28.  Defendant’s text messages constitute telemarketing/advertising because it promotes  Defendant’s business, goods and services.   29.  Specifically, Defendant asks the recipient of the text message to call the Defendant to  see if they are eligible for student loan forgiveness.    30.  Defendant makes money by selling its student loan document preparation services  including document preparation for student loan forgiveness programs.   31.  Upon Plaintiff calling the 561-721-7916 number included in the text message, he was  advised by Defendant that he could visit their website at www.globaldocprep.com  or call them back at  the 561-717-2729.   32.  Upon information and belief, the phone number (561-721-7916) included in the text  message is owned and operated by Defendant.    33.  Upon information and belief, the phone number (561-717-2729) provided to Plaintiff  after he called Defendant is owned and operated by Defendant.   34.  Plaintiff received the subject text message within this judicial district and, therefore,  Defendant’s violation of the TCPA occurred within this district.     35.  Upon information and belief, Defendant caused similar text messages to be sent to  individuals residing within this judicial district.     36.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendants with his express consent to be  contacted by text messages using an ATDS.     37.  Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 6000 Number.    39.  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.   40.  Upon information and belief, the platform utilized by Defendant has the current capacity  to store numbers using a random or sequential number generator, and dial such numbers, as well as dial  numbers automatically from a list of numbers without human intervention.   41.  Further, the impersonal and generic nature of Defendant’s text message, demonstrates  that Defendant utilized an ATDS in transmitting the messages.  See Jenkins v. LL Atlanta, LLC, No.  1:14-cv-2791-WSD, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30051, at *11 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 9, 2016) (“These  assertions, combined with the generic, impersonal nature of the text message advertisements and the  use of a short code, support an inference that the text messages were sent using an ATDS.”) (citing Legg  v. Voice Media Grp., Inc., 20 F. Supp. 3d 1370, 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2014) (plaintiff alleged facts sufficient  to infer text messages were sent using ATDS; use of a short code and volume of mass messaging alleged  would be impractical without use of an ATDS); Kramer v. Autobytel, Inc., 759 F. Supp. 2d 1165, 1171  (N.D. Cal. 2010) (finding it "plausible" that defendants used an ATDS where messages were  advertisements written in an impersonal manner and sent from short code); Hickey v. Voxernet LLC,  887 F. Supp. 2d 1125, 1130; Robbins v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 13-CV-132-IEG NLS, 2013 U.S. Dist.  LEXIS 72725, 2013 WL 2252646, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 22, 2013) (observing that mass messaging  would be impracticable without use of an ATDS)).     43.  Defendant’s unsolicited text message caused Plaintiff actual harm, including invasion  of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.  At the time  Plaintiff received Defendant’s text message, he was working and upon receiving the text message he  had to stop what he was doing to see who was texting him and why they were texting him. Defendant’s  actions caused disruption and aggravation to Plaintiff’s daily life.    44.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of  himself and all others similarly situated.   45.  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 using the same type of equipment used to text  message Plaintiff, from Defendant or anyone on  Defendant’s behalf, to said person’s cellular telephone  number.     46.  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.  49.  There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate  over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class.  Among the questions of law and  fact common to the Class are:  (1) Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff and Class members’  cellular telephones using an ATDS;  (2) Whether Defendant can meet their burden of showing that they obtained prior  express written consent to make such calls;  (3) Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and willful;  (4) Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and  (5) Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.   50.  The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If Plaintiff’s  claim that Defendants 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.  55.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.    57.  The TCPA defines an “automatic telephone dialing system” (hereinafter “ATDS”)  as “equipment which has the capacity – (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called,  using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.”  Id. at § 227(a)(1).   58.  Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant – used equipment having the  capacity to store telephone numbers, using a random or sequential generator, and to dial such  numbers and/or to dial numbers from a list automatically, without human intervention, to make  non-emergency telephone calls to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of the  Class.    59.  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.    60.  Defendant 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)  