10.  In addition, the written agreement must include a clear and conspicuous  disclosure informing the signer that:  By executing the agreement, such person authorizes the seller to deliver or cause  to be delivered to the signatory telemarketing calls using an automatic telephone  dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice;    § 64.1200(f)(8)(i)(A)  and  The person is not required to sign the agreement (directly or indirectly), or agree  to enter into such an agreement as a condition of purchasing any property, goods,  or services.   § 64.1200(f)(8)(i)(B)    11.  The 2015 TCPA Order notes that the text and legislative history of the TCPA  revealed “Congress’s intent to give the Commission broad authority to enforce the protections  from unwanted robocalls as new technologies emerge.”  ¶ 113  Defendant Violated the TCPA   14.  At no time did Plaintiff NGUYEN consent to receiving any kind of marketing  calls from Defendant.   15.  This unsolicited robocall was sent to Plaintiff NGUYEN’s cellular phone through  an automated telephone dialing system for the sole purpose of promoting Defendant’s hotels.   17.  Even if the calls to Plaintiff NGUYEN were not made with automated telephone  dialing system, she knows from direct experience that that Defendant was making the calls with  an artificial or prerecord voice, thus satisfying the requirements of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   18.  Defendant placed similar unsolicited marketing calls (and/or text messages) using  an automated telephone dialing system to many other similarly situated persons, who likewise  never consented to receiving them.    19.  Plaintiff NGUYEN seeks to represent a class consisting of:   All persons in the United States who, beginning four years prior to  the filing of this action, received unsolicited robocalls and/or text  messages to their cellular phones from Defendant through an  automated telephone dialing system or with an artificial or  prerecorded voice, without providing Defendant with their prior  express consent. (the “Class”)   20.  The proposed Class excludes current and former officers and directors of  Defendant, members of the immediate families of the officers and directors of Defendant,  Defendant’s legal representatives, heirs, successors, assigns, and any entity in which it has or has  had a controlling interest, and the judicial officer to whom this lawsuit is assigned.   21.  Plaintiff reserves the right to revise the Class definition based on facts learned in  the course of litigating this matter.   23.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class as all  members of the Class are similarly affected by Defendant’s wrongful conduct.   24.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the  Class because Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the other members of the Class.   Plaintiff has retained experienced and competent counsel.   25.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy. Since the damages sustained by individual Class members may  be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it impracticable for the  members of the Class to individually seek redress for the wrongful conduct alleged herein. If  Class treatment of these claims were not available, Defendant would likely be able to persist in  its unlawful conduct with impunity.    27.  The membership of the Class is readily ascertainable from electronic records.   28.   The prosecution of this action as a Class action will reduce the possibility of  repetitious litigation. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty which will be encountered in the  management of this litigation which would preclude its maintenance as a Class action.   29.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy. The damages suffered by any individual class member are too  small to make it economically feasible for an individual class member to prosecute a separate  action, and it is desirable for judicial efficiency to concentrate the litigation of the claims in this  forum. Furthermore, the adjudication of this controversy through a class action will avoid the  potentially inconsistent and conflicting adjudications of the claims asserted herein.    30.  The prerequisites to maintaining a class action for injunctive relief or equitable  relief pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) are met, as Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds  generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive or equitable relief  with respect to the Class as a whole.    31.  The prerequisites to maintaining a class action for injunctive relief or equitable  relief pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) are met, as questions of law or fact common to the Class  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and a class action is superior  to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.   33.  Defendant’s conduct is generally applicable to the Class as a whole and Plaintiff  seeks, inter alia, equitable remedies with respect to the Class as a whole. As such, Defendant’s  systematic policies and practices make declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole  appropriate.   34.  Plaintiff NGUYEN realleges and incorporates herein by references the allegations  contained in all preceding paragraphs and further alleges as follows:   35.  Plaintiff NGUYEN brings this claim individually and on behalf of the other  members of the Class for Defendant’s violations of the TCPA.    36.  Defendant directly or vicariously violated the TCPA when it used an automated  telephone dialing system or a prerecorded voice to place unsolicited and unauthorized marketing  calls and/or texts to the cellular phones of Plaintiff and the Class.   37.   The TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), provides:  (1) 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.   39.  Defendant’s violations of the TCPA were willful and knowing.  But it is liable to  Plaintiff and the Class even if they were only negligent.   40.  Defendant should also be enjoined from engaging in similar unlawful conduct in  the future.   41.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to all damages referenced herein,  attorney’s fees, costs, treble damages, injunctive relief, and any other remedies allowed by the  7.  The 2015 TCPA Order also explained the continuing relevance of the TCPA,  especially in connection with wireless consumers:  Month after month, unwanted robocalls and texts, both telemarketing and  informational, top the list of consumer complaints received by the Commission.  The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and our rules empower  consumers to decide which robocalls and text messages they receive, with  heightened protection to wireless consumers, for whom robocalls can be costly  and particularly intrusive… With this Declaratory Ruling and Order, we act to  preserve consumers’ rights to stop unwanted robocalls, including both voice calls  and texts, and thus respond to the many who have let us, other federal agencies,  and states know about their frustration with robocalls.  2015 TCPA Order ¶ 1   8.  The TCPA makes it “unlawful for any person… to make any call (other than a  call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party)  using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice… to any  telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service… or any service for  which the called party is charged for the call…” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   The Telephone Consumer Protection Act   VIOLATION OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  (47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.)  