OPINION & ORDER Plaintiff Karen Zuchowski brings this consumer class action against Defendant SFC Global Supply Chain Inc (“SFC”). Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. BACKGROUND The following facts are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint and are presumed true. Defendant SFC is a Minnesota corporation that manufactures “Red Baron” brand pizzas, including the Brick Oven Cheese Trio Pizza, Classic Crust Four Cheese Pizza, and Thin & Crispy Five Cheese Pizza. Compl. 30, ECF No. 1. These three pizzas have labels that represent that the pizzas contain “PRESERVATIVE FREE CRUST” and “NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS.” Id. The Complaint defines “chemical preservative” as “any chemical that when added to food tends to prevent or retard deterioration, but does not include common salt, sugars, vinegars, [or] spices[.]” Id. 33 (quoting 21 C.F.R. §101.22(a)(5)). The Complaint defines “artificial flavor” as “any substance, the function of which is to impart flavor, which is not derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or similar plant material.” Id. 34 (quoting 21 C.F.R. §101.22(a)(1)). Plaintiff is a resident of New York and a consumer of the Red Baron pizzas. She alleges that she relied on Defendant’s “PRESERVATIVE FREE CRUST” and “NO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORS” labeling when purchasing the pizzas on several occasions, most recently in September 2020 in the Bronx, New York. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misrepresented their products because the pizzas actually contain preservatives and artificial flavoring as they contain modified food starch, hydrolyzed soy, corn protein, sodium stearoyl lactylate, enzymes, and mono — and diglycerides, all of which are chemical food additives. Plaintiff alleges that she would have bought pizzas less expensive than Defendant’s products if she had known that Defendant’s pizzas did not actually contain preservative free crust and no artificial flavors. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff initiated this action on December 3, 2020, bringing her claims individually and on behalf of those similarly situated from the following classes of consumers who purchased the relevant products in the relevant time period: a national class, a consumer fraud multi-state class, and a New York sub-class. Plaintiff alleges the following claims against Defendant: violation of state consumer fraud acts, violation of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law (“GBL”), common law fraud, breach of express warranties, breach of implied warranties, and unjust enrichment. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(2). Defendant argues that (1) Plaintiff failed to state a claim for her New York Business Law §§349 & 350 claim, breach of express warranty claim, and common law fraud claim;1 (2) Plaintiff failed to provide Defendant with timely notice of the common law fraud claim; (3) Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim is duplicative; (4) the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the non-resident multistate class members and SFC; (5) and Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue injunctive and declarative relief. The Court considers the motion fully submitted. STANDARD OF LAW To survive a 12(b)(6) motion, a claim must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim has facial plausibility “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. The plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to show “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. The complaint must provide factual allegations sufficient “to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Port Dock & iStone Corp. v. Oldcastle Northeast, Inc., 507 F.3d 117, 121 (2d Cir. 2007). To decide the motion, the Court “may consider the facts as asserted within the four corners of the complaint together with the documents attached to the complaint as exhibits, and any documents incorporated in the complaint by reference.” Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57, 64 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). DISCUSSION Plaintiff brings suit under Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law. GBL §349 prohibits “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service” and GBL §350 prohibits “[f]alse advertising in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce. GBL §349-50. To assert a claim under Sections 349 and 350, “a plaintiff must allege that a defendant has engaged in (1) consumer-oriented conduct that is (2) materially misleading and that (3) plaintiff suffered injury as a result of the allegedly deceptive act or practice.” Nick’s Garage, Inc. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 875 F.3d 107, 124 (2d Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “The standard for recovery under General Business Law §350, while specific to false advertising, is otherwise identical to section 349, and therefore the Court will merge its analysis of the two claims.” Cosgrove v. Oregon Chai, Inc., 520 F. Supp. 3d 562, 575 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Though the issue of whether a reasonable consumer was misled by a business act or practice is normally a question of fact, “[i]t is well settled that a court may determine as a matter of law that an allegedly deceptive [act or practice] would not have misled a reasonable consumer.” Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 739, 741 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). I. No Artificial Flavors Plaintiff alleges that modified food starch and hydrolyzed soy and corn protein, “which are commercially manufactured and highly processed, and which contain monosodium glutamate (or “MSG”) as a byproduct of the protein processing,” are artificial flavors. Compl.
