22.  Defendant called Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in 7780 (“7780 Number”)  with multiple pre-recorded voice messages in January and February of 2021.    24.  When Plaintiff listened to the prerecorded messages, she was easily able to determine  that it was prerecorded. Rahn v. Bank of Am., No. 1:15-CV-4485-ODE-JSA, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS  186171, at *10-11 (N.D. Ga. June 23, 2016) (“When one receives a call, it is a clear-cut fact, easily  discernible to any lay person, whether or not the recipient is speaking to a live human being, or is instead  being subjected to a prerecorded message.”).   25.  Defendant’s prerecorded message calls constitute telemarketing/advertising because it  encouraged her to purchase, rent, or invest in property, goods, or services of the Defendant.   26.  Specifically, the prerecorded messages stated that she was receiving a message from  “Hendrick Honda” and that if Plaintiff is interested in a car or SUV, she should come in and test drive  a vehicle.    27.  Plaintiff is the subscriber and/or sole user of the 7780 Number.   28.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with her express written consent to  be contacted using a pre-recorded message on the 7780 Number.     29.  Upon information and belief, Defendant caused similar prerecorded messages to be sent  to individuals residing within this judicial district.   30.  Defendant’s unsolicited prerecorded message caused Plaintiff additional harm,  including invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.   Defendant’s call also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to Plaintiff’s daily life.   31.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of  Plaintiff and all others similarly situated.   33.  Plaintiff reserves the right to modify the Class definitions as warranted as facts are  learned in further investigation and discovery.    34.  Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. Plaintiff does not  know the number of members in each the Class but believes the Class members number in the several  thousands, if not more.  37.  There are numerous questions of law and fact common to members of the Class which  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class.  Among the questions  of law and fact common to the members of the Class are:  a) Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff’s and Class members’  cellular telephones using a prerecorded message;  b) Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing that it obtained prior express  written consent to make such calls;  c) Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and willful;  d) Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and  e) Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.   43.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations set forth in paragraphs 1  through 42 as if fully set forth herein.   44.  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 …artificial or prerecorded  voice to any telephone number assigned to a … cellular telephone service ….” 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(A)(iii).    45.  It is a violation of the TCPA regulations promulgated by the FCC to “initiate any  telephone call…using an… artificial or prerecorded voice to any telephone number assigned to a paging  service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common  carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call.”  47 C.F.R. §   46.  Additionally, it is a violation of the TCPA regulations promulgated by the FCC  to “[i]nitiate, or cause to be initiated, any telephone call that includes or introduces an advertisement or  constitutes telemarketing, …artificial or prerecorded voice …other than a call made with the prior  express written consent of the called party or the prior express consent of the called party when the call  is made…”  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2).   47.  Defendant used prerecorded messages to make non-emergency telephone calls to the  telephones of Plaintiff and other members of the Class.   48.  Defendant did not have prior express written consent to call the cell phones of Plaintiff  and the other members of the putative Class when its calls were made and/or failed to honor opt-out  requests regarding its prerecorded solicitations.    49.  Defendant has, therefore, violated §§ 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), 64.1200(a)(1)(iii), and   51.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA, Plaintiff  and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled to a minimum of $500.00  in damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the members of the Class are also entitled to an injunction  against future calls. Id.   64.1200(a)(1)(iii).   64.1200(a)(2) by using  prerecorded messages to make non-emergency telephone calls to the telephones  of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class without their consent.   PROPOSED CLASS  