(Asserted on behalf of Plaintiff and the NJ Sub-Class)  Violation of the New Jersey Fair Credit Reporting Act   N.J. Stat.  56:11-28 et seq.    (Asserted on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act  15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.   12.  On or about April 21, 2016, Plaintiff traveled to a T-Mobile store in Paramus, New  Jersey and spoke with an employee of Defendant to make a general inquiry about the availability  of cell phone plans and rates.     13.  Plaintiff spoke with a store representative at that time, who conducted a credit check  without Mr. Boone’s knowledge, consent, or authorization.   14.  Plaintiff never signed any agreement and never purchased any telephone services  from Defendant.  Plaintiff only subsequently learned that T-Mobile, without authorization to do  so, had performed a hard credit inquiry that appeared on his credit report.    15.  T-Mobile has been willfully and knowingly violating the FCRA and NJ FCRA for  years, and failed to take any steps to correct its errors.   19.  T-Mobile is an established business with access to legal advice through its own  general counsel’s office and outside counsel, yet still continuously and extensively violates the  law even after having been notified of the wrongdoing.   20.  At all times pertinent hereto, Defendant was acting by and through its agents,  servants and/or employees who were acting within the course and scope of their agency or  employment, and under the direct supervision and control of the Defendant.   21.  At all times pertinent hereto, the conduct of the Defendant, as well as that of its  agents, servants and/or employees, was intentional, willful, reckless, and in grossly negligent  disregard for federal and state laws and the rights of the Plaintiff.   22.  Plaintiff has been damaged, and continues to be damaged, in the following ways:  (i) decreased credit score; (ii) denial of credit, loans, financing, financing on less favorable terms  and/or other damages, not yet known to Plaintiff; (iii) invasion and violation of a protected right  as created by Congress in passing the FCRA; and (iv) emotional distress and mental anguish  associated with having incorrect derogatory personal information transmitted about Plaintiff to  other people both known and unknown.   23.  As such, Plaintiff and the Putative Class member are entitled to damages in the  forms set forth below.    25.  Plaintiff asserts his claim in Count Two individually and on behalf of the “NJ Sub- Class,” defined as follows:  All persons within New Jersey who had a hard credit inquiry  performed on his or her credit by Defendant who had not previously  authorized a hard inquiry within the five years prior to the filing of  the Complaint until the date of final judgment in this action.   26.  Numerosity.  The Class and the NJ Sub-Class (collectively, the “Putative Classes”)  are so numerous that the individual joinder of all of its members is impracticable.  While the exact  number and identities of the Putative Classes members are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, and  can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff is informed and believes that the  Putative Classes include thousands of members, which can be ascertained by the records  maintained by Defendant.   27.  Typicality.  Plaintiff and members of the Putative Classes were harmed by the acts  of Defendant in at least the following ways:  Defendant illegally, and without prior authorization,  performed a hard inquiry on Plaintiff and the Putative Classes members’ credit that resulted in a  decrease in Plaintiff and the Putative Class members’ creditworthiness, and their access to credit.   The FCRA and the NJFCRA violations suffered by Plaintiff are typical of those suffered by other  Putative Class members, and T-Mobile treated Plaintiff consistent with other Putative Class  members.   29.  Commonality.  Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the  Putative Classes and predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the  Putative Classes, including but not limited to:  a. Whether Defendant makes hard credit inquiries of consumers without first  obtaining authorization to do so;  b. Whether Defendant’s actions violated the FCRA (and NJ FCRA) by failing to  obtain authorization to make hard credit inquiries;  c. The proper measure of statutory and punitive damages; and  d. The proper form of injunctive and declaratory relief.   30.  This case is maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) because  prosecution of actions by or against individual members of the Putative Classes would result in  inconsistent or varying adjudications and create the risk of incompatible standards of conduct for  Defendant.  Further, adjudication of each individual Putative Class member’s claim as a separate  action would potentially be dispositive of the interest of other individuals not a party to such action,  impeding their ability to protect their interests.   31.  This case is maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because  Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the Putative Classes, so  that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the Putative  Classes as a whole.   33.  Plaintiff intends to provide notice to all members of the Putative Classes to the  extent required by Rule 23.  The name and addresses of the Putative Class members are available  from Defendant’s records.   34.  Plaintiff represents, and is a member of the Putative Classes, consisting of all  persons within the United States who had a hard inquiry performed on his or her credit by  Defendant and such person had not previously authorized a hard inquiry within the five years prior  to the filing of the Complaint.   35.  Plaintiff represents, and is a member of the New Jersey Sub-Class, consisting of all  persons within New Jersey who had a hard inquiry performed on his or her credit by Defendant  and such person had not previously authorized a hard inquiry within the five years prior to the  filing of this Complaint.   37.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   38.  Plaintiff is a “consumer” as defined by the FCRA.   39.  T-Mobile is a “person” as defined by the FCRA.   40.  Defendant’s conduct violates 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1)(B) by obtaining a consumer  report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose by obtaining Plaintiff’s  credit report in connection with a credit transaction in which he did not authorize to be involved  in, and for no other permissible purpose.  15 U.S.C. § 1681b.   41.  The foregoing violation was willful.  T-Mobile knew that it was not authorized to  request Plaintiff’s credit report, and acted in deliberate or reckless disregard of its obligations and  the rights of Plaintiff and other Class members under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b.   42.  Plaintiff and the Improper Authorization Class are entitled to statutory damages of  not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 for each and every one of these violations, pursuant  to 15 U.S.C. § 168ln(a)(l)(A).   44.  Plaintiff and the Class are further entitled to recover their costs and attorneys’ fees,  pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(3).  45.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   46.  Defendant’s conduct violated the NJ FCRA by obtaining a consumer report under  false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose by obtaining Plaintiff’s credit report  in connection with a credit transaction in which he did not authorize to be involved in, and for no  other permissible purpose.  N.J. Stat. 56:11-31(f).   47.  The foregoing violation was willful.  T-Mobile knew that it was not authorized to  request Plaintiff’s credit report, and acted in deliberate or reckless disregard of its obligations and  the rights of Plaintiff and other Class members.   48.  Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to statutory damages of not less than $100 and  not more than $1,000 for each and every one of these violations, pursuant to N.J. Stat. 56:11- 38(a)(1)(a).   49.  Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to punitive damages for these violations, pursuant  to N.J. Stat. 56:11-38(a)(2).  