14.  Defendant Radius Agent develops software for real estate agents.   15.  One of their software programs, Radius Assist, generates leads for real estate agents by  automatically sending out text messages.   16.  To advertise its software and demonstrate its functionality, Defendant used its software to  automatically text thousands of cellular phones across the country.     18.  On September 28, 2020, Plaintiff received a text on his cell phone ending number in 1146  from Defendant from the phone number (720) 549-4205.   19.  The text message that Plaintiff received said “Hey Terry, I’m Mari with Radius Assist.  We  call and text your old and real-time leads for you,[sic] and increase your conversion rates.  May I send  you info?”   20.  Plaintiff responded to the message and was then solicited further for Defendant’s software.   21.  Plaintiff never consented to be contacted by Defendant and had no knowledge of Defendant  whatsoever prior to receiving the unsolicited text message.    22.  Class Definition: Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure  23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of Plaintiff and a class defined as follows:  Monetary Relief Class.  All persons in the United States who: (1) from  November 9, 2016 to the present; (2) were sent text message(s); (3) on his or  her cellular telephone; (4) promoting the products or services of Radius Agent.   Injunctive Relief Class. All persons who did not give express written consent  prior to receiving texts advertising Defendant’s products or services on their  cellular telephone numbers.   24.  Numerosity: The exact number of the Class members is unknown and not available to  Plaintiff, but it is apparent that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and belief, Defendant  sent text messages to thousands of consumers who fall into the definition of the Class. Members of the  Class can be identified through Defendant’s records.   25.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the Class, in  that Plaintiff and the Class members sustained damages arising out of Defendant’s uniform wrongful  conduct and unsolicited text messages.   26.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the  interests of the other members of the Class. Plaintiff’s claims are made in a representative capacity on  behalf of the other members of the Class. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to the interests of the  other members of the proposed Class and is subject to no unique defenses. Plaintiff has retained  competent counsel to prosecute the case on behalf of Plaintiff and the proposed Class.  Plaintiff and  Plaintiff’s counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the members of the  Class and have the financial resources to do so.    27.  Policies Generally Applicable to the Class: This class action is appropriate for  certification because Defendant have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class  as a whole, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of  conduct toward the Class members and making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the Class  as a whole. Defendant’s practices challenged herein apply to and affect the Class members uniformly,  and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinge on Defendant’s conduct with respect to the Class as a  whole, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff.   30.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   31.  Using sophisticated software that it developed, Defendant sent automated text messages to  Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ cellular telephones without having their prior express written consent  to do so.   32.  Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system as proscribed by 47 U.S.C.  §227(b)(1)(A).   33.  Defendant’s texts were made for a commercial purpose.   34.  As a result of its unlawful conduct, Defendant repeatedly invaded Plaintiff’s and the  Class’s personal privacy, causing them to suffer damages and, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), entitling  them to recover $500 in civil fines for each violation and an injunction requiring Defendant to stop their  illegal texting campaign.   35.  Defendant and/or its agent made the violating texts “willfully” and/or “knowingly” under  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).   36.  If the court finds that Defendant willfully and/or knowingly violated this subsection, the  court may increase the civil fine from $500 to $1500 per violation under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).  37.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   39.  Each of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1)(A)(iii) constitute separate and  cumulative violations of §17200.   40.  Plaintiff is authorized to pursue a private right of action for injunctive relief against  Defendant under §17204.  Unlawful Violation of California Unfair Competition Law  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  