13.   On August 28, 2014, BHD transmitted a facsimile advertisement to Barron’s and,  based on the generic nature of the content and the proximity of the Plaintiff’s business to the  business of BHD, numerous other entities throughout the United States (“Junk Fax”). A copy of  the Junk Fax is attached at Exhibit 1.     14.   The Junk Fax contains an advertisement promoting a POS system offered by the  Defendant Retail Pro.    15.   As the entity whose goods are being advertised, Retail Pro is also liable for the  fax advertising.      16.   The TCPA makes it unlawful to “send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an  unsolicited advertisement.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C).    17.   The Federal Communications Commission has promulgated 47 C.F.R. §   18.   Prior to codification, this principle had been established by an official FCC  interpretation of the TCPA entitled, In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the  Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 10 F.C.C.R. 12391, 12407 (Aug. 7, 1995), which  stated, “[T]he entity or entities on whose behalf facsimiles are transmitted are ultimately liable  for compliance with the rule banning unsolicited facsimile advertisements.”   19.   Retail Pro relies on a series of “Authorized Business Partners” to distribute their  goods and services, including the POS system that was advertised in the facsimile advertisement  sent to the Plaintiff.   20.   Indeed, on the Retail Pro website, when a visitor selects the “Contact Us” tab,  they have the option of “Locating a Business Partner Near You”. See  http://www.retailpro.com/ContactUs.php (Last Visited October 9, 2014)   21.   BHD is one of these “Authorized Business Partners” of Retail Pro.   22.   Retail Pro grants third parties permission to use the Retail Pro trademark and  tradename in their advertising.   23.   In fact, in the Junk Fax sent to the Plaintiff, the Retail Pro trademark is  prominently displayed.  (See Exhibit 1).   24.   At no time did Barron’s give either Defendant its express prior invitation or  permission, or prior consent in any fashion, for the transmission of the Junk Fax.    26.   Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure on behalf of a class of all other persons or entities similarly situated throughout the  United States.   27.   Through the transmission of generic facsimile advertisements promoting their  services, including transmission to the Plaintiff who is located on the other side of the country,  the Defendants have engaged in widespread advertising via unsolicited facsimile transmission in  violation of the TCPA.   28.   Based on the generic style of the facsimile advertisement, the standard  telemarketing reach of a Junk Fax campaign, and the distance between the Plaintiff and the  Defendants, the Defendants have likely transmitted unsolicited facsimile advertisements to  thousands of recipients throughout the United States.   29.   Neither of the Defendants obtained the consent of facsimile recipients prior to the  transmission of facsimile advertisements.    30.   To the extent facsimile advertisements were transmitted by Defendants to  consumers who had given consent, or had an established business relationship with the  Defendants, of which there is no evidence at this time, the facsimile advertisements are still in  violation of the TCPA as they did not contain the Compliant Opt Out Notice required by law.   32.   The class as defined above is identifiable by phone records, fax transmittal  records, and fax number databases, used by Retail Pro and its Business Partners or their agents,  in transmitting its unsolicited facsimile advertisements.     33.   The Plaintiff is a member of the class.   34.   There are questions of law and fact common to Plaintiff and to the proposed class,  including but not limited to the following:  a. Whether Defendants violated the TCPA and FCC promulgating regulations,  by engaging in fax advertising.  b. Whether the facsimiles sent by Defendants to class members constitute  unsolicited advertisements;  c. Whether the Plaintiff and the members of the class are entitled to statutory  damages as a result of Defendants’ actions.   35.   Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class.   36.   Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the class because its interests do not  conflict with the interests of the class, it will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the  class, and it is represented by counsel skilled and experienced in class actions.   37.   Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only  individual members of the class and a class action is the superior method for fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy.  The only individual question concerns identification of class  members, which will be ascertainable from records maintained by Defendants and/or its agents.   39.   Plaintiff is not aware of any litigation concerning this controversy already  commenced by others who meet the criteria for class membership described above.     40.   Plaintiff is capable of and willing to represent the other members of the class.   41.   Plaintiff incorporates the allegations from all previous paragraphs as if fully set  forth herein.   42.   Defendant BHD caused unsolicited facsimile advertisements to be sent to Plaintiff  and to other members of the class, in violation of the TCPA and the FCC’s promulgating  regulations, promoting the goods and services of Retail Pro.   43.   By causing unsolicited facsimile advertisements to be sent to the class,  Defendants violated the privacy rights of class members.   44.   By causing unsolicited facsimile advertisements to be sent to the class,  Defendants caused class members to sustain property damage and cost in the form of paper and  toner.   45.   By causing unsolicited facsimile advertisements to be sent to the class,  Defendants interfered with the class members’ use of their property as class members’ facsimile  machines were encumbered by the transmission of Defendants’ unsolicited facsimile  advertisements.   47.   Defendants failed to provide the requisite Opt Out Notice on its advertisements  informing the recipient of their right to cease receiving such advertisements and a cost free  mechanism to make such request.   48.   Failure to provide Opt Out Notice on a facsimile advertisement is a separate and  distinct violation of the TCPA.   49.   The TCPA provides for statutory damages in the amount of a minimum of $500  for each separate violation of the TCPA.  The damages suffered by the Plaintiff and the class it  seeks to represent are negligent or willful.    50.   Plaintiff incorporates the allegations from all previous paragraphs as if fully set  forth herein.   51.   The TCPA expressly authorizes injunctive relief to prevent future violations of  the Act.   52.   The Plaintiff, acting on behalf of the Class, respectfully petitions the Court to  order Defendants to immediately cease engaging in unsolicited facsimile advertising in violation  of the TCPA. 