29. Plaintiff Rios is a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39).  30. Ms. Rios’s telephone number, (435) XXX-9252, is assigned to a cellular telephone service.  31. Ms. Rios’s cellular telephone line is used for residential purposes.  32. Ms. Rios’s cellular telephone line has been on the National Do Not Call Registry since 2017.  33. Ms. Rios has never utilized Weed Man lawn care services.  34. However, in the fall of 2017, a Weed Man lawn care services representative showed up unannounced at her house and requested a phone number.  35. Ms. Rios provided her phone number, but at no time did she agree to receive telemarketing calls regarding Weed Man lawn care services.  36. Nonetheless, shortly thereafter, Ms. Rios began receiving calls regarding Weed Man lawn care services.  37. On several occasions, Ms. Rios asked the Weed Man lawn care services representative to stop calling him.  38. However, the calls continued and have regularly occurred with multiple calls when WM Utah offers a spring discount to acquire new customers.  40. The defendants do not have or utilize an Internal Do Not Call list, as Ms. Rios continued to receive calls related to Weed Man lawn care services after these requests.  41. The defendants do not have or utilize a written policy pertaining to “do not call” requests.  42. Ms. Rios requested to no longer receive calls regarding Weed Man lawn care services, yet she continued to receive calls.  43. As such, to the extent a perfunctory written policy exists, the defendants have not trained their personnel on the existence or use of any internal “do not call” list.  44. Defendants continued to call Ms. Rios after his requests to cease calling, therefore defendants do not record or honor “do not call” requests. 45. The FCC has explained that its “rules generally establish that the party on whose behalf a solicitation is made bears ultimate responsibility for any violations.”  See In re Rules & Regulations Implementing the TCPA, CC Docket No. 92-90, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 12391, 12397 (¶ 13) (1995).  46. In its January 4, 2008 ruling, the FCC reiterated that a company on whose behalf a telephone call is made bears the responsibility for any violations.  Id. (specifically recognizing “on behalf of” liability in the context of an autodialed or prerecorded message call sent to a consumer by a third party on another entity’s behalf under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)).  48. More specifically, the May 2013 FCC Ruling held that, even in the absence of evidence of a formal contractual relationship between the seller and the telemarketer, a seller is liable for telemarketing calls if the telemarketer “has apparent (if not actual) authority” to make the calls.  28 FCC Rcd at 6586 (¶ 34).  49. The May 2013 FCC Ruling rejected a narrow view of TCPA liability, including the assertion that a seller’s liability requires a finding of formal agency and immediate direction and control over the third-party who placed the telemarketing call.  Id. at 6587 n. 107.  51. The Franchisor knowingly and actively accepted business that originated through WM County’s illegal telemarketing calls.  52. The Franchisor accepted business from and received profits from, illegal calls WM County made, even though the Franchisor had received complaints about the calling conduct of its franchisees and vendors. The Franchisor also fields complaints about telemarketing conduct of its franchisees.  53. In fact, in response to a complaint made to the Better Business Bureau when an individual received an automated call after she had cancelled her service, the Franchisor explained: We did look into the situation and review the call and apologize if there was any confusion or miscommunication. Our representative was calling from our centralized call center which is located here in the Carlisle, PA area and handles calls for each of our franchise units within our organization. It seems there was some confusion or miscommunication that you were speaking to someone from the Weed Man USA headquarters.  See https://www.bbb.org/ca/on/oshawa/profile/lawn-maintenance/weed-man-usa- headquarters-0107-1301262/customer-reviews (last visited January 16, 2021).  54. Despite this knowledge, the Franchisor continued its relationship with WM County.  56. The Franchisor failed to make such an instruction to its co-defendant, and as a result, is liable for its co-defendant’s conduct.  57. Additionally, the Franchisor controlled and restricted its co-defendant’s ability to do business in geographic locations and promote Weed Man lawn care services.  58. The May 2013 FCC Ruling states that called parties may obtain “evidence of these kinds of relationships . . . through discovery, if they are not independently privy to such information.”  Id. at 6592-593 (¶ 46).  Moreover, evidence of circumstances pointing to apparent authority on behalf of the telemarketer “should be sufficient to place upon the seller the burden of demonstrating that a reasonable consumer would not sensibly assume that the telemarketer was acting as the seller’s authorized agent.”  Id. at 6593 (¶ 46). 59. As authorized by Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of Classes of all other persons or entities similarly situated throughout the United States.  61. Excluded from the Classes are counsel, defendants, and any entities in which defendants have a controlling interest, defendants’ agents and employees, any judge to whom this action is assigned, and any member of such judge’s staff and immediate family.  62. The Classes are identifiable through phone records and phone number databases.  63. The potential members of the Classes number at least in the thousands.  64. Individual joinder of these persons is impracticable.  65. Plaintiff is a member of both Classes.  66. There are questions of law and fact common to Plaintiff and to the proposed Classes, including but not limited to the following: a. Whether defendants made calls to Plaintiff and members of the Classes without first obtaining prior express written consent to make the calls; b. Whether defendants maintained a written “do not call” policy; c. Whether defendants trained employees or agents engaged in telemarketing on the existence and usage of any “do not call” policy; d. Whether defendants recorded or honored “do not call” requests; e. Whether defendants’ conduct constitutes a violation of the TCPA; and f. Whether members of the Classes are entitled to treble damages based on the willfulness of defendants’ conduct.  68. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Classes because her interests does not conflict with Classes’ interests, she will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Classes, and she is represented by counsel skilled and experienced in class actions, including TCPA class actions.  69. Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only individual class members, and a class action is the superior method for fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The only individual question concerns identification of Class members, which will be ascertainable from records defendants and/or their agents maintain.  70. The likelihood that individual members of the Classes will prosecute separate actions is remote due to the time and expense necessary to prosecute an individual case. 71. Plaintiff repeats the prior allegations of this Amended Complaint and incorporates them by reference herein.  72. Defendants placed numerous calls for telemarketing purposes to Plaintiff’s and Internal DNC Class Members’ telephone numbers, or others did so on their behalf.  73. Defendants did so despite not having a written policy pertaining to “do not call” requests.  74. Defendants did so despite not training its personnel on the existence or use of any internal “do not call” list.  76. Defendants placed two or more telephone calls to Plaintiff and Internal DNC Class Members in a 12-month period, or others did so their on behalf.  77. Plaintiff and Internal DNC Class Members are entitled to an award of $500 in statutory damages per telephone call pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).  78. Plaintiff and Internal DNC Class Members are entitled to an award of treble damages in an amount up to $1,500 per telephone call, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). 79. Plaintiff repeats the prior allegations of this Amended Complaint and incorporates them by reference herein.  80. The foregoing acts and omissions of defendants and/or their affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or entities acting on defendants’ behalf constitute numerous and multiple violations of the TCPA, by making telemarketing calls to a residential telephone number that has been on the National Do Not Call Registry for more than 31 days prior to the first call.  81. As a result of defendants’ and/or its affiliates, agents, and/or other persons or entities acting on defendants’ behalf’s violations of the TCPA, Plaintiff and members of the National DNC Class are entitled to an award of $500 in damages for each and every call made or up to $1,500 for each telemarketing call made deemed to be a “willful or knowing” violation.  D. Calls to Ms. Rios  Defendants. COMPLAINT Case No.  2:21-00039-CMR Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227) (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Internal DNC Class)  Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227) (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the National DNC Class) 