11.  At all times relevant, plaintiff IRestore was a corporation within the State  of Florida. IRestore is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C.  § 153(39).   12.  Plaintiff created a Yelp Business profile in or around 2013.   14.  Plaintiff has never provided express written consent for Yelp, or any entity  on whose behalf Yelp is operating, to contact it with telemarketing offers on its cellular  telephone using automatic telephone dialing systems or pre-recorded or automated voice  messages.   15.  In addition to placing telephone calls to the cellular telephone number  listed on Plaintiff’s business profile, Yelp made numerous telemarketing phone calls to a  secondary cellular phone line owned by Plaintiff which Plaintiff never provided to Yelp.   16.  Upon information and belief, Yelp uses call information capture  technology to obtain additional contact information, including cellular telephone numbers, of  customers and potential sales leads.   17.  Plaintiff has made several requests that Yelp cease placing telemarketing  calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number(s). Yelp has ignored Plaintiff’s requests to cease  telemarketing phone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone(s).   18.  When Plaintiff answered Yelp’s telemarketing calls, Plaintiff was greeted  by an automated pre-recorded voice message advising Plaintiff to hold while the call was  connected to a Yelp sales representative.   19.  The fact that a pre-recorded message requested that Plaintiff hold while  the call was transferred to a representative indicates that the calls were made using an automatic  telephone dialing system because no person manually dialed the phone as evidenced by the fact  that there was no one on the line when the call was answered.   21.  Several of the complaints received by the FTC complain about Yelp  placing telemarketing phone calls to cellular telephone numbers. For example, certain complaints  stated: “Jenny from yelp called continuously at both my phone numbers (XXX) XXX-7669 and  cell phone (XXX) XXX-7417. I asked her to stop calling but she does again after a few weeks.”  (phone numbers redacted) and “This person, (ERIC) sent me an e-mail last week. I responded  with directions to not contact me again. Today, Eric called me on my do not call cell phone.  Please get them to abide by DO NOT CALL.”    22.  The Federal Communications Commission has received numerous  complaints regarding Yelp’s practices, including complains about unsolicited telemarketing  calls. Exemplar complaints are attached as Exhibit A.    23.  Yelp uses a computer platform designed by Salesforce.com to assist their  sales department in placing and processing telemarketing calls. This platform is connected to a  database that Yelp maintains of customer and potential customer information.   24.  Yelp utilizes their database of customer and potential customer  information to create predictive lists of phone numbers to be called in an effort to maximize the  contact rate and efficiency of Yelp’s sales representatives.   25.  Upon information and belief, the above referenced computer platform is,  or is part of, a system that has the capability to automatically dial telephone numbers that are  stored in Yelp’s databases without human intervention.   26.  The telephone numbers that Defendant, or its agents, placed the  telemarketing phone calls to were assigned to cellular telephone services for which Plaintiff  incurred a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).  27.  Plaintiff incorporates the above factual allegations herein.     28.  Yelp made unsolicited telephone calls to the wireless telephone number of  plaintiff and the other members of the class with prerecorded voices and or using equipment that  had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or  sequential number generator.   29.  These phone calls were made without the prior express written consent of  Plaintiff or the class.   30.  Yelp has therefore violated the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii),  which makes it unlawful for any person within the United States . . . 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 . . .”  As a  result of defendant’s illegal conduct, the members of the class suffered actual damages and,  under section 227(b)(3)(B), are each entitled to, inter alia, a minimum of $500.00 in damages for  each such violation of the TCPA.   31.  Plaintiff and class members are also entitled to and do seek injunctive  relief prohibiting defendant’s violation of the TCPA in the future.  33.  Plaintiff represents and is a member of the Class and Sub-Class.   Excluded from the Class are Defendant and any entities in which Defendant has a controlling  interest, Defendants’ agents and employees, the Judge to whom this action is assigned and any  member of the Judge’s staff and immediate family, and claims for personal injury, wrongful  death and/or emotional distress.   34.  Plaintiff does not know the exact number of members in the Class, but  based upon the size and national scope of Yelp as well as the nature and persistency of the  Telemarketing campaign to plaintiff and the fact that Yelp uses call information capture  technology to obtain cellular telephone numbers, plaintiff reasonably believes that class  members number at minimum in the hundreds if not thousands.   35.  Plaintiff and all members of the class have been harmed by the acts of  defendant.   36.  This Class Action Complaint seeks money damages and injunctive  relief.   37.  The joinder of all class members is impracticable due to the size and  relatively modest value of each individual claim. The disposition of the claims in a class action  will provide substantial benefit the parties and the Court in avoiding a multiplicity of identical  suits. The class can be identified easily through records maintained by Yelp.   39.  As a person who received numerous and repeated telephone calls using  an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, without their prior  express written consent within the meaning of the TCPA, Plaintiff asserts claims that are  typical of the members of the class.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect  the interests of the class, and has no interests which are antagonistic to any member of the  class.   40.  Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims  involving violations of federal and state consumer protection statutes such as the TCPA.   41.  A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.  Class wide relief is essential to compel defendant to comply  with the TCPA.  The interest of class members in individually controlling the prosecution of  separate claims against Defendant is small because the statutory damages in an individual  action for violation of the TCPA are small.  Management of these claims is likely to present  significantly fewer difficulties than are presented in many class claims because the calls at  issue are all automated and the class members, by definition, did not provide the prior express  consent required under the statute to authorize calls to their cellular telephones.  