10.  John Doe Corporations 1-10 initiated prerecorded telemarketing calls to the  residential landline telephone numbers of Plaintiff and the Class to promote Ohio G&E in  violation of the TCPA. Ohio G&E, or one of Ohio G&E’s vendors, hired John Doe Corporations  1-10 to originate new customers, making Ohio G&E liable for their illegal telemarketing  conduct.  2 Ohio G&E has a corporate affiliate, U.S. Gas & Electric, Inc. (“US G&E”), that also does  business as Ohio Gas & Electric. US G&E is the entity that provides natural gas service in Ohio  under the “Ohio Gas & Electric” name, while Defendant Energy Services Providers, Inc.  provides electric services under the “Ohio Gas & Electric” name.  4   11.  The TCPA prohibits companies, such as Ohio G&E, from placing calls using an  artificial or prerecorded voice (“prerecorded calls”) when making calls to residential landline  telephones without first obtaining consent.   12.  Ohio G&E has violated, and continues to violate, the TCPA and its implementing  regulations by placing, or having placed on its behalf, prerecorded calls to residential landline  telephone subscribers (a) who have not expressly consented to receiving such calls and/or (b)  who have expressly requested not to receive such calls.   13.  As Congress recognized:  Many customers are outraged over the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance calls to  their homes from telemarketers…. Banning such automated or prerecorded  telephone calls to the home, except when the receiving party consents to receiving  the call or when such calls are necessary in an emergency situation affecting the  health and safety of the consumer, is the only effective means of protecting  telephone consumers from this nuisance and privacy invasion.3   14.  Senator Larry Pressler, one of the original drafters of the TCPA, explained the  need for the TCPA by observing that “[u]nlike other communications media, the telephone  commands our instan[t] attention. Junk mail can be thrown away. Television commercials can be  turned off. The telephone demands to be answered.” 137 Cong. Rec. S18785 (daily ed. Nov. 27,  1991) (statement of Sen. Pressler).   15.  As explained by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”)4, the TCPA  requires “prior express written consent for all autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing calls to  wireless numbers and residential lines.” In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the  3 Pub. L. No. 102-243 § 2(6, 12) (1991), codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227.  4 The FCC is the federal agency given the administrative authority to interpret and enforce the  TCPA. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2).  5  Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG No. 02-278, FCC 12-21, 27 FCC Rcd. 1830 ¶ 2  (Feb. 15, 2012).   16.  Yet, in violation of this rule, Defendants fail to obtain any prior express written  consent to place prerecorded calls to consumers’ residential landline telephone numbers.   17.  In response to the liability risk associated with the TCPA, numerous  commercially available services exist to help companies that call others using prerecorded  voices, such as Defendants, to identify telephone numbers that are on the Nation Do Not Call  Registry or are cellular subscribers and otherwise ensure that calls are only made to consenting  consumers. For instance, companies such as Infutor, Nextmark List, and Contact Center  Compliance advertise their ability to instantly identify and flag disconnected telephone numbers  from cellular telephone number data lists on a recurring basis (such as weekly or monthly). This  type of service can identify disconnected numbers before they are recycled, thereby alerting  mobile marketers that any consent associated with those telephone numbers has been terminated.   18.  Despite the FCC’s ruling, the industry guidelines, and the commercial availability  of programs that help callers filter out non-consenting numbers, Defendants fail to take the  necessary steps to ensure that their prerecorded calls are placed only to consenting recipients.   19.  Rather, in an effort to increase revenue and skirt additional costs, Defendants  simply ignore the law when contacting individuals via prerecorded calls to their residential  landline telephones.   20.  Defendants know, or should know, that their prerecorded calls are placed to non- consenting residential landline telephone subscribers. Ultimately, Defendants are responsible for  verifying telephone number ownership and obtaining consent before placing prerecorded calls to  residential landline telephone subscribers.  6   21.  Defendants were, and are, aware that their unsolicited prerecorded calls were, and  are, unauthorized as they fail to obtain prior express written consent before placing those calls to  consumers. Ultimately, consumers are forced to bear the costs of receiving these unsolicited  prerecorded calls.   22.  By placing the unsolicited prerecorded calls at issue in this Complaint,  Defendants caused Plaintiff and the other members of the Class actual harm and cognizable legal  injury. This includes the aggravation, nuisance, and invasions of privacy that result from the  sending and receipt of such prerecorded calls, a loss of value realized for the monies consumers  paid to their carriers for the receipt of such prerecorded calls, and a loss of the use and enjoyment  of their phones, including wear and tear to the related data, memory, software, hardware, and  battery components, among other harms.   23.  In response to Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff filed this action seeking (a)  an injunction requiring Defendants to cease all unsolicited prerecorded calling activities and, (b)  an award of actual or statutory damages to the members of the Class under the TCPA, together  with costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.  24.  Plaintiff Lindenbaum is the registered account owner and regular user of a  residential landline telephone number 216-xxx-5581.   25.  The 5581 telephone number has been registered on the National Do Not Call  Registry since August 31, 2003.   26.  On February 16, 2021 at 7:10 pm, Plaintiff received an unsolicited, pre-recorded  phone call on her residential landline telephone from, or on behalf, of Defendants.  7   27.  The February 16, 2021 call used a pre-recorded voice and stated that the call was  being made to alert Plaintiff that she had been overcharged by her energy supplier.   28.  Plaintiff pressed “1” to speak with a live person and was connected with one of  John Doe Corporation 1’s telephone representatives.   29.  John Doe Corporation 1’s phone representative asked Plaintiff for her billing  account number and asked if Plaintiff received any government assistance with her utility bill  and confirmed that Defendant Ohio G&E would be the energy supplier.   30.  Solely to determine who was behind this unwarranted robocall, Plaintiff  continued the call, answering questions from John Doe Corporation 1’s phone representative,  and proceeded all the way to the point of third-party verification of her intent to contract with  Ohio G&E for electric services.5 She ultimately declined to switch her electric service to Ohio  58.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)  and 23(b)(3) on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and seeks certification of the  following Class:  Robocall Residential Landline Telephone No Consent Class: All persons in  the United States who from a date four years prior to the filing of the initial  complaint to the present: (1) Defendants (or a third person acting on behalf of  Defendants) called; (2) on the person’s residential landline telephone number  using an artificial or prerecorded voice; and (3) for whom Defendants lacked prior  express consent to call that residential landline telephone number at the time the  call was made.   59.  The following people are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or Magistrate  presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendants, Defendants’  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendants or their  parents have a controlling interest, and its current or former employees, officers and directors;  (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4)  persons whose claims in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise  released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendants’ counsel; and (6) the legal representatives,  successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons.   60.  Plaintiff anticipates the need to amend the definition of the Class following class  discovery, including discovery revealing the manner by which Defendants claim they obtained  prior express consent to place autodialed and/or pre-recorded calls to the Plaintiff.   61.  Numerosity: The exact number of members within the Class is unknown and not  available to Plaintiff at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On  information and belief, Defendants have placed unsolicited calls to hundreds or thousands of  13  consumers who fall into the definition of the Class. Members of the Class can be identified  through Defendants’ records.   62.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the  Class in that Plaintiff and the members of the Class sustained damages arising out of Defendants’  uniform wrongful conduct, namely their unauthorized telemarketing calls. Plaintiff is a member  of the Class defined herein, and if Plaintiff is able to recover for the claims set forth in this  Complaint, then the other members of the Class will have a right to recover as well.   63.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Class and has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex  class actions, including class actions under the TCPA and related statutes. Plaintiff has no  conflicts with, or interests antagonistic to, those of the Class, and Defendants have no defenses  unique to Plaintiff.   64.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff and the Class, and those questions predominate over any  questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common questions for the Class  include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:  a) Whether John Doe Corporation 1 made calls with a prerecorded message;  b) Whether Defendants’ conduct constitutes a violation of the TCPA;  c) Whether Ohio G&E is liable for the conduct of their third-party vendors;  d) Whether members of the Robocall Residential Landline No Consent Class are entitled to  statutory and treble damages based on the willfulness of Defendants’ conduct;  e) Whether Defendants obtained prior express consent to contact any class members;  f) Whether Defendants’ calls constitute telemarketing or were dual purpose messages; and  14  g) To the extent Defendants’ conduct does not constitute telemarketing, whether Defendants  obtained prior express oral consent to contact any class members.   65.  Superiority: This case is also appropriate for class certification because class  proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of  this controversy. Joinder of all parties is impracticable, and the damages suffered by the  individual members of the Class will likely be relatively small, especially given the burden and  expense of individual prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendants’ actions.  Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the individual members of the Class to obtain effective  relief from Defendants’ misconduct. Even if members of the Class could sustain such individual  litigation, it would still not be preferable to a class action. Individual litigation would increase  the delay and expense to all parties due to the complex legal and factual controversies presented  in this Complaint. By contrast, a class action presents far fewer management difficulties and  provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision  by a single Court. Economies of time, effort and expense will be fostered and uniformity of  decisions ensured.   66.  Adequate notice can be given to the members of the Class directly using  information maintained in Defendants’ records or through notice by publication.  67.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.  15   68.  Defendants and/or their agents placed unsolicited calls to residential landline  telephone numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Robocall Residential  Landline No Consent Class.   69.  These calls were made without the prior express written consent of the Plaintiff  and the other members of the Robocall Residential Landline No Consent Class to receive such  calls.   70.  These calls, including those to Plaintiff, utilized an artificial or prerecorded voice.   71.  To the extent prior written express consent was required, Defendants failed to  obtain prior written express consent that disclosed to the consumer that agreeing to receive pre- recorded calls was not a condition of purchase or use of any goods or service. Neither was oral  consent provided.   72.  To the extent Ohio G&E’s agent, John Doe Corporations 1-10, placed the calls at  issue, Ohio G&E’s agent acted with actual or apparent authority and/or in accordance with a  contract between Ohio G&E and its agent, John Doe Corporations 1-10. Ohio G&E’s agent acted  under Ohio G&E’s control and for Ohio G&E’s benefit and/or with Ohio G&E’s knowledge and  approval. Ohio G&E controlled its agent and knew about, and received the benefits of, the agent’s  calling activities. Ohio G&E ratified the agent’s conduct with respect to the placing of such calls.   73.  Defendants have, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B). As a result of  Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Robocall Residential Landline No  Consent Class are each entitled to, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), a minimum of $500.00 in  damages for each violation of such act.   74.  In the event that the Court determines that Defendants’ conduct was willfull and  knowing, it may, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory damages  16  recoverable by Plaintiff and the other members of the Robocall Residential Landline No Consent  Class.  8.  Ohio G&E is a certified supplier in the Ohio Energy Choice program, offering  electricity and natural gas to consumers in Ohio.2   9.  In recent years, energy suppliers such as Ohio G&E have turned to unsolicited  telemarketing as a way to increase their customer base. Widespread telemarketing is a primary  method by which Ohio G&E solicits new customers.   Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Robocall Residential Landline No Consent Class)  