Defendant had a duty to disclose this information to Plaintiffs and the members of the Class for several reasons. First, Defendant repeatedly made the representation that its products are free of DA and AP and that even if they do, they do contain those ingredients, they do not pose a health risk, or closely analogous representations, as detailed above. Disclosure of the omitted information, including information in the studies referred to supra in Section II, was necessary to avoid the false impression of safety provided by that tagline. Second, Defendant was in a position to know of the omitted information, both from its own product knowledge and creation decisions and the studies of the presence of DA and AP in its e-liquids, especially as described in the studies and test results, including Defendant’s own test results referenced supra in Section II, while consumers were not reasonably in a position to be aware of Defendant’s internal product information or such studies. Third, Defendant actively failed to disclose these material facts to, or actively concealed these material facts from, Plaintiffs and the Class. Finally, while Defendant made representations about the risks associated with its e-liquids, stating that its products contain nicotine and that consumers bear risks related thereto, those representations were misleading half- truths because they implied that those are all of the risks relating to the product, when, in fact, they are not.
really?
