10. This unsolicited marketing text message received read:  This T-Mobile Tuesday, Score a free 6” Oven Roasted  Chicken sub at SUBWAY, just for being w/ T-Mobile.  Ltd supplies. Get app for details:    11. Additionally, the text message references the web link “t-mo.co”.   12. Upon information and belief, when consumers click on the web link http://t- mo.co/ around the time of receipt of the text message, the consumers would  be directed to a webpage for T-Mobile that, inter alia, advertises the “T- Mobile App” and “T-Mobile Tuesdays.”     30. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of Plaintiff and on behalf of all others  similarly situated.    31. Plaintiff represents, and is a member of the class (the “Class”), consisting of:  All persons within the United States who received any  text message from Defendant or its agent/s and/or  employee/s, which was substantially similar or identical  to the text messages alleged in Paragraph 10 of the  Complaint, to said person’s cellular telephone made  through the use of any automatic telephone dialing  system, within the four years prior to the filing of this  Complaint.   32. Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class.   Plaintiff does not know the number of members in the Class, but believe the  members of the Class number in the tens of thousands, if not more.  Thus,  this matter should be certified as a Class action to assist in the expeditious  litigation of this matter.   33. Plaintiff and members of the Class were harmed by the acts of Defendant in  at least the following ways: Defendant, either directly or through its agent(s),  illegally contacted Plaintiff and the members of the Class via their cellular  telephones by using an ATDS for marketing purposes, thereby causing  Plaintiff and the Class members to incur certain cellular telephone charges or  reduce cellular telephone time for which Plaintiffs and the members of the  Class previously paid, and invading the privacy of said Plaintiff and the  members of the Class.  Plaintiff and the members of the Class were damaged  thereby.   47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs of this  Complaint as though fully stated herein.   48. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and  multiple knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including but not  limited to each and every one of the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C.       § 227, et seq.   49. As a result of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C.      § 227, et seq., Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to an award of $1,500.00 in  statutory damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.          § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).   50. Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct in the future.  9. On or about September 3, 2016, Subway sent a text message to Fishman’s  cellular telephone number ending in “3728,” using an “automatic telephone  dialing system,” (“ATDS”) as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1), and  prohibited by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).    KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE TCPA  47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.   NEGLIGENT VIOLATIONS OF THE TCPA  47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.   THE TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.  • As a result of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1),  Plaintiff seek for Plaintiff and each Class member $500.00 in statutory  damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.                      § 227(b)(3)(B).  • Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A), injunctive relief prohibiting such  conduct in the future.  • Costs of suit.  • Attorneys’ fees pursuant to, inter alia, the common fund doctrine.  • Any other relief the Court may deem just and proper. 