12. Defendant Mvelopes created a mobile personal finance application that offers consumers a number of personal financial management options, including budgeting their money, receiving financial advice and coaching, and receiving a customized financial program.  13. In an effort to increase the App’s download numbers, user base, and ultimately Defendant’s revenues, Defendant created and embarked upon a massive telemarketing campaign to promote the App.  15. Defendant sends these automated text messages to consumers’ telephones despite never obtaining the recipients’ prior express written consent to do so.  16. Upon calling the number included in the advertising text message, consumers are confronted with a prerecorded message promoting its financial programs.  17. Defendant’s goal in sending these text message advertisements extends beyond the offer of a free consultation. Rather, the free consultation serves as an inroad to promoting the App to thousands of additional users that wish to further their financial planning goals and ambitions.  19. These text messages constitute commercial advertising and telemarketing as contemplated by the TCPA.  20. Defendant made these text message calls to Plaintiff and putative Class members using equipment that had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers en masse. The system(s) also had the capacity to send text messages to cellular telephones without human intervention. The messages sent by Defendant were automated, prewritten, and virtually identical each time they were sent.  21. Accordingly, Defendant was required to obtain prior express written consent before sending the text messages advertisements to thousands of consumers’ cellular telephones. 22. On April 20, 2017 at 12:18 p.m., Plaintiff received the text message promoting Mvelopes’s services on his cellular telephone from SMS shortcode 743-03. See Figure 1.  23. Upon information and belief, the telephone number displayed within the text message, 855-510-8682, connects a consumer to an agent of Mvelopes when called.  24. The telephone number 855-510-8682 and SMS shortcode 743-03 at all relevant times are or were owned, operated, and/or otherwise utilized by Mvelopes to send text messages and/or receive inbound telephone calls.  26. Defendant’s intrusive text messages adversely affected Plaintiff’s right to privacy. Defendant was and is aware that the above-described text message calls were being made on a widespread basis and that the text message calls were being made to consumers who had not consented to receive them. 27. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, defined as follows: All persons in the United States who from a date four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this case through the present: (1) Defendant (or a third person acting on behalf of Defendant) sent text messages, (2) to the person’s cellular telephone number, and (3) without a record demonstrating prior express written consent.  28. The following individuals are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, its subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or their parents have a controlling interest and their current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) Plaintiff’s attorneys; (4) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons; and (6) persons whose claims against Defendant has been fully and finally adjudicated and/or released. Plaintiff anticipates the need to amend the Class definitions following appropriate discovery.  30. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the Class, in that Plaintiff and the members of the Class have sustained damages arising out of Defendant’s uniform wrongful conduct and unsolicited telephone calls.  31. Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class actions. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendant has no defenses unique to Plaintiff.  32. Policies Generally Applicable to the Class: This class action is appropriate for certification because Defendant has 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’s members, and making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole. Defendant’s practices challenged herein apply to and affect the Class’s members uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinges on Defendant’s conduct with respect to the Class as a whole, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff.  34. Superiority: This case is also appropriate for class certification because class proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy given that 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 Defendant’s actions. Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the individual members of the Class to obtain effective relief from Defendant’s 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 this 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. 36. As described in detail above, Defendant made unauthorized and unwanted text message calls to Plaintiff’s and the Class’s cellular telephones without their prior express consent.  37. Defendant made unauthorized commercial text message calls to the cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and the Class using equipment that had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator, and/or receive and store lists of telephone numbers, and to dial such numbers en masse.  38. Defendant utilized equipment that made the text message calls to Plaintiff and other members of the putative Class simultaneously and without human intervention.  39. By making unwanted and unauthorized text message calls to Plaintiff’s and members of the Class’s cellular telephones without prior express consent, and by utilizing an ATDS, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).  40. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the putative Class suffered actual damages and have also had their rights to privacy adversely impacted. Plaintiff and the Class are therefore entitled to, among other things, a minimum of $500 in statutory damages for each such violation under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).  41. Because Defendant’s misconduct was willful and knowing, the Court should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by the Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class.  Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227 (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class) 