29.  Within the four years preceding the filing of this action, Adams Toyota and/or its  agents utilized an ATDS to send text messages to the wireless telephone numbers of Plaintiff and  the putative class members.    30.  Specifically, the hardware and software used by Adams Toyota and/or its agents  has the capacity to generate and store random numbers, or store lists of telephone numbers, and to  dial those numbers, en masse, in an automated fashion without human intervention.    31.  Plaintiff and the putative class never provided prior express consent, in writing or  otherwise, for Adams Toyota to send autodialed, advertising, and/or telemarketing text messages  to their cellular telephone numbers.    32.  Adams Toyota (i) requires consumers or businesses to provide their telephone  numbers as a condition of providing goods and services, (ii) does not advise consumers or  businesses it intends to send autodialed, advertising, and/or telemarketing text messages to their  cellular telephone number, (iii) does not obtain prior express consent, written or otherwise, to send  autodialed, advertising, and/or telemarketing text messages to the consumer’s or business’s  cellular telephone number.   33.  When Adams Toyota obtains the cellular telephone number of a consumer or  business, it adds it to a stored list of numbers to which Adams Toyota and/or its agents repeatedly  send autodialed, advertising, and/or telemarketing text messages.    35.  The equipment employed by Adams Toyota and/or its agents not only has the  capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number  generator (and to dial such numbers), but was programmed to sequentially or randomly access  stored telephone numbers to automatically send text messages to those numbers.   36.  The text messages sent by Adams Toyota to Plaintiff and the putative class were  made for a commercial purpose in that they contain its brand name “Adams Toyota”, its logo,  and/or a hyperlink to a website soliciting online reviews of Adams Toyota.    37.  Adams Toyota’s text messages are advertisements and/or constitute telemarketing  as defined by the TCPA.      38.  Not only does Adams Toyota fail to obtain prior express consent before sending  such text messages, Adams Toyota’s text messages do not provide a way of opting out of future  text messages.    39.  Adams Toyota is aware that the above-described text messages are being sent to  consumers and businesses without their prior express consent, but Adams Toyota willfully  continues to send them anyways.   41.  At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff Layden has paid a third-party provider for  cellular telephone service and cellular data service on his personal cellular telephone, ending in  “1734”.   42.  Plaintiff Layden took his vehicle to Adams Toyota to be serviced.     44.  On April 27, 2017, and then again on July 31, 2017, Adams Toyota and/or its agents  caused text messages to be sent, automatically and without human intervention, to Plaintiff’s cell  phone.  The text messages contained its brand name “Adams Toyota”, its logo, and hyperlinks  which, if followed, directed to a website soliciting online reviews of Adams Toyota.    45.  The text messages sent by Adams Toyota to Plaintiff were made for a commercial  purpose and are advertisements and/or constitute telemarketing as defined by the TCPA.      46.  Adams Toyota did not provided Plaintiff with notice that it intended to send  multiple autodialed, advertising, and/or telemarketing text messages to his cell phone; and Plaintiff  never provided express consent in writing, or otherwise, for Adams Toyota to send such text  messages to his cell phone.    47.  Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint,  including all subparagraphs thereof.   48.  As to Count I for violation of the TPCA (the “TCPA Class”), Plaintiff brings this  action on behalf of himself and on behalf of a putative class defined as:  All persons and entities within the United States to whom Adams  Toyota (or a third party on Adams Toyota’s behalf) sent a text  message to their cellular or wireless telephone, containing an image  with Adam Toyota’s brand name or logo, and/or a hyperlink  containing “rvw” or directing to a website soliciting reviews for  Adams Toyota, within the four years predating the filing of this  Complaint.   50.  Numerosity – Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1).  Plaintiff does not know how many  members are in the putative class, but believes them to be in the thousands, or tens of thousands.   On information and belief, the number of class members is so numerous that their individual  joinder is impracticable.  The precise number of putative class members and their phone numbers  can be obtained from information and records in the possession and control of Adams Toyota or  third parties acting on Adams Toyota’s behalf.    52.  Typicality – Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3).  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims  of the putative class members he seeks to represent.  The factual and legal bases of Adams Toyota’s  liability to Plaintiff are the same for all putative class members, i.e., Adams Toyota violated the  TCPA by using an automatic telephone dialing system to send advertising and/or telemarketing  text messages without obtaining prior express written consent in writing or otherwise.   54.  Superiority – Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).  A class action is superior to all other  available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.  The damages or other  financial detriment suffered by individual class members is small compared with the burden and  expense that would be entailed by individual litigation of their claims against Adams Toyota.  It  would thus be virtually impossible for class members, on an individual basis, to obtain effective  redress for the wrongs done them.  Furthermore, even if class members could afford such  individualized litigation, the court system could not.  Individualized litigation would create the  danger of inconsistent or contradictory judgments arising from the same set of facts. Individualized  litigation would also increase the delay and expense to all parties and the court system from the  issues raised by this action.  By contrast, the class action device provides the benefits of  adjudication of these issues in a single proceeding, economies of scale, and comprehensive  supervision by a single court, and presents no unusual management difficulties under the  circumstances here.   55.  Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference all paragraphs of this Complaint,  including all subparagraphs thereof.   56.  Adams Toyota and/or its agents employed an ATDS to send non-emergency text  messages, automatically and without human intervention, to the cellular or wireless telephones of  Plaintiff and the members of TCPA Class.   57.  Adams Toyota requested, and obtained, the cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff  and the TCPA Class members as a condition to providing its goods and services.    59.  As a result of Adams Toyota’s conduct and pursuant to Section 227(b)(3) of the  TCPA, Plaintiff and the TCPA Class were harmed and are entitled to a minimum of $500.00 in  damages for each unlawful text message.    60.  Plaintiff and the TCPA Class are also entitled to an injunction against future calls.   47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).   61.  Adams Toyota’s text messages were willful and knowing, in that Adams Toyota  knew it was obtaining and storing cellular telephone numbers and employing equipment that would  send autodialed, advertising, and/or telemarketing text messages to such numbers; Adams Toyota  intended that such equipment would in fact send automated text messages containing its brand  name “Adams Toyota”, its logo, and/or a hyperlink to a website soliciting online reviews; and  Adams Toyota knew that it had not obtained prior express consent in writing, or otherwise, from  Plaintiff or any of the putative class member to send such text messages.   62.  “Willful … means that the violator knew that he was doing the act in question. …  A violator need not know that his action or inaction constitutes a violation; ignorance of the law is  not a defense or mitigating circumstance.”  In re Dynasty Mtg., L.L.C., 22 FCC Rcd. 9453, 9470  & fn. 86 (May 14, 2007) (citations omitted).   63.  Accordingly, the Court should treble the amount of statutory damages available to  Plaintiff and the TCPA Class and award $1,500 for each text message sent in violation of the  VIOLATIONS OF THE TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii)  