25.  On April 12, 2018, Defendant, using an automated text-messaging platform, caused a  text message to be transmitted to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in 0087 (“0087 Number”).  An accurate copy of the text message is included below:   26.  Defendant’s text message constitutes telemarketing/advertising because it promotes  Defendant’s business, goods, services and CoolSculpting® procedure.   27.  The text messages originated from telephone number 800-234-3325, a number which  is owned and operated by Defendant.   29.  Long codes work as follows: Private companies known as SMS gateway providers  have contractual arrangements with mobile carriers to transmit two-way SMS traffic. These SMS  gateway providers send and receive SMS traffic to and from the mobile phone networks' SMS  centers, which are responsible for relaying those messages to the intended mobile phone. This  allows for the transmission of a large number of SMS messages to and from a long code.   30.  Plaintiff received the subject text messages within this judicial district and, therefore,  Defendant’s violation of the TCPA occurred within this district.  Upon information and belief,  Defendant caused other text messages to be sent to individuals residing within this judicial district.     31.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with her express written consent to  be contacted by text messages using an ATDS.     32.  Plaintiff is the subscriber and user of the 0087 Number.    33.  The generic nature of Defendant’s text messages establishes that Defendant utilized an  ATDS to transmit the messages.     34.  Specifically, upon information and belief, Defendant utilized a combination of hardware  and software systems to send the text messages at issue in this case.  The systems utilized by Defendant  have the current capacity or present ability to generate or store random or sequential numbers or to dial  sequentially or randomly at the time the call is made, and to dial such numbers, en masse, in an  automated fashion without human intervention.   36.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of  herself and all others similarly situated.   37.  Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the below defined Class:  All persons within the United States who, within the four  years prior to the filing of this Complaint, were sent a text  message, from Defendant or anyone on Defendant’s  behalf, to said person’s cellular telephone number,  advertising Defendant’s goods or services, without the  recipients’ prior express written consent.     38.  Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. Plaintiff does not  know the number of members in the Class, but believes the Class members number in the several  thousands, if not more.  42.  The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If Plaintiff’s  claim that Defendant routinely transmits text messages to telephone numbers assigned to cellular  telephone services is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of  being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.  47.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-46 above, as if fully set forth  herein.    48.  It is a violation of the TCPA to make “any call (other than a call made for  emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any  automatic telephone dialing system … to any telephone number assigned to a … cellular telephone  service ….” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).    50.  Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant – used equipment having the  capacity to store telephone numbers using a random or sequential generator, and/or to dial such  numbers without human intervention to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cellular  telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class defined below.    51.  These calls were made without regard to whether Defendant had first obtained  express permission from the called party to make such calls. In fact, Defendant did not have prior  express consent to call the cell phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class  when its calls were made.    52.  Defendant has, therefore, violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using an  automatic telephone dialing system to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cell phones of  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class without their prior express consent.    PROPOSED CLASS   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  