MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Jason Scholder commenced this putative class action against defendant Sioux Honey Association Cooperative alleging claims under New York State’s consumer protection statutes prohibiting deceptive business practices and false advertising, as well as common law claims for breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment based on alleged misrepresentations in the company’s labeling of its honey products marketed under the SueBee brand. The gravamen of Sioux Honey’s alleged misrepresentations and omissions is that the words “Pure” or “100 percent Pure” on the SueBee product labels are deceptive because the honey contains glyphosate, a synthetic chemical and herbicide. Presently before the Court is defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended class action complaint (hereinafter the “complaint”) pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons that follow, defendant’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. BACKGROUND 1. Factual Background The following facts, drawn from the complaint, are assumed to be true for purposes of the pending motion to dismiss and are viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the nonmoving party: Sioux Honey, a cooperative in Sioux City, Iowa, manufactures, markets, sells and distributes SueBee honey in retail stores in New York and throughout the United States. Docket Entry (“DE”) 41
23-24. Scholder, a citizen of New York, purchased SueBee honey on multiple occasions at a Stop and Shop supermarket located in Port Washington, New York. Id. 25. Scholder made these purchases after seeing and relying upon the product label representing the SueBee honey to be “Pure” or “100 percent Pure” and was willing to pay more for the honey because of the representation. Id.