG’s website advertises the Nexus 5X as offering “top-line

performance” in a “lightweight device that’s ready to go anywhere, anytime.”25

This advertisement is seen below:

22 Id. 23 Id. 24 https://www.qualcomm.com/news/snapdragon/2015/09/29/google-announces-snapdragon-powered-nexus-5x-and-6p (last visited March 16, 2017). 25 http://www.lg.com/uk/mobile-phones/lg-H791 (last visited March 16, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

140. The LG Nexus 5X smartphone first went on sale in the United States

on October 29, 201526 and has been sold at AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and other

retailers for $400 or more, depending on what store consumers make their

purchase.27

D. The Widespread Bootloop Defect Becomes Apparent in All of the Class Phones

141. Unbeknownst to consumers, the G4, V10, and Nexus 5X all suffer

from the same latent defect—the Bootloop Defect—that inevitably causes the

Phones to get stuck on the home screen and in the bootup process. When this

defect emerges, the Phone will unexpectedly turn off, then upon turning back on,

get stuck in the bootup process, and fail to proceed beyond the start-up screen. An

image of the screen on which Class Phones become stuck during manifestation of

the Bootloop Defect is below:

26 http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/134692-nexus-5x-official-price-release-date-specs-and-everything-you-need-to-know (last visited March 16, 2017). 27 http://www.ibtimes.com/google-nexus-5x-price-slashed-massively-190-google-nexus-2016-release-date-fast-2387014 (last visited March 16, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

142. When this latent defect emerges and bootlooping occurs, the phone

is essentially a very expensive paperweight. After the Bootloop Defect occurs, the

Phone no longer operates whatsoever. It cannot be used to make calls, send text

messages, access the internet, or use any other function available on the Phone.

Consumers lose all access to any data or information stored on the Phone,

including any photographs or other intellectual property.

143. Consumer complaints regarding bootlooping in the G4 began

appearing online as early as August 2015, two months before either the Nexus 5X

or V10 was even unveiled to consumers.28 That same month, consumers began

reporting the Bootloop Defect to LG and seeking repairs.29

144. On October 1, 2015, Sprint sent an email to its Retail Team

informing them that a “hardware issue” had been identified in the G4 and that “LG

is aware of the issue.”30

28 https://forum.xda-developers.com/g4/help/h811-tmobile-g4-stuck-bootloop-enter-t3176325/page3 (last visited March 1, 2017). 29 See, e.g., id. 30 https://forum.xda-developers.com/sprint-g4/general/lg-sprint-admit-hardware-issue-t3215396 (last visited March 1, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

145. Despite LG’s confirmed awareness of the Bootloop Defect and

reports of the Bootloop Defect from consumers, LG continued to sell the G4 and

unveiled the V10 without informing consumers of the Bootloop Defect.

146. It was not until January 26, 2016, at least five months (and possibly

much longer) after LG became aware of the Bootloop Defect, that LG finally

acknowledged the Bootloop Defect, but even then only with respect to the G4. On

that day, LG gave the following statement to the media:

LG Electronics has been made aware of a booting issue with the LG G4 smartphone that has now been identified as resulting from a loose contact between components. Customers who are experiencing booting issues with their LG G4s should contact their local carrier from where the G4 was purchased or a nearby LG Service Center (www.lg.com/common) for repair under full warranty.

Customers who purchased their G4 devices from non-carrier retailers should contact an LG Service Center with the understanding that warranty conditions will differ. LG Electronics is committed to providing the highest standards of product quality and customer service and apologizes for the inconvenience caused to some of our customers who initially received incorrect diagnoses.

147. Other sources indicate that G4 Phones have an issue with the

soldering of one of the connectors on the main motherboard, and this causes the

Phones to overheat and begin bootlooping.

148. Online reports of the Bootloop Defect in the V10 began appearing as

early as January 2016, days before LG released the statement acknowledging the

Bootloop Defect in the G4.31

31 http://www.androidauthority.com/lg-v10-bootloop-problem-711334/ (last visited March 1, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

149. Some online sources report that LG used the same motherboard in

the G4 and V10. As such, LG should have been aware of the Bootloop Defect in

the V10 as early as it was aware of the Bootloop Defect in the G4 in August 2015.

150. Online reports of the Bootloop Defect in the Nexus 5X appeared as

early as September 2016.32 On September 16, 2016, a Google employee named

Orrin with the title Nexus Community Manager confirmed the issue on Google’s

Nexus Help Forum.33 Orrin stated that Google “can confirm that this is a strictly

hardware related issue.” Orrin directed those with bootlooped Nexus 5Xs to

contact the place of purchase for warranty or repair options.

151. Despite the fact that Google has acknowledged the Bootloop Defect

and confirmed it is a hardware issue, LG has refused to confirm the same or

provide relief to consumers whose Nexus 5X Phones bootloop. For example, in a

March 21, 2017 chat between a representative from LGUSA named “Virginia” and

a putative class member whose phone experienced the Bootloop Defect after

owning it for approximately one year and three months, redacted excerpts of

which are below, the LG representative stated that “others have raised the same

issue” regarding the Bootloop Defect in the Nexus 5X, but refused to confirm how

widespread the issue is, acknowledge that the Bootloop Defect is caused by a

hardware issue, or provide the class member any remedy.

32 http://wccftech.com/nougat-kills-nexus-5x-bootloop/ (last visited March 15, 2017). 33 https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/nexus/kaMOvuf093Q (last visited March 15, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

152. In all material respects, the G4, V10, and Nexus 5X are substantially

identical. LG (and in the case of the Nexus 5X, Google) marketed these phones in

the same manner and made similar representations about each. They possess



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

virtually the same features, and were sold at approximately the same price at the

same retailers. With respect to all three phones, LG (and in the case of the Nexus

5X, Google) concealed the existence of the same Bootloop Defect. Upon

information and belief, the G4 and V10 phones also contain the same defective

motherboard that causes the Bootloop Defect. While the underlying hardware

defect in the Nexus 5X has yet to be publicly identified by LG, the similarity of

the Bootloop Defect, indicated hardware-nature of the defect, and common

manufacturer indicate the same issue plagues all three Class Phones.

153. Despite the fact that LG should have been aware of the Nexus 5X

and V10’s Bootloop Defect at least as early as August 2015 based on when

complaints about bootlooping in the G4 began to surface—two months before LG

began sales of either phone in the United States—LG nevertheless sold and

continues to sell the V10. It still has not publicly acknowledged the V10 or Nexus

5X Bootloop Defects.

E. The Bootloop Defect’s Impact on Consumers

154. As discussed above, Plaintiffs have all experienced the Bootloop

Defect in their Class Phones. Their experiences with bootlooping are by no means

isolated occurrences.

155. The internet is replete with complaints by consumers who purchased

an LG G4, V10, or Nexus 5X phone, only to experience the same bootloop

problem. Examples of some of these complaints are below:

LG G4 Complaints

Comment posted by Hong of Portland, OR on Feb. 4, 201734

34 https://www.consumeraffairs.com/cell_phones/lg_cell_phones.html (last visited February 14, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Comment posted by Redone of Hudson, MA on Jan. 18, 201735

Comment posted by Parminder of Prince George, BC on Jan. 11, 201736

35 Id. 36 Id.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Comment posted by Yelena of Pompton Lakes, NJ on Dec. 9, 201637

Comment posted by Spencer Sasse38

Comment posted by cptspaulding6439

37 Id. 38 http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/lg-g4-bootloop-problem-how-to-diagnose-and-fix (last visited February 14, 2017). 39 Id.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Comment posted by Matthew Woerndell on Facebook and customer service chat

with LG40

40https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1550595744980748&set=a.204381982935471.50852.100000910123244&type=3&theater (last visited March 8, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LG V10 Complaints

Amazon Review41, written by Wade, published November 13, 2016

Amazon Review, written by JD42

Tweet published by Paul M. Williams43 on November 25, 2016

41 https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2MNV7JZ6YZDMP/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B01LYJQWAM (last visited February 6, 2017). 42 https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3U4N4DVDQA4JK/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B01AR9OOGE (last visited February 7, 2017). 43 https://twitter.com/PaulMWilliams5/status/802186080908873728 (last visited February 6, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Twitter Post Published by MommyFab [project]44

Comment by Natalie Herrick45

Facebook Post, by Roderick Alexander46

44 https://twitter.com/EfabulousHB/status/804571984474603520 (last visited February 6, 2017). 45https://www.facebook.com/LGUSAMobile/posts/1010423778992867?comment_id=1011465752222003&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R5%22%7D (last visited February 6, 2017). 46 https://www.facebook.com/LGUSAMobile/posts/1079439342091310 (last visited February 7,2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Facebook post, by Josh Sheehan47

Youtube Comment, Left by Jimmy Hernandez48

Comment Left on Petition by Nick Martinez49

Comment Left on Petition by Robert Allender

47 https://www.facebook.com/LGUSAMobile/posts/1034576709910907 (last visited February 7, 2017). 48https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT4gTWn4gpM&lc=z12fgju45sazgzosw23kgnjqqs2eg14zh04 (last visited February 6,2017). 49https://www.change.org/p/lg-electronics-lg-v10-boot-loop-of-death/c?source_location=petition_show (last visited February 6, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IPetition50

Comment posted by Uscmule51

Comment posted by Mav52

50 https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/lg-v10-boot-loop-of-death (last visited February 7, 2017). 51 http://www.androidauthority.com/deal-amazon-selling-samsung-gear-360-226-349-747944/#comment-2848404636 (last visited February 7, 2017). 52 http://www.androidauthority.com/lg-v10-bootloop-problem-711334/ (last visited February 7, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

156. Consumers have even initiated at least two petitions on change.org

to get Defendants to address the Bootloop Defect in the G4 and V10.53 As of

March 23, 2017, the G4 petition had garnered signatures from 12,294 supporters

and the V10 petition had garnered signatures from 314.

157. One consumer identifies: “I was never given a straight answer as to

why this had happened.”54 This one statement emphasizes a universal theme with

respect to the Defect and Class Phones: despite that the Defect is widespread and

has affected countless consumers across the United States, the actual cause has

never been fully identified and described by LG (even though LG has

acknowledged there is a hardware issue in G4 Phones), and LG has not gotten out

in front of this issue to take adequate corrective measures in order to make

consumers whole.

LG Nexus 5X Complaints

Facebook post, by Jeremy Carrara55

Facebook post, by Amber Klebanoff Reilly56

53 See https://www.change.org/p/lg-electronics-lg-v10-boot-loop-of-death (last visited March 23, 2017); https://www.change.org/p/lg-mobile-launch-a-replacement-program-for-defective-lg-g4s (last visited March 23, 2017). 54 https://www.cnet.com/news/why-i-regret-buying-a-google-phone/ (last visited March 23, 2017). 55 http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/nexus-5x-lg-refunds/?fb_comment_id=1233506936723420_1250199421720838 (last visited March 3, 2017). 56 http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/nexus-5x-lg-refunds/ (last visited March 3, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Facebook post, by Jorge Alberto Corona Morales57

Comment, by Kurt Jenney58

Comment, by Katherine Campbell59

Comment posted by jackcolt60

57 https://www.facebook.com/androidauthority/posts/1188277397888646 (last visited March 3, 2017). 58 http://www.androidauthority.com/lg-faulty-nexus-5x-refunds-732024/ (last visited March 16, 2017). 59 Id. 60 https://www.reddit.com/r/nexus5x/comments/5i1bv7/nexus_5x_bootloop_and_support_issues/ (last visited March 16, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Tweet, by Margaret Maffai61

Tweet, by Ross Moore62

F. LG’s Continued Failure to Remedy the Bootloop Failure

158. Despite the fact that LG vowed to repair this issue in the G4 in its

January 2016 statement, the repairs were only promised to those consumers whose

Phones were still under warranty. The problem with this is that the Bootloop

Defect frequently manifests (in all three Phones) just slightly outside of the

warranty period. Furthermore, many consumers report that they have been

required to obtain a repair at their own expense and that LG is not standing by its

promise to repair G4 Phones. Many consumers have already paid out of pocket for

the costly repairs associated with fixing the Bootloop Defect in G4 Phones. Even

owners of G4 Phones—who were promised a free repair by LG—have made

numerous, very recent complaints that LG is not standing by its promise to repair

and that it makes excuses, e.g. scratched or cracked screens, for not following

through with its promise to repair.

61 https://twitter.com/MargaretMaffai/status/841852854910496769 (last visited March 16, 2017). 62 https://twitter.com/rossmoore21/status/837194720501764097 (last visited March 16, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

159. As for V10 Phones, while the Bootloop Defect appears to be identical

to that present in G4 Phones and there are reports that LG used the same main

board in both phones, LG has not made any statements about hardware issues in

the V10.

160. Similarly, for the Nexus 5X Phones, LG has not publicly

acknowledged the Bootloop Defect in the Nexus 5X, although a Google

representative has acknowledged the Bootloop Defect and represented that it is

caused by a hardware issue. See ¶ 150, supra. Although LG has offered some

consumers refunds of the Phone’s purchase price,63 it has refused to provide the

same relief, or any relief at all, for other consumers.

161. Consumers also report that when they send their Class Phones in for

a warranty repair, i.e. within the warranty period, LG has charged a warranty or

similar “fee” associated with making the repair or requiring payment for repairs,

and otherwise will not repair Class Phones.

162. Numerous other consumers indicate that when the Bootloop Defect

manifests in their Class Phones, LG consumers are told to seek a replacement or

repair through their carrier or place of purchase, such as T-Mobile, Verizon, or

AT&T. These carriers often provide replacement phones for bootlooped Class

Phones, albeit refurbished, used phones. This leaves consumers in a situation

where they are paying full-freight for a brand new phone, but are left with a

63 http://www.androidauthority.com/lg-faulty-nexus-5x-refunds-732024/ (last visited March 16, 2017). According to that article, LG offered refunds via email to a limited number of individuals who submitted a warranty claim for their Nexus 5X based on the Bootloop Defect. As comments to that article and consumer reports elsewhere show, many consumers who experienced the Bootloop Defect in the Nexus 5X did not receive such a refund. LG has made no public statement regarding the select refunds offered. See also http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/nexus-5x-lg-refunds/ (last visited March 23, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

refurbished phone that will likely (and often does) experience the same Bootloop

Defect again.

163. Defendants should not be permitted to continue concealing the

Bootloop Defect while fleecing consumers with the costs of repairing Class

Phones containing the Bootloop Defect and making consumers overpay for

Bootloop-Defect-laden Class Phones when LG is well aware of the Bootloop

Defect. Indeed, LG even acknowledged the Bootloop Defect as a hardware issue in

G4 Phones and promised to make repairs free of charge for consumers who

experience the Bootloop Defect in G4 Phones.

164. But it is apparent that LG had no intention of universally remedying

this Bootloop Defect in G4 Phones, as it routinely declines to repair G4 Phones

that are clearly affected by the Bootloop Defect for cosmetic or other reasons.

165. To date, LG has failed to acknowledge that this same Bootloop

Defect plagues V10 or Nexus 5X Phones as well and fails to repair the Bootloop

Defect free of charge to consumers. Even as consumer reports begin to emerge

online about the Bootloop Defect appearing in LG’s new G5 model,64 which may

be at least the fourth LG model to suffer from the Bootloop Defect, LG has not

acknowledged this widespread problem.

166. As early as August 2015 (but likely earlier), LG’s knew of the

Bootloop Defect in Class Phones, a condition that was material to consumers’

purchasing decisions. This knowledge is apparent in LG’s acknowledgement of

the Bootloop Defect in G4 Class Phones.

167. Had the Bootloop Defect been known and disclosed to Plaintiffs and

consumers, they would not have purchased their Class Phones (or at a minimum

64 http://dailysunknoxville.com/lg-g5-users-facing-same-lg-g4-boot-loop-problems/92005952 (last visited March 23, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

would have paid significantly less for them). At the time of their purchases,

Plaintiffs were not aware of the Bootloop Defect in the Class Phones.

168. LG has made affirmative representations about the quality of the

Class Phones and failed to disclose, or suppressed, a material fact about the Class

Phones, namely that they are plagued by the Bootloop Defect that inevitably

renders them completely useless. Indeed, LG disclosed that the Bootloop Defect

manifests and exists in G4 Phones, but failed to acknowledge the same with

respect to V10 and Nexus 5X Phones.

169. LG had a duty to disclose the Bootloop Defect based upon its

exclusive knowledge of the Bootloop Defect – a material fact that, had it been

disclosed to consumers (including Plaintiffs), would have resulted in consumers

not purchasing their Class Phones. Furthermore, despite disclosing the existence of

the Bootloop Defect in G4 Phones well after making countless G4 Phone sales, LG

did not and still has not fully disclosed that the Bootloop Defect also plagues V10

and Nexus 5X Phones.

170. Indeed, LG had exclusive knowledge of the Bootloop Defect in the

G4 Phones prior to announcing the hardware issue, and it had exclusive

knowledge of the Bootloop Defect in the V10 and Nexus 5X Phones at the time it

made sales of the Phones.

171. As a result of the Bootloop Defect and LG’s refusal to adequately

address and remedy the Bootloop Defect, consumers across the United States have

paid and continue to pay large sums of money out of pocket to repair the Bootloop

Defect in Class Phones or to obtain a replacement, including money paid for

repairs, insurance deductibles paid in conjunction with insurance claims, and

(upon information and belief) payments of unearned warranty “fees.”

172. In addition, the Bootloop Defect has caused countless consumers to

experience loss of use of their Class Phones, loss in value of their Class Phones,



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and loss of access to photos and other valuable intellectual property accessible

only through their Class Phones, which can no longer be accessed due to the

Bootloop Defect.

173. Under these circumstances – LG’s superior bargaining power,

exclusive knowledge of the Bootloop Defect, the two years of warranty coverage

apparently being offered by LG to consumers in the EU and UK for the same

Phones,65 and failure to disclose the same – any attempt to limit the warranty

period to a period of one year or other limitations on the rights of consumers to

vindicate these claims are unenforceable as procedurally and substantively

unconscionable.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

174. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and all similarly

situated individuals and entities, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a),

23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). Specifically, the classes consist of: California Class All persons or entities in the state of California who (a) currently own an LG G4,V10 or Nexus 5X Phone and/or (b) previously owned an LG G4,V10 or Nexus 5X Phone, and can be identified as having experienced the Bootloop Defect (the “Class”). Florida Class All persons or entities in the state of Florida who (a) currently own an LG G4, V10 or Nexus 5X Phone and/or (b) previously owned an LG G4,V10 or Nexus 5X Phone, and can be identified as having experienced the Bootloop Defect (the “Class”). Illinois Class All persons or entities in the state of Illinois who (a) currently own an LG G4, V10 or Nexus 5X Phone and/or (b) previously owned an LG G4,V10 or Nexus 5X Phone, and can be identified as having experienced the Bootloop Defect (the “Class”).

65 http://www.lg.com/uk/support/warranty (last visited March 23, 2017).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Maryland Class All persons or entities in the state of Maryland who (a) currently own an LG G4, V10 or Nexus 5X Phone and/or (b) previously owned an LG G4,V10 or Nexus 5X Phone, and can be identified as having experienced the Bootloop Defect (the “Class”). New York Class All persons or entities in the state of Illinois who (a) currently own an LG G4, V10 or Nexus 5X Phone and/or (b) previously owned an LG G4,V10 or Nexus 5X Phone, and can be identified as having experienced the Bootloop Defect (the “Class”). Texas Class All persons or entities in the state of Texas who (a) currently own an LG G4, V10 or Nexus 5X Phone and/or (b) previously owned an LG G4,V10 or Nexus 5X Phone, and can be identified as having experienced the Bootloop Defect (the “Class”). Utah Class All persons or entities in the state of Utah who (a) currently own an LG G4, V10 or Nexus 5X Phone and/or (b) previously owned an LG G4,V10 or Nexus 5X Phone, and can be identified as having experienced the Bootloop Defect (the “Class”). Washington Class All persons or entities in the state of Washington who (a) currently own an LG G4, V10 or Nexus 5X Phone and/or (b) previously owned an LG G4,V10 or Nexus 5X Phone, and can be identified as having experienced the Bootloop Defect (the “Class”).

175. Excluded from the Class are LG, its affiliates, subsidiaries, parents,

successors, predecessors, any entity in which LG or its parents have a controlling

interest; LG’s current and former employees, officers and directors; the Judge(s)

and/or Magistrate(s) assigned to this case; any person who properly obtains

exclusion from the Class; any person whose claims have been finally adjudicated

on the merits or otherwise released; and the parties’ counsel in this litigation.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify, change, or expand the Class definitions

based upon discovery and further investigation.

176. Numerosity: Upon information and belief, the Class is so numerous

that joinder of all members is impracticable. While the exact number and identities

of individual members of the Class are unknown at this time, such information

being in the sole possession of Defendants and/or third parties and obtainable by

Plaintiffs only through the discovery process, Plaintiffs believe, and on that basis

allege, that thousands upon thousands of Class members have been subjected to

the conduct by Defendants herein alleged.

177. Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Fact and

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

These questions predominate over the questions affecting individual Class

members. These common legal and factual questions include, but are not limited

to:

a) Whether the Phones are defective in that they were prone to

failing prematurely due to the Bootloop Defect;

b) Whether Defendants knew of the Bootloop Defect but failed to

disclose the problem and its consequences to their customers;

c) Whether a reasonable consumer would consider the Bootloop

Defect or its consequences to be material;

d) Whether Defendants’ conduct violates state consumer

protection laws and other laws as asserted herein;

e) Whether Plaintiffs and the other Class members overpaid for

their Phones as a result of the Bootloop Defect alleged herein;

f) Whether Defendants’ conduct was fraudulent;



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

g) Whether Plaintiffs and the other Class members are entitled to

equitable relief, including, but not limited to, restitution or

injunctive relief; and

h) Whether Plaintiffs and the other Class members are entitled to

damages and other monetary relief and, if so, in what amount.

178. Typicality: All of Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the

Class since Plaintiffs and all Class members were injured in the same manner by

Defendants’ uniform course of conduct described herein. Plaintiffs and all Class

members have the same claims against Defendants relating to the conduct alleged

herein, and the same events giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims for relief are identical

to those giving rise to the claims of all Class members. Plaintiffs and all Class

members sustained monetary and economic injuries including, but not limited to,

ascertainable losses arising out of Defendants’ wrongful conduct as described

herein. Plaintiffs are advancing the same claims and legal theories on behalf of

themselves and all absent Class members.

179. Adequacy: Plaintiffs are adequate representatives for the Class

because their interests do not conflict with the interests of the Class that they seek

to represent; Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and highly experienced in

complex class action litigation – including consumer fraud class action cases – and

counsel intends to prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of the Class will

be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiffs and their counsel.

180. Superiority: A class action is superior to all other available means

of fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of Plaintiffs and all Class members.

The injury suffered by each individual Class member is relatively small in

comparison to the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex

and extensive litigation necessitated by Defendants’ conduct. It would be virtually

impossible for members of the Class individually to redress effectively the wrongs



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

done to them by Defendants. Even if Class members could afford such individual

litigation, the court system could not. Individualized litigation presents a potential

for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. Individualized litigation increases the

delay and expense to all parties, and to the court system, presented by the complex

legal and factual issues of the case. By contrast, the class action device presents far

fewer management difficulties, and provides the benefits of single adjudication, an

economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court. Upon

information and belief, members of the Class can be readily identified and notified

based on, inter alia, the records (including databases, e-mails, etc.) Defendants

maintain regarding sales of Class Phones. Plaintiffs know of no difficulty to be

encountered in the management of this action that would preclude its maintenance

as a class action.

181. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally

applicable to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class, thereby making

appropriate final injunctive relief and declaratory relief, as described below, with

respect to the Class as a whole.

182. Given that Defendants have engaged in a common course of conduct

as to Plaintiffs and the Class, similar or identical injuries and common law and

statutory violations are involved and common questions far outweigh any potential

individual questions.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW

(CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200, et seq.) (“UCL”)

183. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all paragraphs as

though fully set forth herein.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

184. This claim is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs Herrera, Rhode, and

Evans and the California Class.

185. The UCL proscribes acts of unfair competition, including “any

unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue

or misleading advertising.”

186. Defendants’ conduct, as described herein, was and is in violation of

the UCL. Defendants’ conduct violates the UCL in at least the following ways:

a. Knowingly and intentionally concealing from Plaintiffs and the

other Class members the existence of the Bootloop Defect in the

Class Phones;

b. Marketing the Class Phones as being functional and not

possessing a defect that would render them useless; and

c. Violating other California laws, including California laws

governing false advertising and consumer protection.

187. Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions alleged herein caused

Plaintiffs and the other Class members to purchase their Class Phones. Absent

these misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiffs and the other Class members

would not have purchased their Class Phones at the prices they paid (had they

purchased them at all).

188. LG had a duty to disclose the Bootloop Defect because LG had

exclusive knowledge of the Bootloop Defect prior to making sales of Class Phones

and because LG made partial representations about the Bootloop Defect in G4

Phones, but failed to fully disclose that the issue plagues the V10 and Nexus 5X

Phones too.

189. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the other Class members have suffered

injury in fact, including lost money or property, as a result of Defendants’

misrepresentations and omissions.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

190. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin further unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent

acts or practices by Defendants under CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200.

191. Plaintiffs request that this Court enter such orders or judgments as

may be necessary to enjoin Defendants from continuing their unfair, unlawful,

and/or deceptive practices, and to restore to Plaintiffs and members of the Class

any money they acquired by unfair competition, including restitution and/or

restitutionary disgorgement, as provided in CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17203

& 3345; and for such other relief set forth below.

COUNT II VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT

(CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 1750, et seq.) (“CLRA”)





194. The CLRA proscribes “unfair methods of competition and unfair or

deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to

result or which results in the sale of goods or services to any consumer.”

195. The Class Phones are “goods” as defined in CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE

§ 1761(a).

196. Plaintiffs and the other Class members are “consumers” as defined in

CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 1761(d), and Plaintiffs, the other Class members, and

Defendants are “persons” as defined in CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 1761(c).

197. As alleged above, Defendants made numerous representations

concerning the benefits, performance, and capabilities of the Class Phones that were

misleading. In purchasing the Class Phones, Plaintiff and the other Class members



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

were deceived by Defendants’ failure to disclose that the Class Phones are highly

susceptible to the Bootloop Defect.

198. Defendants’ conduct, as described herein, was and is in violation of

the CLRA. Defendants’ conduct violates at least the following enumerated CLRA

provisions:

a. § 1770(a)(2): Misrepresenting the approval or certification of

goods;

b. § 1770(a)(5): Representing that goods have sponsorship,

approval, characteristics, uses, benefits, or quantities which they

do not have;

c. § 1770(a)(7): Representing that goods are of a particular

standard, quality, or grade, if they are of another;

d. § 1770(a)(9): Advertising goods with intent not to sell them as

advertised; and

e. § 1770(a)(16): Representing that goods have been supplied in

accordance with a previous representation when they have not.

199. Plaintiffs and the other Class members have suffered injury in fact

and actual damages resulting from Defendants’ material omissions and

misrepresentations because, inter alia, they lost money when they purchased their

Class Phones or paid an inflated purchase price for the Class Phones.

200. Defendants knew, should have known, or were reckless in not

knowing that the Bootloop Defect in the Class Phones rendered them not suitable

for their intended use.

201. LG had a duty to disclose the Bootloop Defect because LG had

exclusive knowledge of the Bootloop Defect prior to making sales of Class Phones

and because LG made partial representations about the Bootloop Defect in G4



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Phones, but failed to fully disclose that the issue plagues V10 and Nexus 5X

Phones too.

202. The facts concealed and omitted by Defendants to Plaintiffs and the

other Class members — that the G4, V10, and Nexus 5X smartphones are defective

and fail prematurely — are material in that a reasonable consumer would have

considered them to be important in deciding whether to purchase the Class Phones

or pay a lower price. Had Plaintiffs and the other Class members known about the

defective nature of the Class Phones, they would not have purchased their Class

Phones, or would not have paid the prices they paid.

203. Under CAL. CIV. CODE § 1780(a), Plaintiffs seek actual damages, an

order enjoining LG from further engaging in the unfair and deceptive acts and

practices alleged herein, and restitutionary relief to remedy LG’s violations of the

CLRA as alleged herein.

204. Under CAL. CIV. CODE § 1780(b), Plaintiffs seek an additional award

against LG of up to $5,000 for each California Sub-Class member who qualifies as

a “senior citizen” or “disabled person” under the CLRA. LG knew or should have

known that its conduct was directed to one or more Class members who are senior

citizens or disabled persons. LG’s conduct caused one or more of these senior

citizens or disabled persons to suffer a substantial loss of property set aside for

retirement or for personal or family care and maintenance, or assets essential to the

health or welfare of the senior citizen or disabled person. One or more California

Sub-Class members who are senior citizens or disabled persons are substantially

more vulnerable to LG’s conduct because of age, poor health or infirmity, impaired

understanding, restricted mobility, or disability, and each of them suffered

substantial physical, emotional, or economic damage resulting from LG’s conduct.

205. Pursuant to CLRA Section 1780(a)(4), Plaintiffs also seek punitive

damages against LG because it carried out reprehensible conduct with willful and



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

conscious disregard of the rights of others, subjecting Plaintiffs and the California

Sub-Class to potential cruel and unjust hardship as a result. See CAL. CIV. CODE §

1780(a)(4). LG intentionally and willfully concealed material facts that only LG

knew. LG’s unlawful conduct likewise constitutes malice, oppression, and fraud

warranting exemplary damages under CAL. CIV. CODE § 3294.

206. Plaintiffs further seek an order awarding costs of court and attorneys’

fees under CAL. CIV. CODE § 1780(e), and any other just and proper relief available

under the CLRA.

207. Plaintiff Herrera sent a CLRA notice to LG on February 7, 2017 and a

CLRA notice to LGEMU on February 8, 2017, providing the notice required by

CAL. CIV. CODE § 1782(a). Plaintiff Herrera sent the CLRA notices via certified

mail, return receipt requested, to LG’s and LGEMU’s principal place of business,

advising them that they are in violation of the CLRA and must correct, replace or

otherwise rectify the goods and/or services alleged to be in violation of CAL. CIV.

CODE § 1770. Defendants were further advised that in the event the relief requested

has not been provided within thirty (30) days, Plaintiffs would amend this

complaint to include a request for monetary damages pursuant to the CLRA. True

and correct copies of Plaintiff Herrera’s CLRA notices sent to Defendants are

attached hereto as Exhibits “A” and “B.”

208. Pursuant to CAL. CIV. CODE § 1780(d), attached hereto as Exhibit

“C” is an affidavit showing that this action has been commenced in the proper

venue.

COUNT III VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S FALSE ADVERTISING LAW

(CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17500, et seq.) (“FAL”)





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



211. The California FAL states:

“It is unlawful for any . . . corporation . . . with intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal property . . . to induce the public to enter into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated . . . from this state before the public in any state, in any newspaper or other publication, or any advertising device, . . . or in any other manner or means whatever, including over the Internet, any statement . . . 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.”

CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17500

212. Defendants caused to be made or disseminated through California

and the United States, through advertising, marketing and other publications,

statements that were untrue or misleading, and which were known, or which by the

exercise of reasonable care should have been known to Defendants, to be untrue

and misleading to consumers, including Plaintiffs and the other Class members.

213. Defendants have violated the California FAL because the

misrepresentations and omissions regarding the reliability and functionality of

Class Phones, as set forth herein, were material and likely to deceive a reasonable

consumer.

214. Plaintiffs and the other Class members have suffered an injury in

fact, including the loss of money or property, as a result of Defendants’ unfair,

unlawful, and/or deceptive practices. In purchasing their Class Phones, Plaintiffs

and the other Class members relied on the misrepresentations and/or omissions of

Defendants with respect to the performance and reliability of the Class Phones.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants’ representations turned out not to be true because the Class Phones are

defective.

215. All of the wrongful conduct alleged herein occurred, and continues

to occur, in the conduct of Defendants’ business. Defendants’ wrongful conduct is

part of a pattern or generalized course of conduct that is still perpetuated and

repeated, both in the state of California and nationwide.

216. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the other Class members,

request that this Court enter such orders or judgments as may be necessary to

enjoin Defendants from continuing their unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive

practices and to restore to Plaintiffs and the other Class members any money

Defendants acquired by unfair competition, including restitution and/or

restitutionary disgorgement, and for such other relief set forth below.

COUNT IV VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE & UNFAIR

TRADE PRACTICES ACT (“FDUTPA”) FLA. STAT. §§ 501.204, et seq.

217. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations above as if fully set forth

herein.

218. This claim is brought on behalf of Plaintiff Mallek and the Florida

Class.

219. The FDUPTA prohibits “[u]nfair methods of competition,

unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the

conduct of any trade or commerce.” FLA. STAT. § 501.204(1).

220. In the course of Defendants’ business, they willfully failed to disclose

and actively concealed the Bootloop Defect in Class Phones as described herein.

221. Accordingly, Defendants engaged in unfair methods of competition,

unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices as defined

in FLA. STAT. § 501.204(1), including representing that Class Phones have



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

characteristics, uses, benefits, and qualities which they do not have; representing

that Class Phones are of a particular standard and quality when they are not;

advertising Class Phones with the intent not to sell them as advertised; and

otherwise engaging in conduct likely to deceive.

222. Defendants’ actions as set forth above occurred in the conduct of trade

or commerce.

223. Defendants’ conduct proximately caused injuries to Plaintiff Mallek

and the other Florida Class members.

224. Plaintiff Mallek and the other Class members were injured as a result

of Defendants’ conduct in that Plaintiff Mallek and the other Class members

overpaid for their Class Phones and did not receive the benefit of their bargain, they

suffered out of pocket losses, and/or their Class Phones have suffered a diminution

in value. These injuries are the direct and natural consequence of Defendants’

misrepresentations and omissions.

COUNT V VIOLATION OF THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT (“Illinois CFA”)

815 ILL. COMP. STAT. 505/1, et seq.


herein.

226. This claim is brought on behalf of Plaintiff Hardwick and the Illinois

Class.

227. Plaintiff and the Illinois Class are “consumers” as that term is defined

in 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/1(e).

228. LG’s acts or practices as set forth above occurred in the conduct of

“trade” or “commerce” under 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/2.

229. LG participated in misleading, false, or deceptive acts that violated

the Illinois CFA. By willfully failing to disclose and actively concealing the



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Bootloop Defect, LG engaged in deceptive business practices prohibited by the

Illinois CFA, including “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 any trade or

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

thereby.” 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/2.

230. In the course of its business, LG willfully failed to disclose and

actively concealed the Bootloop Defect discussed herein and otherwise engaged in

activities with a tendency or capacity to deceive. LG also engaged in unlawful

trade practices by employing deception, deceptive acts or practices, fraud,

misrepresentations, or concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact

with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in

connection with the sale of Class Phones.

231. LG knew of the presence of the Bootloop Defect in Class Phones, but

concealed all of that information.

232. LG was aware that they were manufacturing, selling, and distributing

smartphones throughout the United States that did not perform as advertised, i.e.

with “superior craftsmanship.”

233. By failing to disclose the Bootloop Defect, and by presenting itself as

a reputable smartphone manufacturer that stood behind its smartphones after they

were sold, LG engaged in deceptive business practices in violation of the Illinois

CFA.

234. LG’s unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did in

fact deceive reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff and the other Class

members, about the true performance of the Class Phones, the quality of the LG

brand, and the true value of the Class Phones.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

235. LG intentionally and knowingly misrepresented material facts

regarding the Class Phones with an intent to mislead Plaintiff and the Illinois

Class.

236. LG knew or should have known that their conduct violated the

Illinois CFA.

237. LG owed Plaintiff a duty to disclose the Bootloop Defect and the true

performance of Class Phones because LG possessed exclusive knowledge of the

Bootloop Defect in Class Phones and that they did not contain the qualities or

characteristics, or perform, as advertised; LG intentionally concealed the foregoing

from Plaintiff and the Class; and/or LG made incomplete representations about the

Class Phones while purposefully withholding material facts from and the Class

that contradicted these representations.

238. Because LG fraudulently concealed the Bootloop Defect, the value of

the Class Phones has greatly diminished. Class Phones—to the extent they are

even functional—are worth significantly less than they otherwise would be.

239. LG’s conduct and false representations/omissions were material to

Plaintiff and the Illinois Class.

240. Plaintiff and the Illinois Class suffered ascertainable loss caused by

LG’s misrepresentations and its concealment of and failure to disclose material

information. Class members who purchased the Class Phones either would have

paid less for their Class Phones or would not have purchased them at all but for

LG’s violations of the Illinois CFA.

241. LG had an ongoing duty to consumers to refrain from unfair and

deceptive practices under the Illinois CFA. All owners of Class Phones suffered

ascertainable loss as a result of LG’s deceptive and unfair acts and practices made

in the course of LG’s business.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

242. LG’s violations present a continuing risk to Plaintiff as well as to the

general public and have occurred repeatedly and have the potential for repetition.

LG’s unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the public interest.

243. As a direct and proximate result of LG’s violations of the Illinois

CFA, Plaintiff and the Illinois Class have suffered injury-in-fact and/or actual

damage.

244. Pursuant to 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/10a(a), Plaintiff, individually and

on behalf of the other Class members, seeks monetary relief against LG in the

amount of actual damages, as well as punitive damages, because LG acted with

fraud and/or malice and/or was grossly negligent.

245. Plaintiff also seeks an order enjoining LG’s unfair and/or deceptive

acts or practices, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees, and any other just and

proper relief available under 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/1, et seq.

COUNT VI VIOLATIONS OF THE MARYLAND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

MD. CODE COM. LAW §§ 13-101, et seq. (“MCPA”)

246. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations contained above as if

fully set forth herein.

247. This claim is brought on behalf of Plaintiff Davenport and the

Maryland Class.

248. The MCPA provides that a person may not engage in any unfair or

deceptive trade practice in the sale of any consumer good. MD. CODE COM. LAW §

13-303. LG participated in misleading, false or deceptive acts that violated the

MCPA. By selling Class Phones with the Bootloop Defect as described herein, LG

engaged in deceptive business practices prohibited by the MCPA.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

249. Plaintiff and the Maryland Class are “consumers” within the meaning

of MD. CODE COM. LAW § 13-101(c), and LG is a “person” with the meaning of

MD. CODE COM. LAW § 13-101(h).

250. LG’s actions as set forth above occurred in the conduct of trade or

commerce.

251. In the course of its business, LG sold Class Phones that it knew or

should have known contain the Bootloop Defect, and LG concealed this Bootloop

Defect and otherwise engaged in activities with the tendency or capacity to deceive.

LG engaged in unlawful trade practices by employing deception, deceptive acts or

practices, fraud, misrepresentations, or concealment, suppression or omission, in

connection with the sale of Class Phones containing the Bootloop Defect.

252. LG has known of the Bootloop Defect in Class Phones from

complaints and communications by Plaintiff, Class members, and consumers across

the United States, but LG continued to conceal the Bootloop Defect in order to

make sales of Class Phones.

253. By failing to disclose and actively concealing the Bootloop Defect, by

marketing Class Phones as reliable and of high quality, and by presenting itself as a

reputable manufacturer that stood by its products after they were sold when it in

fact does not, LG engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices in violation of

the MCPA.

254. In the course of LG’s business, it willfully failed to disclose and

actively concealed the Bootloop Defect in Class Phones discussed above.

255. LG’s unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did in fact

deceive reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff and the Maryland Class, about

the quality, workmanship, performance, and true value of the defective Class

Phones.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


regarding the Class Phones with intent to mislead Plaintiff and the Maryland Class.

257. LG knew or should have known that its conduct violated the MCPA.

258. LG owed Plaintiff and the Maryland Class a duty to disclose the

Bootloop Defect in Class Phones and the true value of Class Phones because LG:

a. Possessed exclusive knowledge that Class Phones contained the

Bootloop Defect;

b. Intentionally concealed the foregoing from Plaintiff and the

Maryland Class; and/or

c. Made incomplete, false or misleading representations about the

characteristics, quality, workmanship, reliability, value,

efficiency, and performance of Class Phones while purposefully

withholding material facts from Plaintiff and the Maryland Class

that contradicted these representations.

259. Because the Class Phones – to the extent they are even operable – are

worth far less than paid for by Plaintiff and the Maryland Class and the Bootloop

Defect in Class Phones have caused Plaintiff and members of the Maryland Class to

incur out-of-pocket expenses, they have suffered ascertainable loss as a result of

LG’s deceptive and unfair acts and practices made in the course of LG’s business.

260. As a direct and proximate result of LG’s violations of the MCPA,

Plaintiff and the Maryland Class have suffered ascertainable injury-in-fact and/or

actual damage.

261. Pursuant to MD. CODE COM. LAW § 13-408, Plaintiff and the Maryland

Class seek actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and any other just and proper relief

available under the MCPA.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COUNT VII VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 349

N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW § 349


herein.

263. This claim is bought on behalf of Plaintiff Tracy and the New York

Class.

264. New York’s General Business Law § 349 makes unlawful “[d]eceptive

acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce.”

265. In the course of LG’s business, it willfully failed to disclose and

actively concealed the Bootloop Defect in Class Phones as described above.

266. Accordingly, LG engaged in unfair methods of competition,

unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices as defined

in N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW § 349, including representing that Class Phones have

characteristics, uses, benefits, and qualities which they do not have; representing

that Class Phones are of a particular standard and quality when they are not;

advertising Class Phones with the intent not to sell them as advertised; and

otherwise engaging in conduct likely to deceive.

267. LG’s actions as set forth above occurred in the conduct of trade or

commerce.

268. LG’s deception relates to widely consumed consumer products and

therefore affects the public interest. LG’s unlawful conduct constitutes unfair acts

or practices that have the capacity to deceive consumers, and that have a broad

impact on consumers at large.

269. LG’s conduct proximately caused injuries to Plaintiff and the other

New York Class members.

270. Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss

as a result of LG’s conduct in that Plaintiff and the other Class members overpaid



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for their Class Phones and did not receive the benefit of their bargain, paid out of

pocket costs relating to the Bootloop Defect, and their Class Phones have suffered a

diminution in value (to the extent they are even operable). These injuries are the

direct and natural consequence of LG’s misrepresentations and omissions.

COUNT VIII VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 350

N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW § 350


herein.

272. This claim is brought on behalf of Plaintiff Tracy and the New York

Class.

273. New York’s General Business Law § 350 makes unlawful “[f]alse

advertising in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce[.]” False advertising

includes “advertising, including labeling, of a commodity … if such advertising is

misleading in a material respect,” taking into account “the extent to which the

advertising fails to reveal facts material in the light of … representations [made]

with respect to the commodity….” N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW § 350-a.

274. LG caused to be made or disseminated through New York, through

advertising, marketing, and other publications, statements that were untrue or

misleading, and which were known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care

should have been known to LG, to be untrue and misleading to consumers,

including Plaintiff and the other Class members.

275. LG has violated N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW § 350 because the

representations or omissions regarding the Bootloop Defect in Class Phones as

described above were material and likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.

276. Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered injury, including

the loss of money or property, as a result of LG’s false advertising. In purchasing

Class Phones, Plaintiff and the other Class members relied on the



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

misrepresentations and/or omissions of LG with respect to the quality,

functionality, and performance of the Class Phones. LG’s representations turned

out to be untrue because the Class Phones are prone to failure, diminished or

complete loss of functionality, and other failures as described hereinabove due to

the Bootloop Defect. Had Plaintiff and the other Class members known this, they

would not have purchased their Class Phones and/or paid as much for them.

277. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the other Class members overpaid for their

Class Phones and did not receive the benefit of the bargain for their Class Phones,

which have also suffered diminution in value.

278. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the other New York Class

members, request that this Court enter such orders or judgments as may be

necessary to enjoin LG from continuing its unfair, unlawful and/or deceptive

practices. Plaintiff and the other Class members are also entitled to recover their

actual damages or $500, whichever is greater. Because LG acted willfully or

knowingly, Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover three times

actual damages, up to $10,000. COUNT IX

VIOLATIONS OF THE TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE §§ 17.41, et seq. (“TDTPA”)


herein.

280. This claim is brought on behalf of Plaintiff Hazelton and the Texas

Class.

281. The TDTPA provides that a person may not engage in any unfair or

deceptive trade practice in the sale of any consumer good.

282. Plaintiff and LG are “persons” within the meaning of the TDTPA. See

TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.45(3).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

283. The Class Phones are “goods” under the TDTPA. See id. § 17.45(1).

284. Plaintiff and the other Texas Class members are “consumers” as

defined in the TDTPA. See id. § 17.45(4).

285. LG has at all relevant times engaged in “trade” and “commerce” as

defined under TDTPA § 17.45(6), by advertising, offering for sale, selling,

leasing, and/or distributing the Class Phones in Texas, directly or indirectly

affecting Texas citizens through that trade and commerce.

286. LG participated in misleading, false or deceptive acts that violated the

TDTPA. By fraudulently advertising and selling Class Phones with the Bootloop

Defect as described herein, LG engaged in deceptive business practices prohibited

by the TDTPA.

287. In the course of its business, LG incorporated faulty hardware

components in Class Phones that cause the Phones to fail over time, resulting in

the Phones bootlooping and losing all functionality. LG concealed and omitted this

Bootloop Defect and otherwise engaged in activities with the tendency or capacity

to deceive. LG also engaged in unlawful trade practices by employing deception,

deceptive acts or practices, fraud, misrepresentations, or concealment, suppression

or omission, in connection with the sale of Class Phones containing the Bootloop

Defect.

288. LG has known of the Bootloop Defect in Class Phones from

complaints and communications by Class members, but continued to conceal the

Bootloop Defect in order to make sales of Class Phones.

289. By willfully failing to disclose and actively concealing the Bootloop

Defect, by marketing Class Phones as reliable and of high quality, and by

presenting itself as a reputable manufacturer that stood by its products after they

were sold or leased when it in fact does not, LG engaged in unfair and deceptive

business practices in violation of the TDTPA.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


fact deceive reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff and members of the Texas

Class, about the quality, workmanship, performance, safety, and true value of the

defective Class Phones.


regarding the Class Phones with intent to mislead Plaintiff and the Texas Class.

292. LG’s conduct was and is violative of the TDTPA in the following

ways:

a. representing 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 the person does not;

b. representing that goods or services are of a particular standard,

quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or

model, if they are of another;

c. advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as

advertised; and

d. failing to disclose information concerning goods or services

which was known at the time of the transaction if such failure to

disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer

into a transaction into which the consumer would not have

entered had the information been disclosed.

TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.46(b)(5), (7), (9), (24).

293. LG owed Plaintiff and the Texas Class a duty to disclose the

Bootloop Defect in Class Phones and the true value of Class Phones because LG:

a. Possesses exclusive knowledge that its manufacturing process entailed the inclusion of defective hardware components;



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Texas Class; and/or

c. Made incomplete, false or misleading representations about the characteristics, quality, workmanship, reliability, value, safety, efficiency, and performance of Class Phones while purposefully withholding material facts from Plaintiff and the Texas Class that contradicted these representations.

294. Because Plaintiff and the Texas Class overpaid for Class Phones due

to LG’s conduct described herein and because the Bootloop Defect in Class

Phones has caused Plaintiff and members of the Texas Class to incur out-of-pocket

expenses, they have suffered ascertainable loss as a direct and proximate result of

LG’s deceptive and unfair acts and practices in violation of the TDTPA.

COUNT X VIOLATION OF UTAH CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES ACT

(UTAH CODE ANN. § 13-11-1, et seq.) (“CSPA”)



296. Plaintiff Stallard brings this Count on behalf of himself and on behalf

of the Utah Class.

297. LG is a “supplier” under the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act

(“Utah CSPA”), UTAH CODE ANN. § 13-11-3.

298. Utah Class members are “persons” under UTAH CODE ANN. § 13-11-

3.

299. The sale of the Class Phones to the Utah Class members was a

“consumer transaction” within the meaning of UTAH CODE ANN. § 13-11-3.

300. The Utah CSPA makes unlawful any “deceptive act or practice by a

supplier in connection with a consumer transaction” under UTAH CODE ANN. § 13-

11-4. Specifically, “a supplier commits a deceptive act or practice if the supplier

knowingly or intentionally: (a) indicates that the subject of a consumer transaction



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

has sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses, or

benefits, if it has not” or “(b) indicates that the subject of a consumer transaction is

of a particular standard, quality, grade, style, or model, if it is not.” UTAH CODE

ANN. § 13-11-4. “An unconscionable act or practice by a supplier in connection

with a consumer transaction” also violates the Utah CSPA. UTAH CODE ANN. §

13-11-5.

301. In the course of its business, LG willfully failed to disclose and

actively concealed the Bootloop Defect discussed herein and otherwise engaged in

activities with a tendency or capacity to deceive. LG also engaged in unlawful

trade practices by employing deception, deceptive acts or practices, fraud,

misrepresentations, or concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact

with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression, or omission, in

connection with the sale of Class Phones.

302. LG knew it had installed defective hardware components in the Class

Phones and knew that the Class Phones were equipped with the Bootloop Defect,

but concealed that information.

303. By failing to disclose that the Class Phones were equipped with the

Bootloop Defect, by marketing its Phones as reliable, and of high quality and by

presenting itself as a reputable manufacturer that valued safety and stood behind

its Phones after they were sold, LG engaged in deceptive business practices in

violation of the Utah CSPA.


fact deceive reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff and the other Utah Class

members, about the true performance of the Class Phones, the quality of the LG

brand, and the true value of the Class Phones.


regarding the Class Phones with an intent to mislead Plaintiff and the Utah Class.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

306. LG knew or should have known that its conduct violated the Utah

CSPA.

307. As alleged above, LG made material statements about the quality and

reliability of the Class Phones that were either false or misleading.

308. LG owed Plaintiff and the Utah Class a duty to disclose the true

performance and reliability of the Class Phones, because LG:

a. Possessed exclusive knowledge that its manufacturing process

entailed the inclusion of defective hardware components;


Utah Class; and/or

c. Made incomplete representations about the reliability and

performance of the Class Phones generally, and the Bootloop

Defect in particular, while purposefully withholding material

facts from Plaintiff and the Class that contradicted these

representations.

309. Because LG fraudulently concealed the Bootloop Defect and the true

performance of the Class Phones, the value of the Class Phones has greatly

diminished (to the extent they are even operable).

310. LG’s fraudulent concealment of the true performance of Class Phones

was material to Plaintiff and the Utah Class. A smartphone made by a reputable

manufacturer of reliable, high-quality, high-performing devices is worth more than

an otherwise comparable smartphone made by a disreputable manufacturer of

unreliable, low-quality, defective devices that conceals defects rather than

promptly remedying them.

311. Plaintiff and the Utah Class suffered ascertainable loss caused by

LG’s misrepresentations and concealment of and failure to disclose material

information. Class members who purchased the Class Phones either would have



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

paid less for their Phones or would not have purchased them at all but for LG’s

violations of the Utah CSPA.

312. LG had an ongoing duty to all LG customers to refrain from unfair

and deceptive practices under the Utah CSPA. All owners of Class Phones

suffered ascertainable loss in the form of the diminished value of their Phones as a

result of LG’s deceptive and unfair acts and practices made in the course of its

business.

313. LG’s violations present a continuing risk to Plaintiff as well as to the

general public. LG’s unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the

public interest.

314. As a direct and proximate result of LG’s violations of the Utah

CSPA, Plaintiff and the Utah Class have suffered injury-in-fact and/or actual

damage.

315. Pursuant to UTAH CODE ANN. § 13-11-4, Plaintiff and the Utah Class

seek monetary relief against LG measured as the greater of (a) actual damages in

an amount to be determined at trial and (b) statutory damages in the amount of

$2,000 for Plaintiff and for each Utah Class member, reasonable attorneys’ fees,

and any other just and proper relief available under the Utah CSPA. COUNT XI

VIOLATIONS OF THE WASHINGTON CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT WASH. REV. CODE §§ 19.86, et seq. (“WCPA”)


herein.

317. This claim is brought on behalf of Plaintiff Nies and the Washington

Class.

318. The WCPA broadly prohibits and makes unlawful to commit “[u]nfair

methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of

any trade or commerce.” WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 19.86.020. The WCPA



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

provides a private right of action for “[a]ny person who is injured in his or her

business or property” by violations of the Act. Id. § 19.86.090.

319. LG’s actions as set forth herein occurred in the conduct of “trade” or

“commerce” under the WCPA. Id. § 19.86.010(2).

320. LG’s misrepresentations and material omissions regarding the

Bootloop Defect constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices in violation of the

WCPA.

321. Specifically, LG engaged in unfair competition and unfair, unlawful or

fraudulent business practices by the practices described herein, and by knowingly

and intentionally concealing from Plaintiff and Class members that the Class

Phones suffer from the Bootloop Defect which causes Class Phones to be partially

or wholly inoperable (as well as the costs, risks, and diminished value of the

smartphones as a result of this problem). LG should have disclosed this

information because they were in a superior position to know the true facts related

to the Bootloop Defect, and Plaintiff and the Class members could not reasonably

be expected to learn or discover the true facts related to the Bootloop Defect.

322. These unfair methods of competition and unfair and deceptive acts

have caused injuries to Plaintiff and members of the Class.

323. LG intended for Plaintiff and Class members to rely – and Plaintiff and

Class members did rely – on LG’s deceptive and unfair practices when they

purchased defective Class Phones.

324. Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered injuries in fact and

actual damages as a result of LG’s conduct in that Plaintiff and the other Class

members overpaid for their Class Phones and did not receive the benefit of their

bargain, and their Class Phones—to the extent they are operable—have suffered a

diminution in value. These injuries are the direct and natural consequence of LG’s



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

misrepresentations and omissions, and are of the type of injuries that the WCPA

was designed to prevent

325. The above unfair and deceptive practices and acts by LG were

immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous. These acts caused substantial

injury to consumers that these consumers could not reasonably avoid; this

substantial injury greatly outweighed any benefits to consumers or to competition.

326. LG’s actions in engaging in the above-named unfair practices and

deceptive acts were negligent, knowing and willful, and/or wanton and reckless

with respect to the rights of Plaintiff and Class members.

327. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, seek relief under WASH.

REV. CODE § 19.86.090, including, but not limited to, actual damages, treble

damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

COUNT XII FRAUD/FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT



329. This claim is brought on behalf of all Plaintiffs and all Classes.

330. Defendants concealed and suppressed material facts concerning the

performance and quality of the Class Phones, and the quality of the LG brand.

Specifically, Defendants knew of (or should have known of) the Bootloop Defect,

but failed to disclose it prior to or at the time it sold Class Phones to consumers.

Defendants did so in order to boost sales of their G4, V10, and Nexus 5X

smartphones.

331. Plaintiffs and Class members had no way of knowing that

Defendants’ representations were false and gravely misleading, or that Defendants

had omitted these imperative details. Plaintiffs and Class members did not, and

could not, unravel Defendants’ deception on their own.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

332. Defendants had a duty to disclose the true performance of the Class

Phones because knowledge of the scheme and its details were known and/or

accessible only to Defendants; Defendants had superior knowledge and access to

the facts; and Defendants knew the facts were not known to, or reasonably

discoverable, by Plaintiffs and the Class. Defendants also had a duty to disclose

because they made many general affirmative representations about the about the

qualities of the Class Phones.

333. On information and belief, Defendants still have not made full and

adequate disclosures, and continue to defraud consumers by concealing material

information regarding the performance of Class Phones.

334. Plaintiffs and the Class were unaware of these omitted material facts

and would not have acted as they did if they had known of the concealed and/or

suppressed facts, in that they would not have purchased the Class Phones.

Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s actions were justified. Defendants were in exclusive

control of the material facts and such facts were not known to the public,

Plaintiffs, or the Class.

335. Because of the concealment and/or suppression of the facts,

Plaintiffs and the Class sustained damage because they did not receive the value of

the premium price paid for their Class Phones. Plaintiffs and Class members

would have paid less for Class Phones had they known about the Bootloop Defect

and the entire truth about them, or they would not have purchased Class Phones at

all.

336. Accordingly, Defendants are liable to the Class for damages in an

amount to be proven at trial.

337. Defendants’ acts were done maliciously, oppressively, deliberately,

with intent to defraud, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s rights

and well-being to enrich Defendants. Defendants’ conduct warrants an assessment



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter such conduct in the future,

which amount is to be determined according to proof.

338. LG has been unjustly enriched by its fraudulent, deceptive, and

otherwise unlawful conduct in connection with the sale of Class Phones and by

withholding benefits from Plaintiffs and the Class at the expense of these parties.

339. Equity and good conscience militate against permitting LG to retain

these profits and benefits, and LG should be required to make restitution of its ill-

gotten gains resulting from the conduct alleged herein.

COUNT XIII UNJUST ENRICHMENT


herein.

2. This claim is brought by Plaintiffs Jason Mallek, Melora Hardwick,

Crystal Davenport, Karen Tracy, Royce Hazelton, Shawn Stallard, and Kim Nies

on behalf of the Florida, Illinois, Maryland, New York, Texas, and Utah Classes.

This claim is pled in the alternative to the other claims set forth herein.

3. As the intended and expected result of its conscious wrongdoing, LG

has profited and benefited from Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ purchase of Class

Phones containing the Bootloop Defect.

4. LG has voluntarily accepted and retained these profits and benefits

with full knowledge and awareness that, as a result of LG’s misconduct alleged

herein, Plaintiffs and the Classes were not receiving Phones of the quality, nature,

fitness, or value that had been represented by LG, and that a reasonable consumer

would expect.

5. LG has been unjustly enriched by its fraudulent, deceptive, and

otherwise unlawful conduct in connection with the sale and lease of Class Phones



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and by withholding benefits from Plaintiff and the Class at the expense of these

parties.

6. Equity and good conscience militate against permitting LG to retain

these profits and benefits, and LG should be required to make restitution of its ill-

gotten gains resulting from the conduct alleged herein.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated

members of the Classes, respectfully requests that this Court:

(a) Determine that this action is a proper class action, certifying Plaintiffs as

class representatives under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and

Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class Counsel;

(b) Award all actual, general, special, incidental, statutory, punitive and

consequential damages to which Plaintiffs and Class members are

entitled;

(c) Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on such monetary

relief;

(d) Grant appropriate injunctive and/or declaratory relief, including,

without limitation, an order that requires Defendants to repair, recall,

and/or replace the Class Phones and to extend the applicable

warranties to a reasonable period of time, or, at a minimum, to

provide Plaintiffs and Class members with appropriate curative notice

regarding the existence and cause of the Bootloop Defect;

(e) Award Plaintiffs and Class members restitutionary or other equitable

relief;

(f) Award Plaintiffs and Class members their reasonable costs and

expenses incurred in this action, including counsel fees and expert

fees; and



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(g) Award such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and

proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs respectfully demand a jury trial for all claims so triable. Dated: March 23, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

By: Benjamin F. Johns (pro hac vice) Andrew W. Ferich(pro hac vice) Jessica Titler (pro hac vice) CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP One Haverford Centre 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: (610) 642-8500 Fax: (610) 649-3633 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Brian S. Kabateck Drew R. Ferrandini Lina B. Melidonian KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP Engine Company No. 28, Bldg. 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 217-5000 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Brian D. Chase Jerusalem F. Beligan BISNAR CHASE LLP One Newport Place 1301 Dove Street, Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92626 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class


FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 23, 2017, a copy of the foregoing First

Amended Complaint was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all

parties who entered their appearance via the Court's Electronic Case Filing System.

Parties may access this filing through the Court's system.

Benjamin F. Johns (pro hac vice) CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP One Haverford Centre 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: (610) 642-8500 Fax: (610) 649-3633 Email: [email protected]


Documents

KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP - Chimicles & Tikellis LLP · LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.; LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 2:17-cv-01039-MWF-PLA