10.  Notwithstanding the obvious lack of consent associated with recycled numbers,  Defendant fails to take the necessary steps to ensure that its autodialed text messages are placed  only to consenting recipients, forcing new subscribers of reassigned cellular telephone numbers  to incur the cost and bother of receiving Defendant’s autodialed text messages.  In fact,  Defendant knows, and consciously disregards the fact, that its autodialed and/or prerecorded  calls to these cellular subscribers are unauthorized.  11.  In or around February of 2017, Plaintiff Pieri obtained a new cellular telephone  number and service from TracFone. Towards the end of November 2017, Plaintiff started  receiving text message notifications from UniRush from short code 697-874.  However, Plaintiff  has never had a relationship with UniRush, has never provided UniRush his cellular telephone  number, and has never consented to received autodialed text messages from UniRush.   12.  The cellular phone provider that Plaintiff Pieri uses is TracFone. As part of his  plan with TracFone, Plaintiff is charged $0.30 for every text message he receives.    14.  Plaintiff Pieri is charged $.30 per unsolicited text message he receives from  UniRush.  As a result, Plaintiff called Defendant on their customer help line number 866-787- 4227 on January 5, 2018 to demand that UniRush stop texting him.  He was connected with an  agent named “Citti” who assured him that the text messages would cease.  Defendant also  attempted to stop the incoming text messages by sending an opt out text message to UniRush’s  short code.   15.  Despite the assurance from one of Defendant’s representative and Plaintiff’s own  attempts, the text messages did not stop. Plaintiff received over 30 additional text messages after  expressly opting out (even though he had never opted in).     16.  On information and belief, UniRush, or others acting on its behalf, have sent these  autodialed text messages to thousands of members of the putative Class.  To the extent the text  messages were sent on UniRush’s behalf to telephone numbers formerly associated with  UniRush customers, UniRush provided the third-party access to its records, authorized use of its  trade name, otherwise controlled the content of the messages, and knew of, but failed to stop, the  sending of the text messages in violation of the TCPA.   18.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)  and 23(b)(3) on behalf of himself and the following Classes:   Autodialed No Consent Class: All persons in the United States from four years  prior to the filing of this action through the present who (1) Defendant (or an agent  acting on behalf of Defendant) text messaged, (2) on the person’s cellular  telephone, (3) using an autodialer, and (4) for whom Defendant claims (a) they  obtained consent in the same manner as Defendant claims they supposedly obtained  consent to text message Plaintiff, or (b) they did not obtain consent.  Autodialed Stop Class: All persons in the United States from four years prior to  the filing of this action through the present who (1) Defendant (or an agent acting  on behalf of Defendant) text messaged, (2) on the person’s cellular telephone, (3)  using an autodialer, (4) after requesting that Defendant stop sending them text  messages.   19.  The following people are excluded from the Classes: (1) any Judge or Magistrate  presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, its subsidiaries, parents,  successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling  interest and its current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who properly  execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Classes; (4) persons whose claims in this  matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel  and Defendant’s counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such  excluded persons.   21.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the  Classes, in that Plaintiff and the members of the Classes sustained damages arising out of  Defendant’s uniform wrongful conduct.   22.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Classes and has retained counsel competent and experienced in  complex class actions. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Classes, and  Defendant has no defenses unique to Plaintiff.   23.  Commonality and Predominance: There are several questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff and the Classes, and those questions predominate over any  questions that may affect individual members of the Classes. Common questions for the Classes  include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:  (a)  Whether Defendant used an ATDS;   (b)  Whether Defendant’s conduct violated the TCPA;   (c)  Whether Defendant had consent to call members of the Autodialed No  Consent Class; and  (d)  Whether Defendant failed to abide by Class members’ instructions to stop  sending them text messages.   25.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   26.  Defendant sent unsolicited and unwanted text messages to telephone numbers  belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Autodialed No Consent Class—without their  consent—in an effort to notify them of recent transactions.    27.  Defendant sent the text messages using equipment that had the capacity to store or  produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator.   28.  By sending unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff and members of the Autodialed  No Consent Class’s cellular telephones without prior express consent using an ATDS, Defendant  violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   30.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-24 as if fully set forth herein.   31.  Defendant sent unsolicited and unwanted text messages to telephone numbers  belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Autodialed Stop Class on their cellular  telephones after they had requested that Defendant stop texting them.     32.  Defendant sent the text messages using equipment that had the capacity to store or  produce telephone numbers to be called and/or texted using a random or sequential number  generator.   33.  By sending unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff and other members of the  Autodialed Stop Class’s cellular telephones using an automated telephone dialing system after  they requested to no longer receive such calls, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B).   34.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the  Autodialed Stop Class suffered actual damages, and, under Section 227(b)(3)(B), are each  entitled to a minimum of $500 in damages for each such violation of the TCPA.  Should the  Court determine that Defendant’s conduct was willful and knowing, the Court may, pursuant to  Section 227(b)(3), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by Plaintiff and the other  members of the Autodialed Stop Class.  7.  As mentioned above, UniRush is leading provider of reloadable prepaid debit  cards and related financial services throughout the United States.  In order to notify its customers  of transactions they make using their UniRush prepaid debit cards, UniRush sends consenting  customers text messages to their cellular telephone numbers from a short code using an ATDS:1   9.  The mobile marketing industry is acutely aware of cellular number recycling and,  in particular, the risk associated with sending autodialed text messages to non-consenting  recycled numbers. In fact, numerous commercially available services exist to help companies  engaged in mass texting, such as Defendant, identify recycled numbers and non-consenting  cellular subscribers in real-time, including companies such as Neustar, Experian, Early Warning,  Idiology, and Infutor.    Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Autodialed Stop Class)   Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Autodialed No Consent Class)  