13.  Slice markets to consumers using the names of the pizzerias in its network, and  encourages consumers to place orders to these local pizzeria through the Slice app or website.   15.  The pizzerias that join Slice’s network do not maintain control or ownership over  the VOIP phone number that Slice assigns to them, and do not initiate the pre-recorded calls to  consumers.   16.  The pre-recorded solicitation calls from Slice advertise the benefits of Slice,  encouraging the recipient of the prerecorded phone call to download and place an order using the  Slice app.    17.  If a consumer places an order using the Slice app, Slice earns $1.95 for that, and  each subsequent order.   18.  When a consumer calls back a Slice VOIP phone number that they were called  on, such as 708-572-3368, they hear a prerecorded message that offers an incentive to place an  order using the Slice app, and that offers to send a text message to consumers’ cellular phones  with a link to the Slice app. The message states:  “…to save $3 by ordering on the Slice app, press ‘1’ and we’ll send you a text message  with your code. To continue to order by phone, please press ‘2.’”   19.  If a consumer presses “1,” they receive the following text message:   20.  The URL in the text message from Slice leads to  https://slicelife.com/?shortlink=IVR&pid=Twilio&c=IVR_app_upsell. From this URL, a  consumer can download the Slice app, or order pizza from Slice’s website.   22.  On March 4, 2019 at 11:24 AM, Plaintiff Nikrothanond received a prerecorded  call from Defendant using phone number 708-572-3368.   23.  The prerecorded message that Plaintiff heard solicited Plaintiff to order food  through Slice.    24.  Prior to receiving the message, Plaintiff had not heard of Slice and had never  downloaded the Slice app.    25.  Phone number 708-572-3368 is the number Slice assigned to Al’s Pizzeria.5   26.  Plaintiff has never ordered pizza from Al’s Pizzeria or any other pizzeria through  Slice, and has never provided his prior written express to Al Pizzeria or to Slice to receive pre- recorded calls.    27.  Seeking redress for these injuries, Nikrothanond, on behalf of himself and a Class  of similarly situated individuals, brings suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47  U.S.C. § 227, et seq., which prohibits prerecorded telephone calls to consumer telephones.  29.  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 its 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 have been fully and finally adjudicated and/or  released. Plaintiff anticipates the need to amend the Class definitions following appropriate  discovery.   30.  Numerosity: On information and belief, there are hundreds, if not thousands of  members of the Class such that joinder of all members is impracticable.   31.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff and the Class, and those questions predominate over any  questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common questions for the Class  include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:  (a) whether Defendant placed calls using a prerecorded message to Plaintiff and  the members of the Class;  (b) whether Defendant placed calls using a prerecorded message to Plaintiff and  members of the Class without first obtaining prior express written consent to  make the calls;   (c) whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of the TCPA; and   (d) whether members of the Class are entitled to treble damages based on the  willfulness of Defendant’s conduct.   33.  Appropriateness: This class action is also appropriate for certification because  Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class and as a  whole, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards  of conduct toward the members of the Class and making final class-wide injunctive relief  appropriate. Defendant’s business practices apply to and affect the members of the Class  uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinges on Defendant’s conduct with  respect to the Class as wholes, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff. Additionally, the  damages suffered by individual members of the Class will likely be small relative to the burden  and expense of individual prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendant’s  actions. Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the members of the Class to obtain effective  relief from Defendant’s misconduct on an individual basis. A class action provides the benefits  of single adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.   34.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference herein.   35.  Defendant and/or its agents made unwanted telephone calls to telephone numbers  belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class using a prerecorded message.    36.  These telephone calls were made en masse without the consent of the Plaintiff and  the other members of the Class to receive such telephone calls.   38.  Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1). As a result of  Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Prerecorded No Consent Class are  each entitled to between $500 and $1,500 for each and every call.  Class Treatment Is Appropriate for Plaintiff’s TCPA Claim   Slice Places Pre-recorded Solicitation Calls to Consumers Without Proper Consent   Slice Called Plaintiff Using a Prerecorded Message Without Plaintiff’s Consent   Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Prerecorded No Consent Class)  