In a class action brought under New York General Business Law 349, this decision affirms most of a judgment for the plaintiff class. Even though the defendant had industry-paid studies showing that its product did, as the label said, reduce joint pain for those suffering osteoarthritis by keeping the cartilage “lubricated and flexible,” plaintiff’s independently funded studies showed that defendant’s Joint Juice had no such effect, thus creating a question of fact that the jury resolved against defendant. A supplier is not immunized from liability under GBL 349 simply because it has some support for its claims. Plaintiff adequately proved injury by showing she wouldn’t have bought Joint Juice if truthfully advertised. To prevail on the claim, plaintiff did not need to prove that individual class members relied on the misrepresentation in buying Joint Juice. Plaintiff only needed to show what a reasonable consumer would do. Although New York law isn’t clear on the question, the decision holds that the court properly awarded the $550 statutory penalty (which it later reduced to $50) on each purchase of Joint Juice, not on a per customer basis.