1. Plaintiff Dr. David George, doing business as Hammond Pet Hospital, brings this action to secure redress for the actions of defendants Product Slingshot, Inc., and Think 3D/Prelude, Inc., doing business as Forecast 3D, in sending or causing the sending of unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §227 (“TCPA”), and the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, Ind. Code §24–5–0.5–1 et seq. (“IDCSA”).  10. On or about June 20, 2018, Hammond Pet Hospital  received the unsolicited fax advertisement attached as Exhibit A on its facsimile machine, promoting defendants’ services.  11. Discovery may reveal the transmission of additional faxes as well.   12. The fax refers to a web address, Forecast3D.com, which is registered to Product  Slingshot, Inc. (Exhibit B).  13. Forecast3D.com states that the business is operated by Corey Weber and Donovan 2 USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00296-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 08/10/18   page 2 of 11 Weber (Exhibit C).  14.  Corey Weber and R. Donovan Weber conduct business via Product Slingshot, Inc., and Think 3D/Prelude, Inc. (Exhibit D).  15. Defendants Product Slingshot Inc., and Think 3D/Prelude Inc., are responsible for sending or causing the sending of the fax.  16. Defendants Product Slingshot Inc., and Think 3D/Prelude Inc., as the entities who products or services were advertised in the fax, derived economic benefit from the sending of the fax.  17. Defendants Product Slingshot Inc., and Think 3D/Prelude Inc., either negligently or wilfully violated the rights of plaintiff and other recipients in sending the faxes.   18. Plaintiff had no prior relationship with defendants and had not authorized the sending of fax advertisements to plaintiff.  19. On information and belief, the fax attached hereto was sent as part of a mass broadcasting of faxes.  2. The TCPA and IDCSA expressly prohibit unsolicited fax advertising.  Unsolicited fax advertising damages the recipients.  The recipient is deprived of its paper and ink or toner and the use of its fax machine.  The recipient also wastes valuable time it would have spent on something else.  Unsolicited faxes prevent fax machines from receiving and sending authorized faxes, cause wear and tear on fax machines, and require labor to attempt to identify the source and purpose of the unsolicited faxes. 1 USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00296-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 08/10/18   page 1 of 11 20. The fax does not contain an “opt out” notice that complies with 47 U.S.C. §227.  21. On information and belief, defendants have transmitted similar unsolicited fax advertisements to at least 40 other persons in Illinois.  22. There is no reasonable means for plaintiff or other recipients of defendants’ unsolicited advertising faxes to avoid receiving illegal faxes.  Fax machines must be left on and ready to receive the urgent communications authorized by their owners. 23. Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 1-22.   24. The TCPA makes unlawful 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)(C).  25. The TCPA,  47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3), provides: 3 USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00296-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 08/10/18   page 3 of 11 Private right of action. A person or entity 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. If the Court finds that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this subsection or the regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available under the subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.  26. Plaintiff and each class member suffered damages as a result of receipt of the unsolicited faxes, in the form of paper and ink or toner consumed as a result.  Furthermore, plaintiff’s statutory right of privacy was invaded.  27. Plaintiff and each class member is entitled to statutory damages.  28. Defendants violated the TCPA even if their actions were only negligent.  29. Defendants should be enjoined from committing similar violations in the future. 38. Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 1-22.  39. IC §24-5-0.5-2(a)(1)(B) defines as a “consumer transaction” subject to the IDCSA 6 USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00296-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 08/10/18   page 6 of 11 an “unsolicited advertisement sent to a person by telephone facsimile machine offering a sale, lease, assignment, award by chance, or other disposition of an item of personal property, real property, a service, or an intangible.”  40. IC §24-5-0.5-3 defines as a “deceptive act” in violation of the IDCSA “(19) The violation by a supplier of 47 U.S.C. 227, including any rules or regulations issued under 47 48. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3), plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of  a class, consisting of (a) all persons with Indiana  fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date 2 years 7 USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00296-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 08/10/18   page 7 of 11 prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants Product Slingshot Inc., and Think 3D/Prelude Inc., promoting their goods or services for sale  (d) where defendants do not have evidence of consent or an established business relationship prior to the sending of the faxes.  49. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impractical.  Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that there are more than 40 members of the class.  50. There are questions of law and fact common to the class that predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.  The predominant common questions include: a. Whether defendants engaged in a pattern of sending unsolicited fax advertisements; b. Whether defendants thereby engaged in unfair acts and practices, in violation of the IDCSA.  51. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving unlawful business practices.  Neither plaintiff nor plaintiff's counsel have any interests which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action.   52. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members.  All are based on the same factual and legal theories.  53. A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.  The interest of class members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate claims against defendants are small because it is not economically feasible to bring individual actions.  54. Management of this class action is likely to present significantly fewer difficulties that those presented in many class actions, e.g. for securities fraud. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of 8 USDC IN/ND case 2:18-cv-00296-JVB-JEM   document 1   filed 08/10/18   page 8 of 11 plaintiff and the class and against defendant for: a. Appropriate damages; b. Attorney’s fees, litigation expenses and costs of suit; c. Such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper. /s/ Daniel A. Edelman Daniel A. Edelman Daniel A. Edelman Cathleen M. Combs Heather A. Kolbus INTRODUCTION 