13.  Plaintiff has never purchased an item from Defendant, inquired about Defendant’s  products, provided his contact information to Defendant, or visited Defendant’s website.    15.  At the time Plaintiff received these calls and messages, Plaintiff was the subscriber  and/or sole user of the 9996 Number.    16.   Plaintiff primarily uses the 9996 Number as a personal phone.    17.  The 9996 Number has been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry since  February 20, 2007.   18.  Defendant’s text messages constitute telemarketing, advertising, or solicitations  because they promote Defendant’s business, goods and services.   19.  Plaintiff has never inquired about or purchased any of Defendant’s goods or  services.   20.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant (1) with his contact information,  (2) with the 9996 Number, (3) with his prior express consent to be contacted with text messages  sent using an ATDS, or (4) with his prior express written consent to be contacted by telemarketing  text messages sent using an ATDS.   21.  As demonstrated above, Plaintiff requested multiple times that Defendant stop  contacting the 9996 Number using the “stop” key word provided in the text messages.     22.  Notwithstanding, Plaintiff continued to receive unsolicited text messages from  Defendant.   24.  The failure to stop calling is indicative of Defendant’s failure to implement a  written policy for maintaining a do-not-call list and to train its personnel engaged in telemarketing  on the existence and use of the do-not-call-list.   25.  An ATDS was used to send the text messages to the 9996 Number.    26.  The impersonal and generic nature of Defendant’s text messages demonstrates that  Defendant utilized an ATDS in transmitting the messages. The text messages include no personal  identifiers and are formatted in a generic manner.    27.  The text messages also include instructions on how to respond in manner that the  ATDS will understand. As an example, the text message contains the key words “help” and “stop”  as responses.    29.  A short code is a standard 5-digit code that enabled Defendant to send SMS text  messages en masse, while deceiving recipients that the message was personalized and sent from a  telephone number operated by an individual.   30.  Upon information and belief, Defendant caused similar text messages to be sent to  individuals residing within this judicial district.   31.  Upon information and belief, to place the text messages, Defendant used a software  suite (the “Platform”) that permitted Defendant to transmit bulk SMS text messages.  Systems like  the Platform utilized by Defendant have the capacity to transmit thousands of texts messages per  second and are technologically more sophisticated in their availability to transmit messages than a  traditional smartphone.     32.  The Platform utilized by Defendant is an ATDS because it has the capacity to (1)  store telephone numbers; (2) using a random or sequential number generator.    33.  The Platform utilized by Defendant is also an ATDS because it has the capacity to  (1) produce telephone numbers; (2) using a random or sequential number generator.    34.  For example, the Platform has the capacity to indefinitely store telephone numbers  within a computer database for subsequent dialing.    36.  A packet in the context of SMS transmission is an envelope of data that contains  various instructions and content, including the target cellular telephone number to be dialed, the  sequence in which to dial each number, and wording of the message.  The following is an example  of a typical SMS packet:  SubmitReq:StatusReportReq=true,Destination=0011166500313,Sequence=35722 139,Originator=91157,OriginatorType=3,Body=3:2e:0a11:2f14:2f11:0aDEBIT(p) $1:2e47:0aCHKCARDFOUTSETCROBERTIDUS:0aFornexttransaction:3aReply N:0aForprevious:3aReplyP,BillingRef=,ClientRef=41883049- 1,ProfileId=31174,Operator=31003,Tariff=0,Tag- Program=stdrt,TagChClientID=31174,TagChUsername=corvette_31174,ServiceI d=51437,Interface=xml,   37.  In the context of SMS packet creation, the Platform utilizes a random and/or  sequential number generator to pull and generate telephone numbers from a list of numbers and  transfer those numbers to a separate list for the creation of the packets, and ultimately placement  into each independent SMS packet.    38.  In the context of dialing the numbers, the Platform utilizes a random and/or  sequential number generator to pick and designate the sequence in which to dial the telephone  numbers.  The Platform independently selects the rate and time at which to dial each telephone  numbers and may temporarily store the packets in a queue when the volume exceeds capacity to  deliver them.   39.  The Platform also has the capacity to use its random and/or sequential number  generator to generate random or sequential identification numbers that it assigns to each SMS  packet.   41.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf  of himself and all others similarly situated.   42.  Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the Class defined as follows:  ATDS CLASS: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the  filing of this action: (1) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant’s behalf, (2)  transmitted a text message; (3) using the same type of equipment used to text  message Plaintiff; (4) to said person’s cellular telephone number; (5) where the  purpose of the text message was to encourage the purchase or rental of, or  investment in, Defendant’s property, goods, or services.  DO NOT CALL CLASS: All persons in the United States who from four years  prior to the filing of this action (1) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant’s behalf, (2)  placed more than one text message call within any 12-month period; (3) where the  person’s telephone number that had been listed on the National Do Not Call  Registry for at least thirty days; (4) for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or  rental of, or investment in, Defendant’s property, goods, or services; (5) who did  not purchase or transact business with Defendant during the eighteen (18) months  immediately preceding the date of the first message; and (6) who did not contact  Defendant during the three (3) months immediately preceding the date of the first  message with an inquiry about a product, good, or service offered by Defendant.  Internal Do Not Call Class: All persons within the United States who, within the  four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, (1) Defendant, or anyone on  Defendant’s behalf, (2) placed a text message call, (3) for the purpose of  encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, Defendant’s property,  goods, or services, (4) to said person’s residential telephone number, (5) after the  person had requested to Defendant to not receive any more telephonic  communications from Defendant.   43.  Plaintiff reserves the right to modify the Class definitions as warranted as facts are  learned in further investigation and discovery.    48.  The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If  Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant routinely transmits calls to telephone numbers assigned to cellular  telephone services is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable  of being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.  53.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.    54.  It is a violation of the TCPA 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 … to any telephone number assigned to a … cellular telephone service ….” 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(A)(iii).    55.  It is also a violation of the TCPA regulations promulgated by the FCC to “initiate any  telephone call…using an automatic telephone dialing system…To any telephone number assigned to a  paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common  carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call.”  47 C.F.R. §   56.  Additionally, it is a violation of the TCPA regulations promulgated by the FCC  to “[i]nitiate, or cause to be initiated, any telephone call that includes or introduces an advertisement or  constitutes telemarketing, using an automatic telephone dialing system…other than a call made with the  prior express written consent of the called party or the prior express consent of the called party when  the call is made  …”  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2).    58.  Defendant used an ATDS to make non-emergency telemarketing calls to the cellular  telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class defined below.    59.  These calls were made without regard to whether or not Defendant had first obtained  express written consent from the called party to make such calls.    60.  In fact, Defendant did not have prior express written consent to call the telephones of  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class when its calls were made.    61.  Defendant has, therefore, violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a) of the  TCPA by using an ATDS to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cell phones of Plaintiff and the  other members of the putative Class without their prior express written consent.   62.  Defendant knew that it did not have prior express consent to make these calls and knew,  or should have known, that it was using equipment that at constituted an automatic telephone dialing  system. The violations were therefore willful or knowing.    63.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA, Plaintiff  and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled to a minimum of $500.00  in damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the members of the Class are also entitled to an injunction  against future calls.   64.1200(a)(1)(iii).    72.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-51 as if fully set forth herein.   73.  In pertinent part, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) provides:  No person or entity shall initiate any call for telemarketing purposes to a residential  telephone subscriber unless such person or entity has instituted procedures for  maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing calls made  by or on behalf of that person or entity. The procedures instituted must meet the  following minimum standards:  (1) Written policy. Persons or entities making calls for telemarketing purposes must  have a written policy, available upon demand, for maintaining a do-not-call list.  (2) Training of personnel engaged in telemarketing. Personnel engaged in any  aspect of telemarketing must be informed and trained in the existence and use of  the do-not-call list.   74.  Under 47 C.F.R § 64.1200(e), the rules set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) are  applicable to any person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless  telephone numbers.   75.  Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members made requests to Defendant  not to receive future calls on their cellular telephone numbers from Defendant.   77.  Defendant’s refusal to honor opt-out requests is indicative of Defendant’s failure to  implement a written policy for maintaining a do-not-call list and to train its personnel engaged in  telemarketing on the existence and use of the do-not-call-list.   78.  Thus, Defendant has violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d).   79.  Pursuant to section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA, Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call  Class members are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every  negligent violation.   80.  As a result of Defendant’s knowing or willful conduct, Plaintiff and the Internal Do  Not Call Class members are entitled to an award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages per violation.   81.  Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class members are also entitled to and seek  injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant’s illegal conduct in the future, pursuant to section  227(c)(5).  PROPOSED CLASS   Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Internal Do Not Call Class)   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the ATDS Class)  