Omron Lawsuit Oct 23

Case: 1:23-cv-15302 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 1 of 63 PageID #:1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
JEANETTE ESTRELLA, HAROLD PEERY,

STEPHEN SCHNEIDER, and DENEEN
POND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Case No. ___________________
Plaintiffs,
v.
OMRON HEALTHCARE, INC.,

Defendant.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Jeanette Estrella, Harold Peery, Stephen Schneider, and Deneen Pond
(“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, bring this class action
against Defendant Omron Healthcare, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Omron”), and allege on personal
knowledge as to themselves, and investigation of counsel and information and belief, as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This class action lawsuit concerns a fraud perpetrated on thousands of purchasers
of the OMRON Platinum Upper Arm Blood Pressure Monitor model BP5450 (the “Product” or
“Products”) for personal use and not for resale.
2. The Product is marketed by Defendant as an in-home medical device capable of
providing consistently accurate and reliable blood pressure readings for all users, while in truth, it
is incapable. The blood pressure readings generated by the Product are wildly inaccurate for many
thousands of users. For example, consecutive readings generated by the Product, and taken from
the same person minutes apart, vary by 10 mmHg or more. One reviewer of the Product states it
is “consistently 10+ mmHg off,” making the device essentially useless. Another reviewer carefully
tested his device, which involved taking nine consecutive measurements each one minute apart.
Over the less than 20 minutes it took to collect these readings, the consumer’s systolic blood
pressure ranged from 144 mmHg to 164 mmHg. Yet another reviewer who brought the Product
to a doctor’s appointment said the Product’s readings were as much as 91 mmHg higher than the
doctor’s machine and manual readings. And Plaintiffs and other class members have experienced
similarly inaccurate and inconsistent readings.
3. The Product’s defective nature is also a breach of express and implied warranty.
The Product’s user manual warrants that the device is accurate within a range of “+/- 3 mm Hg.”
Not only is this “range” not conspicuously disclosed at the point of sale (and such omission is
misleading as described below), it is also untrue. User experience shows that the Product’s
2
accuracy varies widely. Beyond that, Defendant commissioned a study by Northwestern
researchers to validate the accuracy of the Product.1 That study concluded that the Product was
accurate within a range of +/- 3.7 mmHg for diastolic pressure—which is 23.3% greater than the
3 mmHg warranted in the user manual. And for persons using the standard “wide range” cuff (22–
42 cm or 9–17 inches) that comes in the box with the Product, the Product produced diastolic blood
pressure readings that deviated by an average of 4.30 mmHg (with a standard deviation of 5.8
mmHg) from the true level. Moreover, Defendant’s +/- 3 mmHg accuracy rating is an average—
meaning that for some users, the Product is decidedly incapable of providing accurate and reliable
measurements—which is also not conspicuously disclosed at the point of sale. Worse, the
Northwestern Study shows that the Product produces particularly inaccurate readings for users
with relatively larger arm circumference (comprising a portion of users likely to monitor blood
pressure), which Defendant knew, in part because it commissioned the study and tested the Product
before bringing it to market.
4. Defendant’s misleading representations and omissions about the Product concern
its central functionality, as the Product is effectively rendered useless and unreliable. Defendant’s
misleading representations and omissions also pose an unreasonable safety hazard as users may
incorrectly believe their blood pressure is far higher or lower than it actually is, and rely on these
readings in making future decisions about their healthcare and treatment (or foregoing treatment).
5. Defendant has not recalled the Product or offered any other program to reimburse
users.
1
Peprah, Lee, and Persell, Journal of Human Hypertension, Validation testing of ﬁve home blood
pressure monitoring devices for the upper arm according to the ISO 81060-2:2018/AMD 1:2020
protocol (submitted June 8, 2022 and published January 18, 2023) (hereinafter the
“Northwestern Study”).
3
6. As a result of Defendant’s misconduct and omissions, Plaintiffs and putative Class
members have suffered injury in fact.
7. Plaintiffs bring this suit to halt Defendant’s unlawful sales and marketing of the
Product and for economic damages sustained as a result. Given the large quantities of the Product
sold nationwide, this class action is the proper vehicle for addressing Defendant’s misconduct and
attaining needed relief for those affected.
II. PARTIES
8. Plaintiff Jeanette Estrella is and was at all times relevant to this Complaint
domiciled in and a resident of Hollywood, Florida.
9. Plaintiff Harold Peery is and was at all times relevant to this Complaint domiciled
in and a resident of Cloverdale, California.
10. Plaintiff Stephen Schneider is and was at all times relevant to this Complaint
domiciled in and a resident of Montara, California.
11. Plaintiff Deneen Pond is and was at all times relevant to this Complaint domiciled
in and a resident of Sequim, Washington.
12. Defendant Omron Healthcare, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and headquartered in
Lake Forest, Illinois. Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, and sells the Products to
consumers nationwide across the United States.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) and the
Class Action Fairness Act because the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, and Defendant
is a citizen of Illinois and is therefore diverse from at least one member of the Class.
14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it is headquartered in
Lake Forest, Illinois. Defendant is authorized to do business in this District, conducts substantial
4
business in this District, and the actions giving rise to the complaint took place in part in this
District as the marketing and manufacturing decisions were made from Defendant’s headquarters
in Illinois.
15. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendant
does business throughout this District.
IV. COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Background Regarding Blood Pressure Monitors
16. Taking a blood pressure reading when visiting a primary care physician is standard
practice. Blood pressure is measured in a clinical setting using a sphygmomanometer.
17. Capitalizing on the consuming public’s interest in flexibility and convenience, at-
home blood pressure monitors are becoming increasingly popular.
18. Accurate blood pressure measurement is critically important for proper diagnosis
and treatment. When diagnosing and treating hypertension, inaccurate blood pressure
measurement values can result in “over diagnoses or underdiagnoses as well as overtreatment or
under treatment.”2 Inaccurate blood pressure measurements leading to untreated hypertension can
cause other severe and deadly health conditions like kidney disease, heart disease, and stroke.
19. Hypertension can cause serious damage to the heart. Excessive pressure can harden
arteries, decreasing the flow of blood and oxygen to the heart. This elevated pressure and reduced
blood flow can cause chest pain; heart attack (which occurs when the blood supply to the heart is
blocked and heart muscle cells die from lack of oxygen, and the longer the blood flow is blocked,
the greater the damage to the heart); heart failure (which occurs when the heart cannot pump
2
Northwestern Study at 134.
5
enough blood and oxygen to other vital body organs); and irregular heart beat which can lead to a
sudden death.
20. An estimated 1.28 billion adults aged 30–79 years worldwide have hypertension
and an estimated 46% of adults with hypertension are unaware that they have the condition.
According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC), in 2021, hypertension was a primary or
contributing cause of 691,095 deaths in the United States, and nearly half of all adults in the United
States (48.1%, 119.9 million) have hypertension—defined as a systolic blood pressure greater than
130 mmHg, or a diastolic blood pressure greater than 80 mmHg.3
21. Because many doctors rely at least in part on home measurements to guide
treatment, such inaccuracies could end with some people taking too much or too little blood
pressure medication, seeking unnecessary treatment, or forgoing necessary treatment.4
22. Accordingly, it is essential that blood pressure devices provide accurate and reliable
measurements.
B. The Product and Defendant’s Marketing of the Product

23. Defendant is the manufacturer and distributor of healthcare devices in the United
States and claims to have sold more than 300 million home-use digital blood pressure monitors
worldwide as of May 2021. Among the various devices manufactured and distributed by
Defendant is the Product at issue. According to Defendant’s website, the Product is “exclusive to
Amazon” and sold only on Amazon.com.5
3
https://www.cdc.gov/bloodpressure/facts.htm.
4
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/home-blood-pressure-monitors-arent-accurate-
201410297494.
5
https://omronhealthcare.com/products/platinum-wireless-upper-arm-blood-pressure-monitor-
bp5450/.
6
24. The Amazon.com listing for the Product currently describes it as the “OMRON
Platinum Blood Pressure Monitor, Upper Arm Cuff, Digital Bluetooth Blood Pressure Machine,
Stores Up To 200 Readings for Two Users (100 each).”6 The current listing further describes the
Product as having the following functions and attributes7:
a. “Accurate. Reliable. Easy to use.”
b. “The high morning average indicator alerts the user if systolic or diastolic
measurements are out of normal range in the morning, when there is a
higher risk for heart attack or stroke.”
c. “Backed with a 6-year warranty. OMRON stands behind the accuracy and
quality of our products, and believes in the longevity of our blood pressure
monitors.”
d. “Monitor meets the Validated Device Listing (VDL) for Clinical Accuracy
as determined through an independent review process.”
25. Earlier versions of the Amazon.com listing during the Class Period also included
statements like “TRUSTED BRAND - OMRON is the #1 recommended home blood pressure
monitor brand by doctors and pharmacists for clinically-accurate home monitoring, and the #1
selling manufacturer of home blood pressure monitors for over 40 years.”
6
https://www.amazon.com/Platinum-Pressure-Bluetooth-Storesup-Readings/dp/B07RX8WQ4K
7
Id.
7
C. Purchasers are Misled about the Product

26. Defendant, as the manufacturer, is responsible for creating, designing, and
approving the advertising shown on the Amazon website and such advertising was placed on the
Amazon listing at Defendant’s direction. This includes the Product name, description, attributes,
features, and benefits.
27. While Defendant touts the Product on the Amazon.com listing as “accurate” and
“validated” for clinical accuracy by unexplained explained standards, these representations are
false, or at minimum misleading, because the Product does not in fact produce “accurate” blood
pressure readings, let alone consistently for all users.
28. First, the Amazon.com listing does not disclose (let alone conspicuously) that,
according to Defendant, the Product is at best “accurate” within a range of +/- 3 mmHg for systolic
and diastolic pressure. The manual for the Product specifically states its “accuracy” is only “+/- 3
mmHg.” However, based on Defendant’s representations, a reasonable purchaser of the Product
would believe that the Product is actually accurate and that the blood pressure value displayed by
the Product is in fact the user’s actual blood pressure. A Product is “accurate” and “reliable” if it
produces correct results every time it is properly used.
29. Second, the blood pressure measurements generated by the Product are in fact
regularly inaccurate by 10 mmHg to 30mmHg. The examples are many. One Amazon.com user
review dated March 7, 2023 explained in detail that, based on his testing, the Product is “highly
inaccurate” by +/- 10 to 12 mmHg.
8
30. Over 100 other user reviews—including reviews authored by physicians—are in
accord, explaining the the Product produces wildly different results within minutes of testing, the
measurements are nowhere near the levels generated at a physician’s office, and the Product cannot
generate accurate measurements. Exemplar user reviews posted to Amazon are shown below.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
31. Additionally, several reviews of the Product posted to Defendant’s own website
similarly conclude that the Product was wildly inaccurate when compared to a physician’s clinical
blood pressure reading—including where users brought the Product with them to their physician’s
office for a direct, side-by-side, comparison.
a. A review published “4 years ago” stated: “I have taken the device to
compare it with two different medical checked devices as advised by my
doctor to be surprised with the result and that the device is almost 10-15
points higher than the healthcare center approved devices. I have
communicated with the support team during the first 30 days to get my
money back as advertised, but the response was very bad with no follow-
up at all for my case.” The review also included pictures of the Product’s
reading against the healthcare provider’s reading.
21
b. Additional reviews of the Product on Defendant’s website are shown below.
22
32. Third, the Product’s user manual warrants that the device is accurate within a range
of +/- 3 mmHg. This is false and misleading because the Product generates inaccurate readings
by at least 10mmHg, as shown above. Importantly, according Defendant’s commissioned
Northwestern Study, the Product was only accurate within a range of +/- 3.7 mmHg for diastolic
23
pressure—which is more than the 3 mmHg warranted in the user manual. And for persons using
the standard “wide range” cuff (22–42 cm or 9–17 inches) that comes with the Product, the Product
produced diastolic blood pressure readings that deviated by an average of 4.30 mmHg (standard
deviation of 5.8 mmHg) from the true level.
33. Fourth, and critically, the Northwestern Study found that the the Products produce
particularly inaccurate readings for users with a larger arm circumference, which Defendant knew
because it commissioned the study. The below scatterplots from the Northwestern Study compare
blood pressure readings from the Product against blood pressure readings for the same individual
taken by a physician with standard mercury sphygmomanometers that were calibrated before the
study began and validated against measurements generated by a dual head teaching stethoscope.
As shown in the images, the larger the arm circumference, the greater the deviation from accurate
readings. Individuals with an arm circumference of 30 cm or more are given completely unreliable
readings that often deviate 10 mmHg or more from their actual blood pressure.
34. Fifth, the Product manual states it “has not be validated for use on pregnant
patients”—a fact Defendant does not conspicuously disclose at the point of sale and omits from
the Amazon listing—yet Defendant misleadingly advertises the Product as “validated” and
“accurate” for users generally.
24
35. None of the above limitations were disclosed by Defendant to consumers at the
point of purchase. But, again, Defendant advertises the Product as (1) “Accurate. Reliable. Easy
to Use”; (2) “OMRON stands behind the accuracy and quality of our products”; (3) “OMRON is
the #1 recommended home blood pressure monitor brand by doctors and pharmacists for clinically-
accurate home monitoring”; (4) “Monitor meets the Validated Device Listing (VDL) for Clinical
Accuracy as determined through an independent review process”; and (5) “This product meets the
Validated Device Listing (‘VDL’) criteria for validation of clinical accuracy, based on the
independent review and acceptance of documentation submitted by the manufacturer.” By touting
these positive attributes that concern the central functionality of the Product, Defendant was
obligated to disclose the Product’s inherent limitations.
D. Defendant Knew About the Product’s Defect and Limitations

36. Defendant has been aware of the Product’s inaccurate readings and the above-
described limitations since the Product was launched in 2019, and years earlier.
37. As explained above, no less than fifty consumers submitted thorough and detailed
reviews about the Product’s consistently inaccurate readings. The volume of negative reviews
raising the exact same defect is unusually large and is indicative of a widespread problem.
38. Not only does the number of complaints over the course of several years
demonstrate that Defendant was on notice of the defective readings, but the substance of the
complaints shows that consumers were surprised, frustrated, and disappointed with the inaccurate
readings generated by the Product and would not have purchased the Product had the defect been
disclosed.
39. Defendant would have seen the above-described negative reviews and complaints
on its own website and third-party retailer websites. Online Reputation Management (ORM) is
now a standard business practice among major companies and entails monitoring consumer
25
forums, social media, and other sources on the internet where consumers can review or comment
on products. ORM involves the monitoring of the reputation of an individual or a brand on the
internet, addressing content, which is potentially damaging to it, and using customer feedback to
try to solve problems before they damage the individual’s or brand’s reputation. Many companies
offer ORM consulting services for businesses.
40. Like most companies, Defendant cares about its reputation and regularly monitors
online customer reviews because they provide valuable data regarding quality control issues,
customer satisfaction, and marketing analytics. One and two-star reviews like those displayed
above would be particularly attention-grabbing for Defendant’s management because extreme
reviews are often the result of material problems. As such, Defendant’s management knew about
the above-referenced consumer complaints shortly after each complaint was posted on Defendant’s
company website and third-party retailer websites.
41. Additionally, Defendant is experienced in designing and manufacturing medical
devices like Product. As an experienced manufacturer, Defendant conducts pre-sale and post-sale
safety testing to verify the accuracy of blood pressure readings. Defendant discovered the
consistently inaccurate readings, including for users with a large arm circumference, during testing
both before and after publicly releasing the Product for sale, but made a business decision not to
take action, including recalling the Product or offering a refund. Far from it, Defendant continues
to advertise the Product as “Accurate. Reliable. Easy to Use.”
42. Finally, Defendant also would have had notice of the defective readings as a result
of warranty claims. Before accepting a return or performing a repair, Defendant’s policy is to ask
each customer for a description of the request and to keep track of the reasons given. Descriptions
26
provided with returns and/or repair requests of the Product therefore would have disclosed the
defective readings.
E. Defendant’s Duty to Disclose

43. Superior Knowledge: As described above, Defendant is experienced in the design
and manufacture of medical devices such as the Product. As an experienced manufacturer,
Defendant conducts tests, including pre-sale testing, to verify the specifications of the products it
sells. Defendant also receives, monitors, and aggregates consumer complaints. A reasonable
consumer would not be on notice of the Product’s inability to generate consistently accurate
readings and do not have access to the granular data in Defendant’s possession.
44. Active Concealment: Defendant actively concealed the Product’s shortcomings as
described above. Indeed, in response to consumer complaints within the warranty period regarding
the Product’s inaccurate readings, Defendant refused to repair the Product, told consumers it was
accurate and working as designed, or replaced the defective Product with the same defective
Product to make consumers believe the Product was always working and the problem lies with the
consumer. Defendant also views and responds to negative reviews about the Product’s inaccurate
readings without publicly acknowledging the defect or the Product’s limitations, and instead
continues to tout the Product as accurate.
45. Partial Representations: As described above, Defendant represents on the Amazon
listing, its own website, and Product packaging that each Product functions as an accurate and
capable blood pressure monitor. Yet Defendant fails to disclose that the readings generated by the
Product are not consistently accurate because they are at best within a range of accuracy, the
Product does not meet its own +/- 3 mmHg range of accuracy according to a study it commissioned,
the Product is incapable of providing accurate readings for users with a larger arm circumference,
and the Product was never even tested for use by pregnant women. By disclosing some beneficial
27
attributes about the Product and describing its performance, Defendant is obligated to disclose
material limitations that negatively affect the use of the Products.
46. The defect affects the central functionality of the Product in that it renders the
Product unusable. For the same reasons, the Product presents an unreasonable safety hazard
because users rely on home blood pressure devices to manage their healthcare and make medical
decisions.
47. Defendant could have and should have prominently disclosed the limitations and
omitted facts on product listings, on its website, on product packaging, and to third-party retailers.
Had Defendant disclosed the defect in this manner, consumers would have been aware of it.
F. Plaintiffs’ Purchases
Plaintiff Estrella
48. Plaintiff Estrella purchased the Product in or about June 2022 from Amazon.com
while present in Florida.
49. Before purchasing the Product, Plaintiff Estrella viewed the description of the
Product’s features on the Amazon listing written by Defendant, including the misleading
statements challenged in this action and described above regarding accuracy, performance, and
reliability.
50. Plaintiff Estrella experienced inaccurate blood pressure readings with the Product
by at least 10 mmHg. The Product is now non-functional and does not power on.
51. As a reasonable consumer, she believed that information regarding critical
performance limitations and safety issues, like the Product’s inability to generate consistently
accurate blood pressure readings, would have been prominently disclosed by the manufacturer at
the point of sale. Because no such limitations were disclosed, let alone prominently, she
understood the Amazon listing representations made by Defendant as promising that the Product
28
would produce consistently accurate blood readings for all users and was safe under ordinary use.
Plaintiff Estella relied on Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions in purchasing the Product.
52. Had Plaintiff Estrella known or otherwise been made aware of the Product’s
limitations, she would not have purchased it or would have paid significantly less for it. At a
minimum, Plaintiff Estella paid a price premium for the Product based on Defendant’s omission
and concealment described herein.
53. Plaintiff Estrella would purchase another substantially similar product
manufactured by Defendant in the future if the product was redesigned to make it 100% accurate.
Plaintiff, however, faces an imminent threat of harm because she will not be able to rely on any
representations or omissions of performance in the future and, thus, will not be able to purchase a
device manufactured by Defendant.
Plaintiff Peery
54. Plaintiff Peery purchased the Product on November 10, 2022 from Amazon.com
while present in California.
55. Before purchasing the Product, Plaintiff Peery viewed the description of the
reliability.
56. Plaintiff Peery experienced blood pressure readings generated by the Product
within minutes of each other that differed by at least 10 mmHg.
57. As a reasonable consumer, he believed that information regarding critical
29
the point of sale. Because no such limitations were disclosed, let alone prominently, he understood
the Amazon listing representations made by Defendant as promising that the Product would
produce consistently accurate blood readings for all users and was safe under ordinary use. Plaintiff
Peery relied on Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions in purchasing the Product.
58. Had Plaintiff Peery known or otherwise been made aware of the Product’s
limitations, he would not have purchased it or would have paid significantly less for it. At a
minimum, Plaintiff Peery paid a price premium for the Product based on Defendant’s omission
59. Plaintiff would purchase another substantially similar product manufactured by
Defendant in the future if the product was redesigned to make it 100% accurate. Plaintiff, however,
faces an imminent threat of harm because he will not be able to rely on any representations or
omissions of performance in the future and, thus, will not be able to purchase a device
manufactured by Defendant.
Plaintiff Schneider
60. Plaintiff Schneider purchased the Product on October 14, 2021 from Amazon.com
while present in California.
61. Before purchasing the Product, Plaintiff Schneider viewed the description of the
reliability.
62. Plaintiff Schneider experienced wildly fluctuating readings generated by the
Product, some by as much as 30 mmHg within minutes of each other.
30
63. As a reasonable consumer, he believed that information regarding critical
the point of sale. Because no such limitations were disclosed, let alone prominently, he understood
the Amazon listing representations made by Defendant as promising that the Product would
produce consistently accurate blood pressure readings for all users and was safe under ordinary
use. Plaintiff Schneider relied on Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions in purchasing the
Product.
64. Had Plaintiff Schneider known or otherwise been made aware of the Product’s
limitations, he would not have purchased it or would have paid significantly less for it. At a
minimum, Plaintiff Schneider paid a price premium for the Product based on Defendant’s omission
65. Plaintiff Schneider would purchase another substantially similar product
manufactured by Defendant in the future if the product was redesigned to make it 100% accurate.
Plaintiff, however, faces an imminent threat of harm because he will not be able to rely on any
Plaintiff Pond
66. Plaintiff Pond purchased the Product on or about September 26, 2022 from
Amazon.com while present in Washington.
67. Before purchasing the Product, Plaintiff Pond viewed the description of the
31
reliability.
68. Plaintiff Pond experienced wildly fluctuating readings generated by the Product,
some by at least 10 mmHg within minutes of each other. She also purchased the Product, thought
her individual unit was defective due to inaccurate readings and promptly returned it, and then
purchased it again in hopes that the repurchased Product would work. However, the repurchased
Product was equally inaccurate and defective.
69. As a reasonable consumer, she believed that information regarding critical
the point of sale. Because no such limitations were disclosed, let alone prominently, she
understood the Amazon listing representations made by Defendant as promising that the Product
would produce consistently accurate blood pressure readings for all users and was safe under
ordinary use. Plaintiff Pond relied on Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions in purchasing
the Product.
70. Had Plaintiff Pond known or otherwise been made aware of the Product’s
limitations, she would not have purchased it or would have paid significantly less for it. At a
minimum, Plaintiff Pond paid a price premium for the Product based on Defendant’s omission and
concealment described herein.
71. Plaintiff Pond would purchase another substantially similar product manufactured
by Defendant in the future if the product was redesigned to make it 100% accurate. Plaintiff,
however, faces an imminent threat of harm because she will not be able to rely on any
32
V. TOLLING OF APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS

72. Any applicable statutes of limitation have been tolled by the discovery doctrine and
Defendant’s knowing and active concealment of the defect.
73. Through no fault or lack of diligence, Plaintiffs and members of the Class were
deceived regarding the defect and could not reasonably discover the defect or Defendant’s
deception with respect to the defect.
74. Prior to purchasing and using the Product, Plaintiffs and Class members had no
reasonable way of knowing about the Products’ omitted limitations. Further, Plaintiffs and
members of the Class did not discover and did not know facts that would have caused a reasonable
person to suspect that Defendant was engaged in the conduct alleged herein.
75. By failing to provide immediate and conspicuous notice of the Product’s limitations
and inabilities, by responding (and refusing to respond) to negative reviews about the Product’s
performance without publicly acknowledging the Product’s limitations, and by replacing Products
under warranty with the same defective Products, Defendant actively concealed the Product’s
limitations from Plaintiff and Class members.
76. Plaintiffs did not learn about the Product’s inability to generate accurate readings
and the Product’s limitations described herein until shortly before commencement of this action,
or at minimum until they each purchased and used the Product .
77. Upon information and belief, Defendant intended its acts to conceal the facts and
claims from Plaintiff and Class members. Plaintiff and Class members were unaware of the facts
alleged herein without any fault or lack of diligence on their part and could not have reasonably
discovered Defendant’s conduct.
33
78. For these reasons, all applicable statutes of limitation have been tolled based on the
discovery rule and Defendant’s active concealment.
VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

79. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the following classes and
subclasses (collectively, the “Class”) pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and 23(c)(4) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
a. Nationwide class: All persons in the United States who purchased the
Product during the Class Period other than for resale.
b. California subclass: All persons in California who purchased the Product

during the Class Period other than for resale.
c. Florida subclass: All persons in Florida who purchased the Product during
the Class Period other than for resale.
d. Washington subclass: All persons in Washington who purchased the

Product during the Class Period other than for resale.
e. Multi-state subclass (Implied Warranty Non-Privity): All persons who

purchased the Product for personal use and not for resale during the Class
Period in the following States: Alaska; Arkansas; California; Colorado;
Connecticut; Delaware; District of Columbia; Florida; Hawaii; Indiana;
Kansas; Louisiana; Maine; Maryland; Massachusetts; Michigan;
Minnesota; Mississippi; Missouri; Montana; Nebraska; Nevada; New
Hampshire; New Jersey; New Mexico; North Dakota; Ohio; Oklahoma;
Pennsylvania; Rhode Island; South Carolina; South Dakota; Texas; Utah;
Vermont; Virginia; West Virginia; Wyoming
80. Excluded from the Class are (a) any officers, directors or employees, or immediate
family members of the officers, directors, or employees of any Defendant or any entity in which a
Defendant has a controlling interest, (b) any legal counsel or employee of legal counsel for any
Defendant, and (c) the presiding Judge in this lawsuit, as well as the Judge’s staff and their
immediate family members.
34
81. The “Class Period” begins on the date established by the Court’s determination of
any applicable statute of limitations, after consideration of any tolling, discovery, concealment,
and accrual issues, and ending on the date of entry of judgment.
82. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the definition of the Class and subclasses if
discovery or further investigation reveals that the Class or subclasses should be expanded or
otherwise modified.
83. Numerosity. Class members are so numerous and geographically dispersed that
joinder of all Class members is impracticable. While the exact number of Class members remains
unknown at this time, there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of putative Class members.
Moreover, the number of members of the Class may be ascertained from Defendant’s books and
records. Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail and/or electronic
mail, which can be supplemented if deemed necessary or appropriate by the Court with published
notice.
84. Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact. Common questions of
law and fact exist for all Class members and predominate over any questions affecting only
individual Class members. These common legal and factual questions include, but are not limited
to, the following:
a. Whether the Product contains the defect and performance limitations

alleged herein;
b. Whether Defendant failed to appropriately warn Class members of the

damage that could result from the use of the Product;
c. Whether the Defendant breached express and/or implied warranties made

for the benefit of Plaintiffs and the Class;
d. Whether Defendant had actual or imputed knowledge of the defect and

performance limitations but did not disclose it to Plaintiffs and the Class;
35
e. Whether Defendant promoted the Product with misleading statements of

fact and material omissions;
f. Whether Defendant’s marketing, advertising, packaging, labeling, and/or

other promotional materials for the Product are deceptive, unfair, or
misleading;
g. Whether Defendant’s actions and omissions violate state law;
h. Whether Defendant’s conduct violates public policy;
i. Whether Plaintiffs and putative members of the Class have suffered an

ascertainable loss of monies or property or other value as a result of
Defendant’s acts and omissions of material facts;
j. Whether Defendant was unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs and

members of the putative Class in connection with selling the Product;
k. Whether Plaintiffs and members of the putative Class are entitled to

monetary damages and, if so, the nature of such relief; and
l. Whether Plaintiffs and members of the putative Class are entitled to

equitable or injunctive relief and, if so, the nature of such relief.
85. Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the
putative Class, thereby making final injunctive relief appropriate concerning the putative Class as
a whole. In particular, Defendant manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed, and sold the
Products that are deceptively misrepresented, including by omission.
86. Typicality. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the absent Class members in
that Plaintiffs and the Class members each purchased and used the Product, and each sustained
damages arising from Defendant’s wrongful conduct, as alleged more fully herein. Plaintiffs share
the aforementioned facts and legal claims or questions with putative members of the Class.
Plaintiffs and all members of the putative Class have been similarly affected by Defendant’s
common course of conduct alleged herein. Plaintiff and all members of the putative Class sustained
monetary and economic injuries including, but not limited to, ascertainable loss arising out of
Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Product’s performance.
36
87. Adequacy. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests
of the members of the putative Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel with substantial experience
in handling complex class action litigation, including complex questions that arise in this type of
consumer protection litigation. Further, Plaintiffs and their counsel are committed to the vigorous
prosecution of this action. Plaintiffs have no conflicts of interest or interests adverse to those of
putative Class.
88. Insufficiency of Separate Actions. Absent a class action, Plaintiffs and members
of the Class will continue to suffer the harm described herein, for which they would have no
remedy. Even if individual consumers could bring separate actions, the resulting multiplicity of
lawsuits would cause undue burden and expense for both the Court and the litigants, as well as
create a risk of inconsistent rulings and adjudications that might be dispositive of the interests of
similarly situated consumers, substantially impeding their ability to protect their interests, while
establishing incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant.
89. Injunctive Relief. Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally
applicable to Plaintiffs and all members of the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive
relief, as described below, concerning the members of the Class as a whole.
90. Superiority. A class action is superior to any other available methods for the fair
and efficient adjudication of the present controversy for at least the following reasons:
a. The damages suffered by each individual member of the putative Class do

not justify the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex
and extensive litigation necessitated by Defendant’s conduct;
b. Even if individual members of the Class had the resources to pursue

individual litigation, it would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which
the individual litigation would proceed;
c. The claims presented in this case predominate over any questions of law or
fact affecting individual members of the Class;
37
d. Individual joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable;
e. Absent a class action, Plaintiffs and members of the putative Class will
continue to suffer harm as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct; and
f. This action presents no difficulty that would impede its management by the
Court as a class action, which is the best available means by which Plaintiffs
and members of the putative Class can seek redress for the harm caused by
Defendant.
91. In the alternative, the Class may be certified for the following reasons:
a. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class

would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudication concerning
individual members of the Class, which would establish incompatible
standards of conduct for Defendant;
b. Adjudications of claims of the individual members of the Class against

Defendant would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of
other members of the putative Class who are not parties to the adjudication
and may substantially impair or impede the ability of other putative Class
Members to protect their interests; and
c. Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the

members of the putative Class, thereby making appropriate final and
injunctive relief concerning the putative Class as a whole.
VII. INADEQUACY OF LEGAL REMEDIES

92. In the alternative to those claims seeking remedies at law, Plaintiffs and Class
members allege that no plain, adequate, and complete remedy exists at law to address Defendant’s
unlawful and unfair business practices. The legal remedies available to Plaintiffs are inadequate
because they are not “equally prompt and certain and in other ways efficient” as equitable relief.
American Life Ins. Co. v. Stewart, 300 U.S. 203, 214 (1937); see also United States v. Bluitt, 815
F. Supp. 1314, 1317 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 1992) (“The mere existence’ of a possible legal remedy is
not sufficient to warrant denial of equitable relief.”); Quist v. Empire Water Co., 2014 Cal. 646,
643 (1928) (“The mere fact that there may be a remedy at law does not oust the jurisdiction of a
court of equity. To have this effect, the remedy must also be speedy, adequate, and efficacious to
38
the end in view … It must reach the whole mischief and secure the whole right of the party in a
perfect manner at the present time and not in the future.”).
93. Additionally, unlike damages, the Court’s discretion in fashioning equitable relief
is very broad and can be awarded when the entitlement to damages may prove difficult. Cortez v.
Purolator Air Filtration Products Co., 23 Cal.4th 163, 177-180 (2000) (restitution under the UCL
can be awarded “even absent individualized proof that the claimant lacked knowledge of the
overcharge when the transaction occurred.”).
94. Thus, restitution would allow recovery even when normal consideration associated
with damages would not. See, e.g., Fladeboe v. Am. Isuzu Motors Inc., 150 Cal. App. 4th 42, 68
(2007) (noting that restitution is available even when damages are unavailable). Furthermore, the
standard and necessary elements for a violation of the UCL “unfair” prong and for quasi-
contract/unjust enrichment are different from the standard that governs a legal claim.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
(On Behalf of the Multi-State Class, California Class, Florida Class, and Washington
Class)
95. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference the preceding allegations as though
set forth fully herein.
96. Plaintiffs’ individual claims are brought under the laws of the state in which they
purchased their Products. See Cal. Commercial Code § 2314; Fla. Stat. §672.314; and RCW
Section 62.A.2-314(2)(f). The claims of absent members of the California Class, Florida Class,
and Washington Class are brought under California, Florida, and Washington law, respectively.
The claims of absent members of the Multi-State Class are brought under the state’s laws in which
they purchased their Product and identified below.
39
a. Alaska Stat. §§ 45.02.314, et seq.;
b. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-2-314, et seq.;
c. Cal. Commercial Code § 2314 et seq8;
d. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 4-2-314, et seq.;
e. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 42a-2-314, et seq.;
f. Del. Code Ann. Tit. 6, §§ 2-314, et seq.;
g. D.C. Code §§ 28:2-314, et seq.;
h. Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 490:2-314, et seq.;
i. Ind. Code §§ 26-1-2-314, et seq.;
j. Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 84-2-314, et seq.;
k. La. Civ. Code Ann. Art. 2520, et seq.;
l. Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 2-314, et seq.;
m. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit. 11, §§ 2-314, et seq.;
n. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 106, §§ 2-314, et seq.;
o. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 440.2314, et seq.;
p. Minn. Stat. §§ 336.2-314, et seq.;
q. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 75-2-314, et seq.;
r. Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 400.2-314, et seq.;
s. Mont. Code Ann. §§ 30-2-314, et seq.;
t. Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 2-314, et seq.;
u. Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 104.2314, et seq.;
v. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 382-A:2-314, et seq.;
8
See also Count II (Song-Beverly Act), infra.
40
w. N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 12A:2-314, et seq.;
x. N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 55-2-314, et seq.
y. N.D. Cent. Code §§ 41-02-31, et seq.;
z. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 1302.27, et seq.;
aa. Okla. Stat. Tit. 12A, §§ 2-314, et seq.;
bb. 13 Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 2314, et seq.;
cc. R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 6A-2-314, et seq.;
dd. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 36-2-314, et seq.;
ee. S.D. Codified Laws §§ 57A-2-314, et seq.;
ff. Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. §§ 2.314, et seq.;
gg. Utah Code Ann. §§ 70A-2-314, et seq.;
hh. Va. Code Ann. §§ 8.2-314, et seq.;
ii. Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 9A, §§ 2-314, et seq.;
jj. W. Va. Code §§ 46-2-314, et seq.; and
kk. Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 34.1-2-314, et seq.
97. Defendant manufactured and distributed Products for sale to Plaintiffs and the Class
members.
98. Defendant impliedly warranted to Plaintiffs and Class members that the Product
was free of defects and was merchantable and fit for its ordinary purpose for which such goods are
used.
99. As alleged herein, Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability
because the Product suffers from a central and material defect in that it is incapable of producing
41
consistently accurate blood pressure readings for all users. The Product is, therefore, defective,
unmerchantable, and unfit for its ordinary, intended purpose.
100. Plaintiffs further allege that the Product is not merchantable because at the time of
sale and all times thereafter:
a. The Product as advertised would not pass without objection in the medical
device trade given the defect;
b. The defect renders the Product unsafe and unfit for its ordinary purpose;
c. The Product were inadequately labeled as consistently accurate, reliable,
and capable of producing blood pressure readings, and the labeling failed to
disclose the Product’ limitations described herein; and
d. The Product does not conform to its labeling, which represents that it is safe
and suitable for its intended use.
101. Due to the defect, Plaintiffs and the Class members cannot operate their Product as
intended, substantially free from defects. The Product does not provide accurate and reliable blood
pressure readings which poses a serious safety risk as users rely on the Product for medical
treatment and management. As a result, Plaintiffs and members of the Class cannot use their
Product for the purposes for which they purchased them.
102. Privity of contract is not required here because Plaintiffs and Class members were
each intended third-party beneficiaries of the Product sold through independent retailers. The
retailers were not intended to be the ultimate consumers of the Product and have no rights under
the implied warranty provided with the Product. Plaintiffs and Class members are intended third-
party beneficiaries of contracts between Defendant and its retailer agents, specifically the intended
beneficiaries of Defendant’s implied warranties.
42
103. Plaintiffs did not receive or otherwise have the opportunity to review, at or before
the time of sale, any purported warranty exclusions and limitations of remedies. Accordingly, any
such exclusions and limitations of remedies are unconscionable and unenforceable. As a direct and
proximate result of the breach of implied warranty of merchantability, Plaintiffs and Class
members have been injured in an amount to be proven at trial.
104. Plaintiffs and the Class members timely provided Defendant notice of the issues
raised in this count and Complaint, and an opportunity to cure, by letter dated September 13, 2023
with a courtesy email copy the following day. No response was given. Alternatively, Plaintiffs
and Class members were excused from providing Defendant with notice and an opportunity to
cure because it would have been futile. As described above, Defendant knew about the defective
and misrepresented nature of the Product for years.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT -
BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY
Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.1 & 1792
(On Behalf of the California Class)
105. Plaintiffs re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding allegations as
though set forth fully herein.
106. For purposes of this count, Plaintiffs refers to the California Plaintiffs Peery and
Schneider. Plaintiffs bring this claim on behalf of themselves and behalf of the California Class
against Defendant.
107. Plaintiffs and the other Class members who purchased the Products in California
are “buyers” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code § 1791(b).
108. The Products are “consumer goods” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code §
1791(a).
43
109. Defendant is a “manufacturer” of the Products within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code
§ 1791(j).
110. Defendant impliedly warranted to Plaintiffs and the other Class Members that the
Products were “merchantable” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.1 & 1792.
111. However, the Products do not have the quality that a reasonable purchaser would
expect.
112. Cal. Civ. Code § 1791.1(a) states: “Implied warranty of merchantability” or
“implied warranty that goods are merchantable” means that the consumer goods meet each of the
following: “(1) pass without objection in the trade under the contract description; (2) are fit for the
ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; … and (4) conform to the promises or
affirmations of fact made on the container or label.”
113. The Products would not pass without objection in the trade because they are
incapable of providing consistently accurate and reliable blood pressure readings, particularly for
users with a larger arm circumference, and none of this information is conspicuously disclosed at
the point of sale.
114. The Products are not fit for the ordinary purpose they are used because of the
inaccurate blood pressure readings and defect as alleged herein.
115. The defect in the Products is latent. Though the Products appear operable when
new, the defect existed at the time of sale and throughout the one year period under the Song-
Beverly Act. Accordingly, any subsequent discovery of the defect by Class members beyond that
time does not bar an implied warranty claim under the Song-Beverly Act.
116. Further, despite due diligence, Plaintiffs and Class Members could not have
discovered the defect before the manifestation of its symptoms in the form wildly inaccurate
44
readings. Those Class members whose claims would have otherwise expired allege that the
discovery rule and doctrine of fraudulent concealment tolls them.
117. Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability by manufacturing and
selling Products containing the defect. The existence of the defect has caused Plaintiff and the
other Class members not to receive the benefit of their bargain and have caused Products to
depreciate in value.
118. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability, Plaintiffs and the other Class members received goods whose defective condition
substantially impairs their value to Plaintiffs and the other Class members. Plaintiffs and the other
Class members have been damaged as a result of the diminished value of the Products.
119. Plaintiffs and the other Class members are entitled to damages and other legal and
equitable relief, including, at their election, the purchase price of their Products or the overpayment
or diminution in value of their Products.
120. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1794, Plaintiffs and the other Class members are
entitled to costs and attorneys’ fees.
COUNT III
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. (“UCL”)
Schneider.
123. The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.”
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.
45
124. Defendant’s acts and omissions as alleged herein constitute business acts and
practices.
125. Unlawful: The acts alleged herein are “unlawful” under the UCL in that they violate
at least the following laws:
a. The Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq.;
b. Implied warranty of merchantability under the Commercial Code and Song-
Beverly Act.
126. Unfair: Defendant’s conduct concerning the labeling, advertising, and sale of the
Products was “unfair” because Defendant’s conduct was immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, or
substantially injurious to consumers and the utility of their conduct, if any, does not outweigh the
gravity of the harm to their victims. Distributing materially unsafe blood pressure monitors
because they cannot generate consistently accurate readings has no public utility at all.
127. Any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition did not outweigh this
injury. Selling products unsafe and unfit for their intended purposes only injures healthy
competition and harms consumers. Defendant also minimizes the scope of the defect despite
knowing the Products are unreasonably dangerous, made repairs and/or replacements during the
warranty period that unbeknownst to consumers did not provide a permanent fix, and knowingly
sold defective products in hopes of forcing consumers to purchase replacement products.
128. Defendant’s conduct concerning the labeling, advertising, and sale of the Products
was and is also unfair because it violates public policy as declared by specific constitutional,
statutory, or regulatory provisions, including but not limited to the applicable sections of the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.
46
129. Fraudulent: A statement or practice is “fraudulent” under the UCL if it is likely to
mislead or deceive the public, applying an objective reasonable consumer test.
130. As set forth herein, Defendant engaged in deceptive acts by knowingly omitting
from Plaintiffs and Class members the Products’ performance limitations, which is a material
safety defect, including the Products’ inability to generate consistently accurate readings, the
reading shown on the Product is not the user’s actual blood pressure but is only accurate within an
undisclosed range, the Products are useless for persons with a larger arm circumference, and the
Products have never been tested for use by pregnant persons. Defendant knew that the Products
were defectively designed, posed an unreasonable safety risk, and unsuitable for their intended
use.
131. Defendant was under a duty to Plaintiffs and the Class members to disclose the
defective nature of the Products because:
a. Defendant was in a superior position to know the true state of facts about
the defect and the Product’s limitations;
b. Plaintiffs and the Class members could not reasonably have been expected
to learn or discover that the Products had a safety defect and were incapable
of generating accurate blood pressure readings for all users before purchase;
c. Defendant knew that Plaintiffs and Class members could not reasonably
have been expected to learn or discover the defect and performance
limitations;
d. Defendant made partial representations regarding conceptually related
attributes and benefits of the Products on advertising/labeling at the point
47
of sale while deceptively omitting the existence of the defect and
performance limitations; and
e. Defendant actively concealed the defect in part because, in response to
consumer complaints within the warranty period regarding the Product’s
inaccurate readings, Defendant refused to repair the Product, told
consumers it was accurate and working as designed, or replaced the
defective Product with the same defective Product to make consumers
believe the Product was always working and the problem lies with the
consumer. Defendant also views and responds to negative reviews about
the Product’s inaccurate readings without publicly acknowledging the
defect or the Product’s limitations, and instead continues to tout the Product
as accurate.
132. Defendant could have and should have prominently disclosed the reliability, safety,
and performance limitations of the Products on the listings on its website, on product packaging,
and to third-party retailers. Had Defendant disclosed the defect in this manner, Plaintiffs and
reasonable consumers would have been aware of it.
133. The facts concealed or not disclosed by Defendant to Plaintiffs and Class members
are material in that a reasonable consumer would have considered them important in deciding
whether to purchase Defendant’s Products or pay a lesser price. Had Plaintiffs and the Class known
about the defective nature of the Products, they would not have purchased them or paid less for
them.
134. Defendant also misrepresented the Products as generating “accurate” blood
pressure readings as described above.
48
135. Defendant profited from selling the falsely, deceptively, and unlawfully advertised
Products to unwary purchasers.
136. Plaintiffs and Class Members will likely continue to be damaged by Defendant’s
deceptive trade practices because Defendant continues disseminating misleading information on
the Products’ packaging and online retail listings. Thus, injunctive relief enjoining Defendant’s
deceptive practices is proper.
137. Defendant’s conduct caused and continues to cause substantial injury to Plaintiff
and the other Class members. Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact as a result of Defendant’s
unlawful conduct.
138. Under Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203, Plaintiff seeks an order requiring that Defendant
correct its misleading labeling and commence a corrective advertising campaign.
139. Plaintiffs and the Class also seek an order for and restitution of all monies from the
sale of the Products, which were unjustly acquired through acts of unlawful competition.
COUNT IV
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA’S CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT
Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq. (“CLRA”)
140. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.
Schneider.
142. The CLRA prohibits deceptive practices concerning the conduct of a business that
provides goods, property, or services primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.
143. Defendant’s omissions were designed to, and did, induce the purchase and use of
the Products for personal, family, or household purposes by Plaintiffs and Class members, and
violated and continue to violate the following sections of the CLRA:
49
a. § 1770(a)(5): representing that goods have characteristics, uses, or benefits
that they do not have;
b. § 1770(a)(7): representing that goods are of a particular standard, quality,
or grade if they are of another;
c. § 1770(a)(9): advertising goods with intent not to sell them as advertised;
and
d. § 1770(a)(16): representing the subject of a transaction has been supplied in
accordance with a previous representation when it has not.
from Plaintiffs and Class members the Products’ performance limitations, which is a material
safety defect, including the Products’ inability to generate consistently accurate readings, the
reading shown on the Product is not the user’s actual blood pressure but is only accurate within an
use.
145. Defendant was under a duty to Plaintiffs and the Class members to disclose the
b. Plaintiffs and the Class members could not reasonably have been expected
50
c. Defendant knew that Plaintiffs and Class members could not reasonably
have been expected to learn or discover the defect and performance
limitations;
d. Defendant made partial representations regarding the attributes and benefits
of the Products on advertising/labeling at the point of sale while deceptively
omitting the existence of the defect and performance limitations; and
as accurate.
147. The facts concealed or not disclosed by Defendant to Plaintiffs and Class members
whether to purchase Defendant’s Products or pay a lesser price. Had Plaintiffs and the Class known
51
them.
150. Plaintiffs and Class Members will likely continue to be damaged by Defendant’s
151. Defendant’s conduct caused and continues to cause substantial injury to Plaintiffs
and the other Class members. Plaintiffs have suffered injury in fact as a result of Defendant’s
unlawful conduct.
152. On September 13, 2023, a CLRA demand letter was sent to Defendant pursuant to
Cal. Civ. Code § 1782. This letter provided notice of Defendant’s violation of the CLRA and
demanded that Defendant correct the unlawful and deceptive practices alleged herein. Defendant
did not offer any remedy to Plaintiffs and each Class member. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek all
monetary relief available under the CLRA.
153. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 1780, Plaintiff also seeks money damages,
injunctive relief, reasonable attorney fees and costs, punitive damages, and any other relief the
Court deems proper.
52
COUNT V
VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE & UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT
Fla. Stat. §§501.201, et seq. (“FDUTPA”)
(On Behalf of the Florida Class)
154. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein.
155. For purposes of this count, Plaintiff refers to the Florida Plaintiff Estrella.
156. Plaintiff and the other Class members are “consumers” under Fla. Stat. §501.203(7)
because they purchased the Products primarily for personal, family, or household use.
157. Defendant was and is engaged in “trade or commerce” under the meaning of Fla.
Stat. §501.203(8).
158. The FDUTPA 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).
159. Defendant’s violations of the FDUTPA occurred repeatedly in their trade or
practice – including the design, manufacture, distribution, marketing, and sale of the Products.
160. Defendant violated the FDUTPA by knowingly and intentionally misrepresenting,
omitting, concealing, and/or failing to disclose material facts regarding the reliability, safety, and
performance of the Products as detailed above.
from Plaintiff and Class members the Products’ performance limitations, which is a material safety
defect, including the Products’ inability to generate consistently accurate readings, the reading
shown on the Product is not the user’s actual blood pressure but is only accurate within an
53
use.
162. Defendant was under a duty to Plaintiff and the Class members to disclose the
b. Plaintiff and the Class members could not reasonably have been expected
c. Defendant knew that Plaintiff and Class members could not reasonably have
been expected to learn or discover the defect and performance limitations;
d. Defendant made partial representations regarding the attributes and benefits
of the Products on advertising/labeling at the point of sale while deceptively
omitting the existence of the defect and performance limitations; and
54
as accurate.
164. The facts concealed or not disclosed by Defendant to Plaintiff and Class members
whether to purchase Defendant’s Products or pay a lesser price. Had Plaintiff and the Class known
them.
166. Defendant’s unfair or deceptive acts or practices, specifically their
misrepresentations, concealments, omissions, and/or suppressions of material facts, were designed
to mislead and had a tendency or capacity to mislead and create a false impression in consumers
that the Products were properly-functioning and reliable.
168. Plaintiff and Class Members will likely continue to be damaged by Defendant’s
55
169. Defendant’s conduct caused and continues to cause substantial injury to Plaintiff
and the other Class members. Plaintiff and the Class have suffered injury in fact as a result of
Defendant’s unlawful conduct.
170. Pursuant to Fla. Stat. §501.211, Plaintiff and the other Class members seek an order
enjoining the above unfair or deceptive acts or practices and awarding actual damages, treble
damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees, and any other just and proper relief available under the
FDUTPA.
COUNT VI
BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY
(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class, California Class, Florida Class, and Washington
Class)
purchased their Products. The claims of absent members of the Nationwide Class, California
Class, Florida Class, and Washington Class are brought under the state’s laws in which they
purchased their Products.
173. In connection with the sale of the Products, Defendant issued an express warranty
in user manuals stating the Products’ “Specifications” for “Accuracy” include “Pressure: +/- 3
mmHg.”
174. Defendant also issued an express warranty on the Amazon.com listing page stating
that the Products would generate “accurate” blood pressure readings.
56
175. Defendant’s affirmation of fact made to Plaintiffs and the Class became a part of
the basis of the bargain between Defendant and Plaintiffs and Class members, thereby creating
warranties that the Products would conform to Defendant’s affirmations of fact.
176. Defendant breached its express warranties because the Products are not in fact
accurate for blood pressure readings, let alone within a margin of +/- 3 mmHg. In truth, the
Products generate blood pressure readings far in excess of that level of accuracy as explained
above. Further, Defendant’s own commissioned study concluded that the Products do not meet
that level of accuracy. That study concluded that the Product was accurate within a range of +/-
3.7 mmHg for diastolic pressure—which is 23.3% greater than the 3 mmHg warranted in the user
manual. And for persons using the standard “wide range” cuff (22–42 cm or 9–17 inches) that
comes with the Product, the Product produced diastolic blood pressure readings that deviated by
an average of 4.30 mmHg from the true level with a standard deviation of 5.8 mmHG.
177. Plaintiffs and the Class members timely provided Defendant notice of the issues
raised in this count and Complaint, and an opportunity to cure, by letter dated September 13, 2023
with a courtesy email copy the following day. No response was given. Alternatively, Plaintiffs
and Class members were excused from providing Defendant with notice and an opportunity to
cure because it would have been futile. As described above, Defendant knew about the defective
and misrepresented nature of the Products for years.
178. Plaintiffs and the Class were injured as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s
breach because they would not have purchased the Products if they had known the true facts, or
would have paid less for the Products, and the Products did not have the quality, effectiveness, or
value as promised.
57
179. As a result, Plaintiffs and the Class have been damaged in the full amount of the
purchase price of the Products, or at minimum a portion of the purchase price of the Products.
COUNT VII
VIOLATION OF THE WASHINGTON UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
RCW Section 19.86.010 et seq.
(On Behalf of the Washington Class)
180. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully
set forth herein.
181. For purposes of this count, Plaintiff refers to the Washington Plaintiff Pond.
182. Defendant’s deceptive conduct alleged herein violated the following provisions of
Washington’s Consumer Protection Act:
a. RCW section 19.86.020, by negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally
misrepresenting, omitting, concealing, and/or failing to disclose material
facts regarding the reliability, safety, and performance of the Products as
detailed above.
from Plaintiff and Class members the Products’ performance limitations, which is a material safety
defect, including the Products’ inability to generate consistently accurate readings, the reading
shown on the Products is not the user’s actual blood pressure but is only accurate within an
use.
58
185. Defendant misrepresented and omitted this material information with the intent to
induce consumers, such as Plaintiff, to purchase the Products.
186. Defendant engaged in deceptive trade practices in the conduct of its trade or
commerce.
187. Defendant’s deceptive trade practices significantly affected the public interest.
188. Plaintiff and the Washington Class were purchasers of Defendant’s goods.
189. Plaintiff and the Washington Class were deceived by Defendant’s deceptive trade
practices and purchased the Products due to Defendant’s deceptive trade practices.
190. Defendant’s deceptive marketing practices implicated the public as consumers
because Defendant directed its misrepresentations at the market generally.
191. Plaintiff and the Washington Class suffered damages and losses as described above
as a result of Defendant’s deceptive trade practices.
192. Plaintiff and the Washington Class seek actual damages, treble damages, attorneys’
fees, costs, and any other just and proper relief available thereunder.
193. Plaintiff and the Washington Class seek injunctive relief and any other just and
proper relief available.
COUNT VIII
Unjust Enrichment
(On Behalf of the Nationwide Class, California Class, and Florida Class)
194. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully
set forth herein.
59
purchased their Products (California and Florida). The claims of absent members of the
Nationwide Class, California Class, and Florida Class are brought under the state’s laws in which
they purchased their Product.
196. Plaintiffs and putative Class members conferred a benefit on Defendant when they
purchased the Products.
197. Defendant knew or should have known that the payments rendered by Plaintiffs
and the Class were given with the expectation that the Products would have the qualities,
characteristics, and suitability for use represented and warranted by Defendant. As such, it would
be inequitable for Defendant to retain the benefit of the payments under these circumstances.
198. By its wrongful acts and omissions described herein, including selling the Products
which contain the safety defect and performance limitations described in detail above and did not
otherwise perform as represented and for the particular purpose for which they were intended,
Defendant was unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs and putative Class members.
199. Plaintiffs’ detriment and Defendant’s enrichment were related to and flowed from
the wrongful conduct challenged in this Complaint.
200. Defendant has profited from its unlawful, unfair, misleading, and deceptive
practices at the expense of Plaintiffs and putative Class members when it would be unjust for
Defendant to be permitted to retain the benefit. It would be inequitable for Defendant to retain the
profits, benefits, and other compensation obtained from its wrongful conduct described herein in
connection with selling the Products.
201. Defendant has been unjustly enriched in retaining the revenues derived from Class
members’ purchases of the Products, which retention of such revenues under these circumstances
60
is unjust and inequitable because Defendant manufactured the defective Products, and Defendant
misrepresented by omission the nature of the Products and knowingly marketed and promoted
dangerous and defective Products, which caused injuries to Plaintiff and the Class because they
would not have purchased the Products based on the exact representations if the true facts
concerning the Products had been known.
202. Plaintiffs and putative Class members are entitled to recover from Defendant all
amounts wrongfully collected and improperly retained by Defendant.
203. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct and unjust
enrichment, Plaintiffs and putative Class members are entitled to restitution of, disgorgement of,
and/or imposition of a constructive trust upon all profits, benefits, and other compensation obtained
by Defendant for their inequitable and unlawful conduct.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
members of the Class, pray for relief and judgment, including entry of an order:
A. Declaring that this action is properly maintained as a class action, certifying the proposed
Class(es), appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representative, and appointing Plaintiffs’
counsel as Class Counsel;
B. Directing that Defendant bear the costs of any notice sent to the Class(es);
C. Declaring that Defendant must disgorge, for the benefit of the Class(es), all or part of the
ill-gotten profits they received from the sale of the Products or order Defendant to make
full restitution to Plaintiffs and the members of the Class(es).
D. Awarding money damages;
E. Awarding restitution and other appropriate equitable relief;
61
F. Granting an injunction against Defendant to enjoin it from conducting its business
through the unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent acts or practices set forth herein;
G. Granting an Order requiring Defendant to fully and adequately disclose the safety risks
and performance limitations associated with the Products to anyone who may still be at
risk of buying and using the Products;
H. Ordering a jury trial and damages according to proof;
I. Awarding attorneys’ fees and litigation costs to Plaintiffs and members of the Class(es);
J. Awarding prejudgment interest, and punitive damages as permitted by law; and
K. Ordering such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all claims in this Complaint so triable.
Dated: October 25, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gary M. Klinger

Gary M. Klinger (IL Bar No. 6303726)
Alexander E. Wolf (N.D. Ill. General Bar)
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, Illinois 60606
866.252.0878
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class
62
DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER E. WOLF
I, Alexander E. Wolf, declare as follows:
1. I am an attorney with the firm of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman
PLLC, counsel of record for Plaintiffs in the instant action, and an individual over eighteen years
of age. I make this declaration as required by California Civil Code § 1780(d).
2. The Complaint in this action is filed in a proper place for the trial of this action
because a substantial portion of the events alleged in the Complaint occurred in this district.
Defendant Omron Healthcare, Inc. has a substantial presence in Illinois, and conduct relating to
this action, including directing and managing the distribution, sale, marketing, and design of the
Product, took place in this county and district. As such, it is my understanding that Defendant does
business in this county and district.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Dated: October 25, 2023
__________________________________
Alexander E. Wolf
63

Omron Lawsuit Oct 23

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Omron Lawsuit Oct 23

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Omron Lawsuit Oct 23

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 1:23-cv-15302 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/25/23 Page 1 of 63 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

JEANETTE ESTRELLA, HAROLD PEERY,

OMRON HEALTHCARE, INC.,

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

“Products”) for personal use and not for resale.

2. The Product is marketed by Defendant as an in-home medical device capable of

similarly inaccurate and inconsistent readings.

accuracy varies widely. Beyond that, Defendant commissioned a study by Northwestern

before bringing it to market.

4. Defendant’s misleading representations and omissions about the Product concern

6. As a result of Defendant’s misconduct and omissions, Plaintiffs and putative Class

members have suffered injury in fact.

attaining needed relief for those affected.

domiciled in and a resident of Hollywood, Florida.

in and a resident of Cloverdale, California.

domiciled in and a resident of Montara, California.

in and a resident of Sequim, Washington.

12. Defendant Omron Healthcare, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and headquartered in

consumers nationwide across the United States.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

does business throughout this District.

IV. COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

practice. Blood pressure is measured in a clinical setting using a sphygmomanometer.

home blood pressure monitors are becoming increasingly popular.

measurement values can result in “over diagnoses or underdiagnoses as well as overtreatment or

130 mmHg, or a diastolic blood pressure greater than 80 mmHg.3

pressure medication, seeking unnecessary treatment, or forgoing necessary treatment.4

B. The Product and Defendant’s Marketing of the Product

Amazon” and sold only on Amazon.com.5

Product as having the following functions and attributes7:

a. “Accurate. Reliable. Easy to use.”

measurements are out of normal range in the morning, when there is a

higher risk for heart attack or stroke.”

as determined through an independent review process.”

selling manufacturer of home blood pressure monitors for over 40 years.”

C. Purchasers are Misled about the Product

features, and benefits.

pressure readings, let alone consistently for all users.

mmHg.” However, based on Defendant’s representations, a reasonable purchaser of the Product

produces correct results every time it is properly used.

inaccurate” by +/- 10 to 12 mmHg.

30. Over 100 other user reviews—including reviews authored by physicians—are in

office for a direct, side-by-side, comparison.

a. A review published “4 years ago” stated: “I have taken the device to

compare it with two different medical checked devices as advised by my

points higher than the healthcare center approved devices. I have

reading against the healthcare provider’s reading.

b. Additional reviews of the Product on Defendant’s website are shown below.

by at least 10mmHg, as shown above. Importantly, according Defendant’s commissioned

deviation of 5.8 mmHg) from the true level.

“accurate” for users generally.

independent review and acceptance of documentation submitted by the manufacturer.” By touting

obligated to disclose the Product’s inherent limitations.

D. Defendant Knew About the Product’s Defect and Limitations

offer ORM consulting services for businesses.

above would be particularly attention-grabbing for Defendant’s management because extreme

company website and third-party retailer websites.

41. Additionally, Defendant is experienced in designing and manufacturing medical

to advertise the Product as “Accurate. Reliable. Easy to Use.”