14.  Plaintiff has received at least one of Defendants' advertisements by  facsimile. A true and correct copy of the fax Plaintiff received in December, 2016 is  attached as Exhibit A.   15.  Exhibit A is a one·page document Defendants sent by fax promoting  Spreemo's services locating and recommending radiological imaging providers for  The Hartford patients.   16.  Exhibit A prominently displays Spreemo's name, logo, telephone  number, fax number, address, email address, and website in bolded font.   17.  Exhibit A promotes the commercial availability or quality of services  available from Spreemo for The Hartford by stating that Spreemo looks "forward to  a strong partnership and providing exceptions care for The Hartford patients."   18.  Exhibit A promotes the availability and quality of Spreemo's services  by stating that Spreemo is the "Primary Diagnostic Vendor" for The Hartford.   19.  Exhibit A does not include the opt·out notice required by the TCPA.  See 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (2) (D) & (E) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a) (4) (iii) & (v).   20.  On information and belief, Defendants sent advertisements by  facsimile to Plaintiff and more than 39 other persons in violation of the TCP A.   22.  Plaintiff brings this action as a class action on behalf of itself and all  others similarly situated as members of a class, initially defined as follows:  Each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone facsimile  messages ("faxes") on or after May 7, 2014 offering Spreemo' s  diagnostic vending services for The Hartford patients.  Plaintiff anticipates modifying the proposed class definition-including proposing  subclasses if appropriate-after discovery about the scope of Defendants' fax  advertising practices as well as discovery as to any potential affirmative defenses  Defendants may plead.   23.  Excluded from the class are Defendants, each of Defendants' officers,  directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns, any entity in which  either Defendant has a controlling interest, any parent, subsidiary or affiliated  company of either Defendant, and any Judge assigned to this action, including his  or her immediate family.   24.  In this action, Plaintiff intends to discover, include, and resolve the  merits of claims about all advertisements Defendants sent to Plaintiff by fax, as  well as all advertisements Defendants sent to the other class members.   26.  This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class  action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. This action satisfies Rule 23 (a)'s numerosity,  commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements. Additionally, prosecution of  Plaintiffs claims separately from the putative class's claims would create a risk of  inconsistent or varying adjudications under Rule 23 (b) (1) (A). Furthermore, the  questions of law or fact that are common in this action predominate over any  individual questions of law or fact making class representation the superior method  to adjudicate this controversy under Rule 23 (b) (3).   27.  Numerosity/impracticality of foinder. On information and belief, the  class consists of more than 39 persons and, thus, is so numerous that individual  joinder of each member is impracticable. The precise number of class members and  their identities are unknown to Plaintiff, but will be obtained from Defendants'  records or the records of third parties.   3.  Private right of action. A person may, if  otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a  state, bring in an appropriate court of that state:  (A)  An action based on a violation of this  subsection or the regulations prescribed under this  subsection to enjoin such violation,  (B)  An action to recover for  actual  monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive  $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever  is greater, or  (C)  Both such actions.  47 u.s.c. § 227 (b) (3).   30.  Adequacy of representation. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of  the class because its interests do not conflict with the interests of the class it seeks  to represent. Plaintiff has retained undersigned counsel, who are competent and  experienced in complex class action litigation, and in TCPA litigation in particular,  and Plaintiff intends to vigorously prosecute this action. Plaintiff and its counsel  will fairly and adequately protect the interest of members of the class.   31.  Prosecution of separate claims would yield inconsistent results. Even  though the questions of fact and law in this action are predominantly common to  Plaintiff and the putative class members, separate adjudication of each class  member's claims would yield inconsistent and varying adjudications. Such  inconsistent rulings would create incompatible standards for Defendants to operate  under if/when class members bring additional lawsuits concerning the same  unsolicited fax advertisements or if with or both Defendants choose to advertise by  fax again in the future.   33.  Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.   34.  Plaintiff brings Count I on behalf of itself and a class of similarly  situated persons against Defendants.   35.  The TCPA prohibits the "use of any telephone facsimile machine,  computer or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone  facsimile machine .... " 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (1).   36.  On information and belief, Defendants or third parties on behalf of  Defendants sent Exhibit A to the facsimile machines of Plaintiff and others  similarly situated using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device.   37.  The TCPA defines "unsolicited advertisement" as "any material  advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services  which is transmitted to any person without that person's express invitation or  permission." 47 U.S.C. § 227 (a) (4).   39.  Plaintiff did not expressly give permission or invitation to receive any  advertisement from either Defendant by fax.   4 • lJ SJ~. & 227  Bn r description of cause:  Vi 1>lation of the Telechone Consumer Protection Act  40.  The TCPA provides a private right of action as follows:   41.  The Court, in its discretion, may treble the statutory damages if it  determines that a violation was knowing or willful. 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (3).   42.  Here, Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (1) (C) by sending an  advertisement by facsimile (such as Exhibit A) to Plaintiff and the other class  members without their prior express invitation or permission.   43.  Facsimile advertising imposes burdens on recipients that are distinct  from the burdens imposed by other types of advertising. The required opt·out notice  provides recipients the necessary information to opt·out of future fax transmissions,  including a notice that the sender's failure to comply with the opt·out request will  be unlawful. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a) (4) (iii).   45.  Even if Defendants did not intend to injure Plaintiff and the other  class members, did not intend to violate their privacy, and did not intend to waste  their valuable time with Defendants' advertisements, those facts are irrelevant  because the TCPA is a strict liability statute.   46.  If Defendants' actions were knowing or willful, then the Court has the  discretion to increase the statutory damages up to 3 times the amount. 47 U.S.C. §  227 (b) (3).   47.  Defendant Spreemo is liable for the fax advertisements at issue  because it sent the faxes, caused the faxes to be sent, participated in the activity  giving rise to or constituting the violation, the faxes were sent on its behalf, or its  goods, products or services were promoted in the fax advertisement.   48.  Defendant The Hartford is liable for the fax advertisements at issue  because it participated in the activity giving rise to or constituting the violation, the  faxes were sent on its behalf, or under general principles of vicarious liability,  including actual authority, apparent authority and ratification.   50.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.   51.  Plaintiff brings Count II on behalf of itself and a class of similarly  situated persons and against Defendants.   52.  By sending advertisements to their fax machines, Defendants  improperly and unlawfully converted the class's fax machines to Defendants' own  use. Where printed (as in Plaintiffs case), Defendants also improperly and  unlawfully converted the class members' paper and toner to Defendants' own use.  Defendants also converted Plaintiffs time to Defendants' own use, as they did with  the valuable time of the other class members.   53.  Immediately prior to the sending of the unsolicited faxes, Plaintiff and  the other class members each owned an unqualified and immediate right to  possession of their fax machines, paper, toner, and employee time.   54.  By  sending them  unsolicited faxes,  Defendants permanently  misappropriated the class members' fax machines, toner, paper, and employee time  to their own use. Such misappropriation was wrongful and without authorization.   55.  Defendants knew or should have known that their misappropriation of  paper, toner, and employee time was wrongful and without authorization.   CONVERSION   TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT. 47 U.S.C. § 227  