(Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227: On behalf of the Class)   1. An order certifying the Class as defined above;   10.  In recent years, marketers who have often felt stymied by federal laws  limiting solicitation by telephone, facsimile machine, and e-mail have increasingly looked  to alternative technologies through which to send bulk solicitations cheaply.   12.  An “ SMS message”  is a text message call directed to a wireless device  through the use of the telephone number assigned to the device. When an SMS message  call is successfully made, the recipient’s cell phone rings, alerting him or her that a call is  being received. As cellular telephones are inherently mobile and are frequently carried on  their owner’s person, calls to cellular telephones, including SMS messages, may be  received by the called party virtually anywhere worldwide.   13.  Unlike more conventional advertisements, wireless spam actually costs its  recipients money, because cell phone users must frequently pay their wireless service  providers either for each text message call they receive, or incur a usage allocation  deduction to their text plan, regardless of whether or not the message is authorized.   14.  Over the course of an extended period prior to the commencement of this  action, Defendant and its agents directed the mass transmission of wireless spam to the  cell phones nationwide of what they hoped were potential customers of Defendant.   15.  For instance, within the period of limitations applicable to this action but on  dates currently unknown to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s cell phone indicated that a text call was  received.   17.  Upon information and belief, Defendant sent similar transmissions of  wireless spam to a list of cellular telephone numbers on a mass basis.   18.  At no time did Plaintiff consent to the receipt of the above-referenced  message or any other such wireless spam text messages from Defendant.   19.  Plaintiff was not in an “ established business relationship”  with Defendant.   Plaintiff had not done business with Defendant in the last eighteen months, nor had he  made an inquiry regarding Defendant’s services or products in the three months prior to  receipt of the text call.  2. An award statutory damages;   20.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure  23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of himself and a class (the “ Class” ) defined as  follows:  Persons who received one or more text  message advertisements sent on behalf of  Defendant   21.  Defendant and its employees are excluded from the Class.   22.  Also excluded from the Class are those persons who  a. Consented to receive texts from Defendant, or  b. Had an established business relationship with Defendant   24.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  other members of the Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience in  prosecuting complex litigation and class actions. Plaintiff and his counsel are committed  to prosecuting this action vigorously on behalf of the members of the Class and have the  financial resources to do so. Neither Plaintiff, nor his counsel, has any interest adverse to  those of the other members of the Class.   25.  Absent a class action, most members of the Class would find the cost of  litigating their claims to be prohibitive and will have no effective remedy. The class  treatment of common questions of law and fact is also superior to multiple individual  actions or piecemeal litigation in that it conserves the resources of the courts and the  litigants and promotes consistency and efficiency of adjudication.   26.  Defendant has acted and failed to act on grounds generally applicable to the  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in transmitting the wireless spam at issue,  requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of  conduct toward the members of the Class.   28.  There are many questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiff  and the other members of the Class, and those questions predominate over any questions  that may affect individual members of the Class. Common questions for the Class include  but are not limited to the following:  (a) Does the wireless spam Defendant distributed violate 47 U.S.C. § 227?  (b) Are the Class members entitled to treble damages based on the willfulness or  knowing conduct of Defendant?   (c) Did the conduct described above violate the Class’s right to privacy?  29.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set  forth herein.   3. An injunction requiring Defendants to cease all wireless spam activities;   31.  These text calls were made en masse through the use of a short code and  without the prior express consent of the Plaintiff and the other members of the Class to  receive such wireless spam.   32.   Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). As a result  of Defendant’ s conduct, the members of the Class suffered actual damages by having to  pay their respective wireless carriers for the text messages and, under section  227(b)(3)(B), are each entitled to, inter alia, a minimum of $500.00 in damages for each  violation of such act.  Plaintiff is also entitled to an injunction prohibiting wireless spam  pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A).   33.  Because Defendant had knowledge that Plaintiff and the Class did not  consent to the receipt of the aforementioned wireless spam, because Defendant’ s conduct  was willful, or both, Plaintiff asks the Court to exercise its discretion pursuant to section  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C), to treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Kenneth Hill, on behalf of himself and the Class, prays  for the following relief:   4. An incentive award for Plaintiff;   6. Such further and other relief the Court deems reasonable and just. 