1 NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP

A Professional Corporation
2 Scott J. Ferrell, Bar No. 202091
David W. Reid, Bar No. 267382
3 610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
4 Tel: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
5
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Class
6

7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
10

11 JASON JONES, individually, and on behalf of all Case No.

others similarly situated;
12
Plaintiffs, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
13
vs.
14 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DM CONTACT MANAGEMENT LTD. dba
15 LEADING EDGE MARKETING INC.; H&L
WORLDWIDE, INC.; SHOPWARS.COM;
16 LEADING EDGE HERBALS; EXECUTIVE
IMAGINE INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
17 AMAZON.COM; and DOES 1-20, Inclusive,

18 Defendants.
19
20

21 I. INTRODUCTION
22 1. VigRX and VigRXPlus (“VigRX”) are purported “male enhancement” products which
23 are, in reality, absolutely worthless. A marketing scheme executed by Defendants defrauds consumers
24 by making outrageous and false claims that VigRX causes permanent penis enlargement. In reality,
25 VigRX has no such effects.
26 2. Defendants’ marketing scheme involves numerous websites that direct unwitting
27 consumers to www.vigrxplus.com in order to purchase their worthless product. The false claims that
28 characterize this website include the assertions that VigRX is a:
NEWPORT TRIAL
GROUP

-1-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
 1 Clinically Proven and Doctor Approved Formula to give you…
2 ! Bigger, harder, longer lasting erections
3 ! Increased sexual stamina and sex drive
4 ! More powerful, intense orgasms
5 ! No more premature ejaculation
6 In reality, VigRX has no penis enlarging effects. VigRX does not produce bigger, harder, longer

7 lasting erections, nor does VigRX increase sexual stamina and sex drive. Worse yet, promoted by
8 outrageously false advertising, the Defendants have intentionally targeted senior citizens, knowing that

9 they are the consumers most likely to suffer from the type of erectile dysfunction that Defendant

10 guarantees VigRX will alleviate. Defendants profit greatly from their consumer deception as it

11 charges unwary consumers upwards of $70 per box for a completely worthless product.

12 3. Accordingly, Jason Jones (“Plaintiff”) brings this lawsuit, primarily to enjoin the

13 ongoing fraud, and secondarily to recover the money taken by this nefarious practice.

14

15 II. THE PARTIES

16 A. Plaintiff.
17 4. JASON JONES (“Plaintiff”) is a resident of California who purchased VigRX Plus in

18 early 2010.
19 B. Defendants.
20 5. DM CONTACT MANAGEMENT LTD dba LEADING EDGE MARKETING INC.
21 (“Defendant”) is the manufacturer of VigRX Plus, and is a corporation organized and existing under
22 the laws of Canada with its principal place of business in Victoria, British Columbia. DM Contact

23 does business in California and in nearly every state; it moved its purported corporate headquarters to

24 Canada in a misguided effort to make it “judgment proof” in the United States.

25 6. H&L WORLDWIDE, INC. (“Defendant”) is a distributor of and advertises VigRX

26 Plus, and is a business entity organized pursuant to the laws of California that does business in

27 California.
28
NEWPORT TRIAL
GROUP

-2-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
 1 7. SHOPWARS.COM (“Defendant”) is a distributor of and advertises VigRX Plus, and is

2 a business entity organized pursuant to the laws of Missouri that does business in California.
3 8. LEADING EDGE HERBALS (“Defendant”) is a distributor of and advertises VigRX

4 Plus, and is a business entity organized pursuant to the laws of Tennessee that does business in

5 California.

6 9. EXECUTIVE IMAGE INTERNATIONAL, INC. (“Defendant”) is a distributor of and

7 advertises VigRX Plus, and is a business entity organized pursuant to the laws of Missouri that does
8 business in California.

9 10. AMAZON.COM (“Defendant”) is a distributor of and advertises VigRX Plus, and is a

10 business entity organized pursuant to the laws of Washington that does business in California.

11 C. Doe Defendants.
12 11. Plaintiffs do not know the true names or capacities of the persons or entities sued herein

13 as DOES 1 to 20, and therefore sue such defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed

14 and believe and thereon allege that each of the DOE defendants is in some manner legally responsible

15 for the damages suffered by Plaintiffs and the members of the class as alleged herein. Plaintiffs will

16 amend this Complaint to set forth the true names and capacities of these defendants when they have

17 been ascertained, along with appropriate charging allegations, as may be necessary.

18 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

19 12. This Court has jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted herein pursuant to the
20 California Constitution.
21 13. Venue is proper in this Court because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to
22 this Complaint took place in this County, and because Defendants have received substantial

23 compensation from sales in this County. Specifically, each Defendant knowingly engages in activities

24 directed at consumers in this County, and each Defendant obtains substantial benefits from the

25 Defendants’ common scheme perpetrated in this County. Plaintiffs have filed concurrently herewith

26 the declaration of venue required by Civil Code Section 1780(d).

27

28
NEWPORT TRIAL
GROUP

-3-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
 1 14. Defendants and other out-of-state participants can be brought before this Court pursuant

2 to California’s “long-arm” jurisdictional statute. Although it is expected that one or more defendants
3 will object to jurisdiction, those objections will prove frivolous.

4
IV. FACTS
5

6 15. Plaintiff purchased VigRX Plus (“VigRX”) in 2010 because he hoped to obtain

7 “[b]igger, harder, long lasting erections” as well as “[i]ncreased sexual stamina and sex drive” as
8 guaranteed in advertising for VigRX. Prior to purchasing VigRX, he read, reviewed, relied upon, and

9 believed the false claims made on the product packaging and the VigRX website, www.vigrxplus.com.

10 The product packaging is depicted as follows:

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18
19 16. Defendants boast that VigRX is a “Clinically Proven and Doctor Approved Formula”

20 that will provide “Bigger, harder, longer lasting erections” (emphasis original). Defendants guarantee

21 that VigRX will produce “Increased sexual stamina and sex drive” that will result in “More powerful,

22 intense orgasms” (emphasis original). Defendants further assert that VigRX eliminates any risk of

23 “premature ejaculation” and is comparable to prescription medicine in the treatment of erectile

24 dysfunction. A single month’s supply of VigRX retails for $76.99. (See Defendant’s internet

25 advertising at http://www.vigrxplus.com, an accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.)

26 17. Defendants induce unwitting consumers into believing that they will “enhance [their]

27 penis—risk free” and that the results will “be fully guaranteed.” Furthermore, they falsely state that

28
NEWPORT TRIAL
GROUP

-4-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
 1 VigRX is clinically proven to be the “most effective male enhancement formula available that can

2 successfully improve erection quality.” Additionally, they falsely claim:

3 ! Overall Improvement in Sexual Health
4 ! Increased Erection Size in Both Width & Length
5 ! Strengthening & Toning Effect on the Sexual Glands
6 ! Increase in Blood Circulation to the Genitals (VigRX Plus Contains Peripheral Penis
7 Tissue Vasodilators)
8 ! Support of the Healthly Production of Sex Hormones
9 ! Treatment of Stressor & Anxiety (adaptogens) with Restorative Nutrients for the Nervous
10 System
11 ! Increased Stamina & Sex Drive Through Increased Cardiovascular Power & Improved
12 Circulation
13 (See Exhibit 1.) Moreover, Defendants market VigRX as a “permanent long term solution” that uses

14 “clinically proven,” all natural ingredients “without unpleasant side effects.” (See Exhibit 1. See also,

15 Defendants’ internet advertising at http://www.vigrxplus.com/community.html#back, an accurate copy

16 of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.). Each of the defendants participated in and/or profited from

17 making or promulgating these false claims.

18 18. The preceding claims are false. Indeed, Defendants have no competent and reliable
19 evidence to substantiate claims that VigRX produces results comparable to prescription medicine in
20 the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Additionally, Defendants cannot substantiate claims that VigRX
21 “increases the size and width” of a penis. Furthermore, Defendants are fully aware that VigRX is not a
22 cure for premature ejaculation and that VigRX is not “clinically proven” to produce results as

23 advertised. Instead, Defendants make these false advertising claims in an effort to lure unwary

24 consumers into paying an inflated price for a worthless product.

25 19. Moreover, VigRX is not a “permanent long term solution” for sexual dysfunction. In its

26 marketing, Defendants claim that VigRX’s results are permanent, while the same marketing

27 contradicts its claims by pressuring consumers into believing that they will only experience the

28 promised results with extended and continuous use. On websites, Defendants state
NEWPORT TRIAL
GROUP

-5-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
 1 How Fast Will I See Results?
2 Most men see results very quickly but our medical board of advisors suggests you order as
3 many months of VigRX Plus as you can. Simply put, the longer you take it, the better the
4 results! (emphasis added).

5 (See http://www.vigrxplus.com/order.html, an accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.)

6 20. The VigRX website and packaging creates a misleading overall impression of the

7 product. Defendant’s website prominently places “before” and “after” pictures depicting radically
8 altered penis length and width.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18 http://www.vigrxplus.com/testimonials.html#back
19 These photographs are misleading and deceptive. The “before” and “after” photos mislead the
20 consumer into trusting that VigRX will produce similar results in scope of relief and time elapsed
21 when, in fact, VigRX fails to increase the size and length of the penis as guaranteed. As such,
22 Defendant’s website is facially violative of the F.T.C. Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements

23 and Testimonials in Advertising (“FTC Guides”). The FTC Guides specifically mandate clear

24 disclosure of actual results that most consumers can reasonably expect to achieve. Defendant does not

25 comply with the FTC Guides because its website fails to adequately disclose that the “before” and

26 “after” pictures are not typical. (See the FTC Guides at

27 http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/10/endortest.shtm, an accurate copy of which is attached hereto as

28 Exhibit 4.)
NEWPORT TRIAL
GROUP

-6-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
 1 21. Every year, millions of senior citizens seek remedies for erectile dysfunction. Knowing

2 that males of advanced age suffer from erectile dysfunction, Defendants target senior citizens by
3 making false and misleading claims about producing “bigger, harder, longer lasting erections.” With

4 claims of providing the “Stamina and sex drive of a healthy teenager!” as well as an “increase in

5 sexual and intercourse satisfaction,” Defendants specifically targets senior citizen by guaranteeing

6 dramatic results “without aggressive prescriptions or invasive surgery” when, in fact, VigRX fails to

7 produce such results. Defendants have no competent and reliable evidence to substantiate these
8 claims. (See Exhibit 1.)

9 22. Plaintiff used VigRX as directed but did not obtain the results promised. In reality,

10 VigRX did not (1) increase penis size and width during erection; (2) increase erection duration; (3)

11 increase orgasm intensity; (4) cure premature ejaculation; (5) improve sexual performance; (6)

12 increase blood circulation to the genitals; (7) support the production of sex hormones; (8) treat stress

13 and anxiety; (9) increase sex drive; (10) increase cardiovascular health; and (11) was not comparable

14 to prescription medicine in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. VigRX was worthless to him. As

15 such, Plaintiff—like every other class member—has suffered significant injury by purchasing and

16 using VigRX when it was of no value.

17 23. Defendants sells VigRX for upwards of $70 per package based on the preceding false

18 advertising claims. As a result, Defendants have wrongfully taken millions of dollars from California
19 consumers.
20 V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
21 24. Plaintiffs bring this class action for damages and other monetary relief on behalf of the
22 following class:

23 All persons located within California who purchased the VigRX product

24 for personal use at any time during the four years preceding the filing of

25 this Complaint (the “Class”).

26 25. Excluded from the Class are governmental entities, Defendants, any entity in which

27 defendants have a controlling interest, and Defendants’ officers, directors, affiliates, legal

28 representatives, employees, co-conspirators, successors, subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from
NEWPORT TRIAL
GROUP

-7-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
 1 the Class is any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of their

2 immediate families and judicial staff.

3 26. NUMEROSITY: The proposed Class is so numerous that individual joinder of all its

4 members is impracticable. Due to the nature of the trade and commerce involved, however, Plaintiffs

5 believe that the total number of Class members is at least in the tens of thousands and members of the

6 Class as numerous and geographically dispersed across California. While the exact number and

7 identities of the Class members are unknown at this time, such information can be ascertained through
8 appropriate investigation and discovery.

9 27. COMMONALITY: There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of

10 law and fact involved affecting the class and these common questions predominate over any questions

11 that may affect individual Class members. Common questions of fact and law include, but are not

12 limited to, the following:

13 a. Are Defendants’ efficacy claims about VigRX false?

14 b. Are Defendants’ efficacy claims about VigRX misleading?

15 c. Do Defendants have adequate substantiation to support the VigRX efficacy

16 claims?

17 d. When and to what extent did Defendants know that the VigRX efficacy claims

18 were false or misleading?

19 28. TYPICALITY: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class.
20 Plaintiff and all members of the Class have been similarly affected by Defendants’ common course of
21 conduct since they all purchased VigRX for personal use after Defendants made the efficacy claims.
22 29. ADEQUACY: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of

23 the Class. Plaintiff has no interests adverse to that of the class. Plaintiff has retained counsel with

24 substantial experience in handling complex class action litigation. Plaintiff and his counsel are

25 committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the Class. Plaintiff has retained an

26 attorney that is widely recognized as one of the most successful and effective class action litigators in

27 California, who frequently lectures at approved MCLE seminars regarding class action strategy, and

28 whose trial victories have been publicized on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and nearly every major
NEWPORT TRIAL
GROUP

-8-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
 1 California newspaper. Plaintiff’s counsel has also been certified as lead class counsel in similar class

2 actions.
3 30. SUPERIORITY: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and

4 efficient adjudication of the present controversy. Individual joinder of all members of the class is

5 impracticable. Even if individual class members had the resources to pursue individual litigation, it

6 would be unduly burdensome to the courts in which the individual litigation would proceed.

7 Individual litigation magnifies the delay and expense to all parties in the court system of resolving the
8 controversies engendered by Defendants’ common course of conduct. The class action device allows

9 a single court to provide the benefits of unitary adjudication, judicial economy, and the fair and

10 efficient handling of all class members’ claims in a single forum. The conduct of this action as a class

11 action conserves the resources of the parties and of the judicial system and protects the rights of the

12 class members. Furthermore, for many, if not most, a class action is the only feasible mechanism that

13 allows an opportunity for legal redress and justice. Adjudication of individual class members’ claims

14 with respect to the Defendants would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other

15 members not parties to the adjudication, and could substantially impair or impede the ability of other

16 class members to protect their interests.

17 VI. CAUSES OF ACTION

18 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
19 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT
20 (On Behalf of Plaintiff and Class against Defendants)
21 31. Plaintiff has standing to pursue this claim as Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact and has
22 lost money as a result of Defendants’ actions as set forth herein. Specifically, prior to the filing of this

23 action, Plaintiff purchased VigRX for his own personal use. In so doing, he reviewed, believed, and

24 relied upon each of the preceding marketing claims.

25 32. Plaintiff used VigRX as directed, but it did not work as advertised, nor did plaintiff

26 experience any of the promised benefits. VigRX was worthless to Plaintiff and the advertising claims

27 and quality guarantees were false and misleading.

28
NEWPORT TRIAL
GROUP

-9-
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
 1 33. Prior to filing this action, Plaintiff’s counsel mailed to Defendants, by certified mail,

2 return receipt requested, the written notice required by Civil Code Section 1782(a). (See attached
3 Exhibit 5.)

4 34. Plaintiff has filed concurrently herewith the declaration of venue required by Civil

5 Code Section 1780(d).

6 35. Defendants’ wrongful business practices constituted, and constitute, a continuing

7 course of conduct in violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act since Defendants
8 continuously and falsely represented VigRX as having characteristics and benefits that it does not. As

9 such, VigRX has injured Plaintiffs and the Class. Plaintiff seeks all remedies available under the

10 Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and will shortly file a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to
11 prevent Defendants’ ongoing deception.
12

13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

14 VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS
15 CODE SECTIONS 17200, 17500, ET SEQ.
16 (By Plaintiff and Class Against Defendants)
17 36. Plaintiff has standing to pursue this claim as Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact and

18 have lost money as a result of Defendants’ false advertising and unfair business practices.
19 Specifically, prior to the filing of this action, Plaintiff purchased VigRX for his own personal use. In
20 so doing, he relied upon the false representations referenced above. He used VigRX as directed but it
21 has not worked as advertised and was worthless.
22 37. Defendants’ actions as alleged in this Complaint constitute an unfair or deceptive

23 business practice within the meaning of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 in

24 that Defendants’ actions are unfair, unlawful, and misleading, and because the advertising statements

25 are false and misleading within the meaning of California Business and Professions Code sections

26 17500, et seq.

27

28
NEWPORT TRIAL
GROUP

- 10 -
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT