        MediCopy offers a FREE encrypted portal for the secure delivery        of protected health information.  If interested, please email         contact@medicopy.net.                 √   FREE Release of Information Services                 √   FREE Disability/FMLA Form Completion  Exhibit A.   The Faxes provide no opt-out instructions.   11.  During July and August, 2019, Defendant sent three unsolicited facsimiles to  Plaintiff using a telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device.  See Exhibit A.   12.  The Faxes appear to be identical and state, in part, the following:  13.  Defendant’s website, www.MediCopy.net (last visited 10/17/19), contains the  following:  Home / What We Offer  5  Taking a fresh approach to traditional Release of Information services  by offering innovative support to patients, requesting parties and HIM  departments alike.  MediCopy strives to make the Release of Information experience as reliable and efficient  as possible by providing simple and secure HIM solutions. We offer full-service Release of  Information services tailored to Hospitals & Health Systems, as well as Physicians & Group  Practices. Our objective is to assist in the integral role of patient care by providing security  and privacy safeguards during the transfer and handling of medical records - all while  providing exceptional customer service.    14.  The Faxes advertise the commercial availability and/or quality of Defendant’s  new encrypted portal.     15.  The Faxes are advertisements under the TCPA and regulations implementing the  21.  In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), Plaintiff brings this class action  pursuant to the TCPA on behalf of the following class of persons:  All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this  action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material  advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property,  goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendant, and (3) from  whom Defendant did not obtain “prior express invitation or  permission” to send fax advertisements, or (4) with whom  Defendant did not have an established business relationship, or  (5) where the fax advertisements did not include an opt-out notice  compliant with 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4)(iii) regarding any  claimed established business relationship.  Excluded from the Class are Defendant, its employees and agents, and members of the Judiciary.  Plaintiff seeks to certify a class which includes, but is not limited to, the Faxes sent to Plaintiff.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the class definition upon completion of class certification  discovery.   22.  Class Size (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)): Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon  such information and belief avers, that the number of persons and entities of the Plaintiff Class is  numerous and joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and  upon such information and belief avers, that the number of class members is at least forty.   23.  Commonality (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2)):  Common questions of law and fact  apply to the claims of all class members. Common material questions of fact and law include, but  are not limited to, the following:  (a)  Whether the Faxes and other faxes sent during the class period constitute  advertisements under the TCPA and its implementing regulations;  (b)  Whether Defendant meets the definition of “sender” for direct TCPA  liability, meaning a “person or entity on whose behalf a facsimile unsolicited  7  advertisement is sent or whose goods or services are advertised or promoted in the  unsolicited advertisement,” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(10);   (c)   Whether Defendant had prior express invitation or permission to send  Plaintiff and the class fax advertisements;   (d)  Whether the faxes contain an “opt-out notice” that complies with the  requirements of § (b)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, and the regulations promulgated thereunder,  and the effect of the failure to comply with such requirements;  (e)  Whether Defendant should be enjoined from faxing advertisements in the  future;  (f)  Whether Plaintiff and the other members of the class are entitled to  statutory damages; and  (g)  Whether the Court should award treble damages.   24.  Typicality (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3)):  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims  of all class members. Plaintiff received the same or similar faxes as the faxes sent by or on behalf  of Defendant advertising the availability or quality of Defendant’s property, goods or services  during the Class Period.  Plaintiff is making the same claims and seeking the same relief for itself  and all class members based upon the same federal statute.  Defendant has acted in the same or  in a similar manner with respect to Plaintiff and all the class members by sending Plaintiff and  each member of the class the same or similar fax or faxes which did not contain the proper opt- out language or were sent without prior express invitation or permission.   25.  Fair and Adequate Representation (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)):   Plaintiff will fairly  and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class. Plaintiff is interested in this  matter, has no conflicts, and has retained experienced class counsel to represent the class.  8   26.  Predominance and Superiority (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)):  Common questions of  law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class  action is superior to other methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy  because:   (a)  Proof of Plaintiff’s claims will also prove the claims of the class without  the need for separate or individualized proceedings;  (b)  Evidence regarding defenses or any exceptions to liability that Defendant  may assert and attempt to prove will come from Defendant’s records and will not require  individualized or separate inquiries or proceedings;  (c)   Defendant has acted and is continuing to act pursuant to common policies  or practices in the same or similar manner with respect to all class members;  (d)   The amount likely to be recovered by individual class members does not  support individual litigation. A class action will permit a large number of relatively small  claims involving virtually identical facts and legal issues to be resolved efficiently in one  proceeding based upon common proofs; and  (e)  This case is inherently manageable as a class action in that:  (i)  Defendant identified persons to receive the fax transmissions and it  is believed that Defendant’s and/or Defendant’s agents’ computers and business  records will enable Plaintiff to readily identify class members and establish  liability and damages;  (ii)  Liability and damages can be established for Plaintiff and the class  with the same common proofs;  9  (iii)  Statutory damages are provided for in the statute and are the same  for all class members and can be calculated in the same or a similar manner;  (iv)  A class action will result in an orderly and expeditious  administration of claims and it will foster economies of time, effort and expense;  (v)  A class action will contribute to uniformity of decisions  concerning Defendant’s practices; and  (vi)  As a practical matter, the claims of the class are likely to go  unaddressed absent class certification.   Claim for Relief for Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.   27.  The TCPA makes it unlawful for any person to “use any telephone facsimile  machine, computer or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited  advertisement . . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C).   28.  The TCPA defines “unsolicited advertisement” as “any material advertising the  commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any  person without that person’s prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise.”  47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(5).   29.  Opt-Out Notice Requirements. The TCPA as amended by the JFPA  strengthened the prohibitions against the sending of unsolicited advertisements by requiring, in  § (b)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, that senders of faxed advertisements place a clear and conspicuous  notice on the first page of the transmission that contains the following, among other things  (hereinafter collectively the “Opt-Out Notice Requirements”):  10  (1)  A statement that the recipient is legally entitled to opt-out of receiving  future faxed advertisements—knowing that he or she has the legal right to request an opt- out gives impetus for recipients to make such a request, if desired;  (2)  A statement that the sender must honor a recipient’s opt-out request within  30 days and the sender’s failure to do so is unlawful—thereby encouraging recipients to  opt-out, if they did not want future faxes, by advising them that their opt-out requests will  have legal “teeth”;  (3)  A statement advising the recipient that he or she may opt-out with respect  to all of his or her facsimile telephone numbers and not just the ones that receive a faxed  advertisement from the sender—thereby instructing a recipient on how to make a valid  opt-out request for all of his or her fax machines;  (4)  The opt-out language must be conspicuous.   The requirement of (1) above is incorporated from § (b)(D)(ii) of the Act. The  requirement of (2) above is incorporated from § (b)(D)(ii) of the Act and the rules and  regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) in ¶ 31 of its 2006 Report  and Order, 21 F.C.C.R. 3787, 2006 WL 901720, which rules and regulations took effect on  August 1, 2006. The requirements of (3) above are contained in § (b)(2)(E) of the Act and  incorporated into the Opt-Out Notice Requirements via § (b)(2)(D)(ii). Compliance with the Opt- Out Notice Requirements is neither difficult nor costly. The Opt-Out Notice Requirements are  important consumer protections bestowed by Congress upon consumers and businesses, giving  them the right, and means, to stop unwanted fax advertisements.    30.  2006 FCC Report and Order. The TCPA, in § (b)(2) of the Act, directed the  FCC to implement regulations regarding the TCPA, including the TCPA’s Opt-Out Notice  11  Requirements and the FCC did so in its 2006 Report and Order, which in addition provides,  among other things:  A.  The definition of, and the requirements for, an established business  relationship (EBR) for purposes of the first of the three prongs of an exemption to  liability under § (b)(1)(C)(i) of the Act and provides that the lack of an “established  business relationship” precludes the ability to invoke the exemption contained in  § (b)(1)(C) of the Act (see 2006 Report and Order ¶¶ 8-12 and 17-20);  B.  The required means by which a recipient’s facsimile telephone number  must be obtained for purposes of the second of the three prongs of the exemption under  § (b)(1)(C)(ii) of the Act, and provides that the failure to comply with these requirements  precludes the ability to invoke the exemption contained in § (b)(1)(C) of the Act (see  2006 Report and Order ¶¶ 13-16); and  C.  The things that must be done in order to comply with the Opt-Out Notice  Requirements for the purposes of the third of the three prongs of the exemption under  § (b)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, and provides that the failure to comply with these requirements  precludes the ability to invoke the exemption contained in § (b)(1)(C) of the Act (see  2006 Report and Order ¶¶ 24-34).  As a result thereof, a sender of a faxed advertisement who fails to comply with the Opt-Out  Notice Requirements cannot claim the exemption from liability contained in § (b)(C)(1) of the  Act.   31.  The Faxes. During July and August 2019, Defendant sent the Faxes via facsimile  transmission from telephone facsimile machines, computers, or other devices to the telephone  lines and facsimile machines of Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class. The Faxes  12  constituted advertisements under the Act and the regulations implementing the Act. Defendant  failed to comply with the Opt-Out Requirements in connection with the Faxes. The Faxes were  transmitted to persons or entities without their prior express invitation or permission and  Defendant is precluded from sustaining the EBR safe harbor as to Plaintiff and other members of  the class because of the failure to comply with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements. By virtue  thereof, Defendant violated the TCPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder by sending  the Faxes via facsimile transmission to Plaintiff and members of the Class.  Plaintiff seeks to  certify a class which includes these Faxes and all others sent during the four years prior to the  filing of this case through the present.   32.  Defendant’s Other Violations. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such  information and belief avers, that during the period preceding four years of the filing of this  Complaint and repeatedly thereafter, Defendant has sent via facsimile transmission from  telephone facsimile machines, computers, or other devices to telephone facsimile machines of  members of the Plaintiff Class other faxes that constitute advertisements under the TCPA and its  implementing regulations that were transmitted to persons or entities without their prior express  invitation or permission and without complying with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements. By  virtue thereof, Defendant violated the TCPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief avers, that Defendant  may be continuing to send unsolicited advertisements via facsimile transmission in violation of  the TCPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and absent intervention by this Court,  will do so in the future.   33.  The TCPA provides a private right of action to bring this action on behalf of  Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class to redress Defendant’s violations of the Act, and provides for  13  statutory damages. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). The Act also provides that injunctive relief is  appropriate. Id.   34.  The TCPA is a strict liability statute, so Defendant is liable to Plaintiff and the  other class members even if their actions were only negligent.   35.  Defendant knew or should have known that (a) Plaintiff and the other class  members had not given prior express invitation or permission for Defendant or anybody else to  fax advertisements about the availability or quality of Defendant’s property, goods or services;  (b) Defendant transmitted or caused to be transmitted the Fax advertisements; (c) the Faxes did  not contain the required Opt-Out Notice; and (d) Defendant’s transmission of unsolicited  advertisements that did not contain the required opt-out notice was unlawful.   36.  Defendant’s actions caused damages to Plaintiff and the other class members.  Receiving Defendant’s junk faxes caused Plaintiff and the other recipients to lose paper and  toner consumed in the printing of Defendant’s faxes. Moreover, Defendant’s faxes occupied  Plaintiff's and the other class members’ telephone lines and fax machines. Defendant’s faxes cost  Plaintiff and the other class members time, as Plaintiff and the other class members and their  employees wasted their time receiving, reviewing, and routing Defendant’s unauthorized faxes.  That time otherwise would have been spent on Plaintiff's and the other class members’ business  or personal activities. Defendant’s faxes intruded into Plaintiff's and other class members’  seclusion and violated their right to privacy, including their interests in being left alone.  Finally,  the injury and property damage sustained by Plaintiff and the other class members from the  sending of Defendant’s advertisements occurred outside of Defendant’s premises.  14 