15.  Defendants are companies that sell auto protection plans.     16.  To increase the reach of their efforts, Defendants and/or their authorized sales agents  repeatedly called and sent prerecorded voice messages to thousands or possibly tens of thousands of  cell phones at a time.     17.  When the Class members answered their cell phones or listened to their messages  expecting to hear from a real person, Defendants pulled a bait and switch by playing a prerecorded  voice message.     18.  Unfortunately, Defendants failed to obtain consent from Plaintiff and the Class before  bombarding their cell phones with these illegal voice recordings.  20.  Plaintiff answered the call and it was a prerecorded voice informing Plaintiff that her car  warranty had expired and that she should “press one” to renew her auto warranty.   21.  Plaintiff pressed one and was connected with Defendant Affordable’s live telemarketing  agent named Kayla.   22.  Kayla said that she was selling auto protection plans from Defendant Sunpath and  Defendant Northcoast.   23.  Plaintiff was then transferred to Samantha, who asked plaintiff for relevant details such as  the make, model, and mileage of her car.   24.  Samantha said that Plaintiff’s five-year warranty was expired and the only day to accept  or decline to purchase a new protection plan was today.     25.  Samantha said that the auto plan would cover the car for five years or up to 101,000  miles.     26.  Plaintiff purchased and received a plan from Defendants.   27.  Plaintiff never consented to receive calls from Defendants.  Plaintiff has no relationship  with Defendants.   28.  Defendants’ calls violated Plaintiff’s statutory rights under the TCPA.  29.  Class Definition: Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure  23(b)(3) on behalf of itself and a class defined as follows:  No Consent Class.  All persons in the United States who: (1) from the last 4  years to present (2) received at least one telephone call; (3) on his or her cellular  telephone; (4) that was called using an autodialer and/or played a prerecorded  voice message; (5) for the purpose of performing or selling Defendants’  services; (6) where Defendants did not have any record of prior express written  consent to place such call at the time it was made.   31.  Numerosity: The exact number of the Class members is unknown and not available to  Plaintiff, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and belief, Defendants  placed telephone calls to thousands of consumers who fall into the definition of the Class. Members of  the Class can be identified through Defendants’ records.   32.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the Class, in  that Plaintiff and the Class members sustained damages arising out of Defendants’ uniform wrongful  conduct and unsolicited telephone calls.   33.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the  interests of the other members of the Class. Plaintiff’s claims are made in a representative capacity on  behalf of the other members of the Class. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to the interests of the  other members of the proposed Class and is subject to no unique defenses. Plaintiff has retained  competent counsel to prosecute the case on behalf of Plaintiff and the proposed Class.  Plaintiff and her  counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the members of the Class and  have the financial resources to do so.    34.  Policies Generally Applicable to the Class: This class action is appropriate for  certification because Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  Class as a whole, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible  standards of conduct toward the Class members and making final injunctive relief appropriate with  respect to the Class as a whole. Defendants’ practices challenged herein apply to and affect the Class  members uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinge on Defendants’ conduct with  respect to the Class as a whole, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff.   36.  Superiority: Plaintiff’s case is also appropriate for class certification because class  proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of  plaintiff’s controversy as joinder of all parties is impracticable. 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, because individual litigation would increase the delay and expense to all  parties due to the complex legal and factual controversies presented in Plaintiff’s 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.  37.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   38.  Defendants and/or its agent placed telephone calls to Plaintiff’s and the Class members’  cellular telephones without having their prior express written consent to do so.   39.  Defendants’ calls were made for a commercial purpose.   40.  Defendants played a prerecorded voice message to the cell phones of Plaintiff and the  Class members as proscribed by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   42.  Defendants and/or its agent made the violating calls “willfully” and/or “knowingly” under  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).   43.  If the court finds that Defendants willfully and/or knowingly violated this subsection, the  court may increase the civil fine from $500 to $1500 per violation under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).  Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  