11.  On February 28, 2020, Plaintiff responded with the words “STOP ZS61” in  an attempt to opt-out of any further text message communications with Defendant.    12.  Despite Plaintiff’s use of Defendant’s preferred opt-out language,  Defendant ignored Plaintiff’s opt-out demand and continued to send Plaintiff further text  messages from multiple numbers.    14.  Defendant’s text messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged  the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling Plaintiff cannabis  products.        15.  The information contained in the text message advertises Defendant’s various  discounts and promotions, which Defendant sends to promote its business.   16.  Defendant sent the subject texts from within this judicial district and, therefore,  Defendant’s violation of the TCPA occurred within this district.  Upon information and belief,  Defendant caused other text messages to be sent to individuals residing within this judicial  district.     17.  Defendant’s texts were not made for an emergency purpose or to collect on  a debt pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B).   18.  Upon information and belief, Defendant does not have a written policy for  maintaining an internal do not call list pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 64.1200(d)(1).   19.  Upon information and belief, Defendant does not inform and train its  personnel engaged in telemarking in the existence and the use of any internal do not call  list pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 64.1200(d)(2).   20.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with her express written  consent to be contacted.   21.  To the extent that Defendant had express consent to contact Plaintiff using an  ATDS, that consent was expressly revoked when Plaintiff responded “STOP”.   22.  Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 2627 Number, and is financially  responsible for phone service to the 2627 Number.    24.  The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that  “[n]o person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential telephone  subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call  registry of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained  by the federal government.   25.  The text messages originated from telephone numbers 833-282-1735, 970- 795-3114, 970-438-0664, and 970-446-3561, all numbers which upon information and  belief are owned and operated by Defendant or on behalf of Defendant.   26.  Defendant’s unsolicited text messages caused Plaintiff actual harm,  including invasion of her privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion,  trespass, and conversion.  Defendant’s text messages also inconvenienced Plaintiff and  caused disruption to her daily life.  27.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on  behalf of herself and all others similarly situated.   29.  Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. Plaintiff  does not know the number of members in the Class, but believes the Class members number  in the several thousands, if not more.  33.  The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If  Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant routinely transmits text messages to telephone numbers  assigned to cellular telephone services is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have  identical claims capable of being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.  38.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Complaint  and incorporates them by reference herein.   39.  The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that  “[n]o person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential telephone  subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry  of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal  government.”   40.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e), provides that § 64.1200(c) and (d) “are applicable to  any person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless  telephone numbers.”1   42.  Any “person who has received more than one telephone call within any 12- month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under  this subsection may” may bring a private action based on a violation of said regulations, which  were promulgated to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone  solicitations to which they object.  47 U.S.C. § 227(c).   43.  Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) by initiating, or causing to be  initiated, telephone solicitations to telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Do Not Call  Registry Class members who registered their respective telephone numbers on the National  Do Not Call Registry, a listing of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations  that is maintained by the federal government.    44.  Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff and the Do Not Call  Registry Class received more than one telephone call in a 12-month period made by or on  behalf of Defendant in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as described above. As a result of  Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class suffered  actual damages and, under section 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), are entitled, inter alia, to receive up to  $500 in damages for such violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.   45.  To the extent Defendant’s misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing,  the Court should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by the members of the Do Not Call Registry Class.  47.  The TCPA provides that any “person who has received more than one  telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the  regulations prescribed under this subsection may” bring a private action based on a violation  of said regulations, which were promulgated to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights  to avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).   48.  Under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d), “[n]o person or entity shall initiate any call for  telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or entity has  instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing  calls made by or on behalf of that person or entity. The procedures instituted must meet certain  minimum standards, including:  (3) Recording, disclosure of do-not-call requests. If a person or entity making a  call for telemarketing purposes (or on whose behalf such a call is made)  receives a request from a residential telephone subscriber not to receive calls  from that person or entity, the person or entity must record the request and  place the subscriber’s name, if provided, and telephone number on the do-not  call list at the time the request is made. Persons or entities making calls for  telemarketing purposes (or on whose behalf such calls are made) must honor  a residential subscriber’s do-not-call request within a reasonable time from the  date such request is made. This period may not exceed thirty days from the  date of such request . . . .  (6) Maintenance of do-not-call lists. A person or entity making calls for  telemarketing purposes must maintain a record of a consumer’s request not to  receive further telemarketing calls. A do-not-call request must be honored for 5  years from the time the request is made.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3), (6).   50.  Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members made requests to  Defendant not to receive calls from Defendant.   51.  Defendant failed to honor Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members’  requests.   52.  Upon information and belief, Defendant has not instituted procedures for  maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing calls made by or on  behalf of their behalf, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d).   53.  Because Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members received more  than one text message in a 12-month period made by or on behalf of Defendant in violation  of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d), as described above, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).   54.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), Plaintiff and the  Internal Do Not Call Class members are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages,  for each and every negligent violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).   55.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), Plaintiff and the  Internal Do Not Call Class members are entitled to an award of $1,500.00 in statutory  damages, for each and every knowing and/or willful violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §  227(c)(5).   56.  Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members also suffered damages in  the form of invasion of privacy.   57.  Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members are also entitled to and  seek injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant’s illegal conduct in the future, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  § 227(c)(5).  PROPOSED CLASS   Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class)   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(2)  (On Behalf of the Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class)  