12.  In 1991, Congress enacted the TCPA to regulate the explosive growth of the  telemarketing industry.  In so doing, Congress recognized that “[u]nrestricted telemarketing . . . can  be an intrusive invasion of privacy [.]”  Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. No.  102-243, § 2(5) (1991) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227).    The TCPA prohibits telemarketing calls to numbers listed on the Do Not Call Registry, unless the  caller has the recipient’s signed, written consent   14.  The TCPA and implementing regulations prohibit the initiation of telephone  solicitations to residential telephone subscribers to the Registry.  47 U.S.C. § 227(c); 47 C.F.R.  § 64.1200(c)(2).     15.  A person whose number is on the Registry, and who has received more than one  telephone call within any twelve-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the  TCPA, can sue the violator and seek statutory damages.  47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).   16.  The regulations exempt from liability a caller who has obtained the subscriber’s  signed, written agreement to receive telephone solicitations from the caller.   47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2)(ii).  That agreement must also include the telephone number to which the  calls may be placed.  Id.  The TCPA imposes vicarious liability on third-parties who do not physically dial the calls   17.  Under the TCPA, a seller of a product or service may be vicariously liable for a third- party marketer’s violations of Section 227(c), even if the seller did not physically dial the illegal call,  and even if the seller did not directly control the marketer who did.  In re Joint Pet. filed by Dish  Network, LLC, FCC 13-54 ¶ 37, 2013 WL 193449 (May 9, 2013) (“FCC Ruling”).   18.  A seller is liable under Section 227(c) when it has authorized a telemarketer to market  its goods or services. Id. ¶ 47.   20.  The Plaintiff has previously placed his telephone number, (XXX) XXX-1324 on the  National Do Not Call List, where it has been since March of 2014.   21.  On May 30, 2014 and June 6, 2014, the Plaintiff received telephone calls from  telemarketing representatives calling from Bankers Life.    22.  The caller informed the Plaintiff at the beginning of each call that he was calling from  Bankers Life and informed him that they were calling to offer him Medicare insurance.     23.  At least one of the calls came from (407) 252-9012.   24.  The Plaintiff never consented in any fashion to these telephone calls, and had no  business relationship with this entity.     26.  Plaintiff is not a customer of Defendant and has not provided Defendant with his  personal information or telephone number.     27.  In July of 2010 Bankers Life was fined $1,500,000 by Wisconsin insurance regulators  related to violations of that state’s do-not-call list and home-solicitation rules.  28.  Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil  Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of the following class:  All persons nationwide who, within the Class Period, whose phone numbers had been  registered on the Do Not all Registry for 31 days or longer, and who within the four  years before the filing of the initial Complaint, received more than one telemarketing  call within any twelve-month period from, or on behalf of, the Defendant (the  “Class”).   29.  Alternatively, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the following class: All persons  in Florida who, within the Class Period, had their phone numbers had been registered on the Do Not  all Registry for 31 days or longer, and who within the four years before the filing of the initial  Complaint, received more than one telemarketing call within any twelve-month period from, or on  behalf of, the Defendant (the “Class”).   30.  The following persons are expressly excluded from the Class: (1) Defendant and their  subsidiaries and affiliates; (2) all persons who make a timely election to be excluded from the  proposed Class; (3) governmental entities; and (4) the Court to which this case is assigned and its  staff.   32.  Numerosity: Based upon Defendant’s publicly available phone records and phone  number databases, it is estimated that the Class numbers is potentially in the hundreds of thousands,  and the joinder of all Class members is impracticable.   33.  Common Questions Predominate: The action involves common questions of law  and fact applicable to each Class member that predominate over questions that affect only individual  Class members. Thus, proof of a common set of facts will establish the right to each Class member  to recover. Questions of law and fact common to each Class member include, for example:   a. Whether Bankers Life violated the TCPA by engaging in advertising by  unsolicited telemarketing calls;  b. Whether Bankers Life has any defense(s) to engaging in a telemarketing  campaign to individuals on the National Do Not Call Registry;  c. Whether the Plaintiff and class are entitled to statutory damages as a result  of Bankers Life’s actions.   34.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class because Plaintiff  was illegally solicited by the Defendant during the Class Period. Defendant’s unlawful actions  concern the same business practices described herein irrespective of where they occurred or were  experienced. The injuries of each member of the Class were caused directly by Defendant’s  wrongful conduct. In addition, the factual underpinning of Defendant’s misconduct is common to all  Class members and represents a common thread of misconduct resulting in injury to all members of  the Class. Plaintiff’s claims arise from the same practices and course of conduct that give rise to the  claims of the Class members and a based on the same legal theories.    36.  Superiority: There is no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy other than by  maintenance of this class action. The prosecution of individual remedies by members of the Class  will tend to establish inconsistent standards of conduct for Defendant and result in the impairment of  Class members’ rights and the disposition of their interests through actions to which they are not  parties. Class Action treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute  their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the unnecessary  duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would create. Further, as the  damages suffered by individual members of the Class may be relatively small, the expense and  burden of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for individual members of the  Class to redress the wrongs done to them, while an important public interest will be served by  addressing the matter as a class action. Class treatment of common questions of law and fact would  also be superior to multiple individual actions or piecemeal litigation in that class treatment will  conserve the resources of the Court and the litigants, and will promote consistency and efficiency of  adjudication.   38.  The prerequisites to maintaining a class action pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) are  met as questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting  only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and  efficiently adjudicating the controversy.    39.  Plaintiff and their counsel are unaware of any difficulties that are likely to be  encountered in the management of this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.   40.  Plaintiff is a member of the Class they seeks to represent.  Plaintiff’s claims are  typical of the Class members’ claims. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the  Class in that Plaintiff’s claims are typical and representative of the Class.   41.  There are no unique defenses which may be asserted against Plaintiff individually, as  distinguished from the Class. The claims of Plaintiff are the same as those of the Class.   42.  No conflicts of interest exist between Plaintiff and the other Class members. Plaintiff  has retained counsel that is competent and experienced in complex class action litigation. Plaintiff  and their counsel will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class.   43.  This class action is superior to any other method for the fair and efficient adjudication  of this dispute.  45.  The Defendant violated the TCPA by (a) initiating telephone solicitations to persons  and entities whose telephone numbers were listed on the Do Not Call Registry, or (b) by the fact that  others made those calls on its behalf.  See 47 U.S.C. § 227(c); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2).   46.  The Defendant’s violations were negligent and/or knowing.  47.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in  paragraphs 1 through 43 above as if fully set forth herein.   48.  The TCPA authorizes injunctive relief to prevent further violations of the TCPA.   49.  The Plaintiff respectfully petitions this Court to order the Defendant and their  employees, agents, and all other persons or entities working on their behalf to make these calls to  immediately cease engaging in unsolicited telemarketing in violation of the TCPA.  INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO BAR FUTURE TCPA VIOLATIONS   TCPA Background   VIOLATION OF THE TCPA’S DO NOT CALL PROVISIONS  