11.  Defendant Real Value is a wholesale pharmacy supplier offering  prescription pharmaceuticals, including name brand and generic drugs.   12.  On information and belief, Defendant Real Value does business as  Hospital Pharmaceutical Consulting or HPC RX.   13.  Defendant Real Property is licensed in Illinois as an active pharmacy,  an active wholesale drug distributor, and an active controlled substance distributor.   15.  Plaintiff has received at least two of Defendant’s advertisements by  facsimile. A true and correct copy of the fax received on or about April 18, 2017 is  attached as Exhibit A. A true and correct copy of a second fax received on or about  April 18, 2017 is attached as Exhibit B.   16.  Exhibit A is a one-page document Defendant sent by fax promoting  Defendant’s prescription pharmaceutical products. The fax advertises the  commercial availability or quality of property, goods, or services. Exhibit A provides  Defendant’s  fax  information  to  contact  Defendant  to  order  Defendant’s  pharmaceuticals. Exhibit A.    17.  Exhibit A promotes the quality of Defendant’s services stating that  Real Value is an OptumRx approved vendor and that its VAWD accreditation is  pending. Exhibit A.   18.  Exhibit A states “FREE SHIPPING and NO ORDER MINIMUM On  Your First Order!” Exhibit A.   19.  Exhibit B is a one-page document Defendant sent by fax promoting  Defendant’s prescription pharmaceutical products. The fax advertises the  commercial availability or quality of property, goods, or services. Exhibit B provides  Defendant’s  fax  information  to  contact  Defendant  to  order  Defendant’s  pharmaceuticals. Exhibit B.   21.  Exhibit B further promotes the quality of Defendant’s services by  telling fax recipients that nest day service is available, no contract is required, and  Defendant has a “No Hassle Return Policy.” Exhibit B.   22.  Defendant’s faxes promote its commercially available pharmaceutical  products and pharmaceutical supply services.   23.  Plaintiff did not expressly invite or give permission to anyone to send  Exhibit A, Exhibit B, or any other advertisement from Defendant to Plaintiff’s fax  machine.   24.  Exhibit A does not include an opt-out notice as required by the TCPA.  See 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (2) (D) & (E) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a) (4) (iii) & (v).   25.  On information and belief, Defendant sent advertisements by facsimile  to Plaintiff and more than 39 other persons in violation of the TCPA.   26.  Plaintiff and the other class members owe no obligation to protect their  fax machines from Defendant. Their fax machines are ready to send and receive  their urgent communications, or private communications about patients’ medical  needs, not to receive Defendant’s unlawful advertisements.   28.  Excluded from the class are Defendant, Defendant’s officers, directors,  legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns, any entity in which Defendant  has a controlling interest, any parent, subsidiary or affiliated company of  Defendant, and any Judge assigned to this action, including his or her immediate  family.   29.  In this action, Plaintiff intends to discover, include, and resolve the  merits of claims about all advertisements Defendant sent by fax. Exhibit C, a  Demand for Preservation of All Tangible Documents Including Electronically Stored  Information.    3.   Private right of action. A person may, if  otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a  state, bring in an appropriate court of that state:  (A)  An action based on a violation of this  subsection or the regulations prescribed under this  subsection to enjoin such violation,  (B)  An  action  to  recover  for  actual  monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive  $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever  is greater, or  (C)  Both such actions.  47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (3).   30.  This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class  action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. This action satisfies Rule 23 (a)’s numerosity,  commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements. Furthermore, the questions of  law or fact that are common in this action predominate over any individual  questions of law or fact making class representation the superior method to  adjudicate this controversy under Rule 23 (b) (3).   33.  Typicality of claims. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the  other class members, because Plaintiff and all class members were injured by the  same wrongful practices. Plaintiff and the members of the class received  Defendant’s advertisements by facsimile and those advertisements did not contain  the opt-out notice required by the TCPA. Under the facts of this case, because the  focus is upon Defendant’s conduct, if Plaintiff prevails on its claims, then the other  putative class members will prevail as well.   34.  Adequacy of representation. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of  the class because its interests do not conflict with the interests of the class its seeks  to represent. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex  class action litigation, and TCPA litigation in particular, and Plaintiff intends to  vigorously prosecute this action. Plaintiff and its counsel will fairly and adequately  protect the interest of members of the class.   36.  A class action is the superior method of adjudicating the common  questions of law or fact that predominate over individual questions. A class action is  superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  lawsuit, because individual litigation of the claims of all class members is  economically unfeasible and procedurally impracticable. The likelihood of individual  class members prosecuting separate claims is remote, and even if every class  member could afford individual litigation, the court system would be unduly  burdened by individual litigation of such cases. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty to be  encountered in the management of this action that would preclude its maintenance  as a class action. Relief concerning Plaintiff’s rights under the laws herein alleged  and with respect to the class would be proper. Plaintiff envisions no difficulty in the  management of this action as a class action.  37.  Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.   39.  The TCPA prohibits the “use of any telephone facsimile machine,  computer or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone  facsimile machine….” 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (1).   40.  The TCPA defines “unsolicited advertisement” as “any material  advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services  which is transmitted to any person without that person’s express invitation or  permission.” 47 U.S.C. § 227 (a) (4).   41.  The TCPA provides a private right of action as follows:   42.  The Court, in its discretion, may treble the statutory damages if it  determines that a violation was knowing or willful. 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (3).    43.  The TCPA requires that every advertisement sent by facsimile must  include an opt-out notice clearly and conspicuously displayed on the bottom of its  first page. 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (2) (D) and (E); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a) (4).   45.  Here, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (2) (D) and (E) and 47  C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a) (4) (iii) & (v) by failing to include a compliant opt-out notice.  Exhibit A, Exhibit B.    46.  Facsimile advertising imposes burdens on recipients that are distinct  from the burdens imposed by other types of advertising. The required opt-out notice  provides recipients the necessary information to opt-out of future fax transmissions,  including a notice that the sender’s failure to comply with the opt-out request will  be unlawful. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a) (4) (iii).   47.  Exhibit A and Exhibit B do not state that Defendant’s failure to comply  with an opt-out request within 30 days is unlawful.   48.  Exhibit A and Exhibit B do not inform the recipient that he/she/it has  a legal right to request that Defendant not send any future fax.   49.  Exhibit A and Exhibit B do not inform the recipient that an opt-out  request will be valid only unless and until the person making the request  subsequently provides express invitation or permission to the sender, in writing or  otherwise, to send such advertisement to such person at such telephone facsimile  machine.   51.  Even if Defendant did not intend to injure Plaintiff and the other class  members, did not intend to violate their privacy, and did not intend to waste their  valuable time with Defendant’s advertisements, those facts are irrelevant because  the TCPA is a strict liability statute.   52.  If Defendant’s actions were knowing or willful, then the Court has the  discretion to increase the statutory damages up to three times the amount. 47  U.S.C. § 227 (b) (3).   54.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.   55.  Plaintiff brings Count II on behalf of itself and a class of similarly  situated persons and against Defendant.   56.  By sending advertisements to their fax machines, Defendant  improperly and unlawfully converted the class’s fax machines to Defendant’s own  use. Where printed (as in Plaintiff’s case), Defendant also improperly and  unlawfully converted the class members’ paper and toner to Defendant’s own use.  Defendant also converted Plaintiff’s time to Defendant’s own use, as they did with  the valuable time of the other class members.    57.  Immediately prior to the sending of the unsolicited faxes, Plaintiff and  the other class members each owned an unqualified and immediate right to  possession of their fax machines, paper, toner, and employee time.   59.  Defendant knew or should have known that their misappropriation of  paper, toner, and employee time was wrongful and without authorization.   60.  Plaintiff and the other class members were deprived of the use of the  fax machines, paper, toner, and employee time, which could no longer be used for  any other purpose. Plaintiff and each class member thereby suffered damages as a  result of their receipt of unsolicited fax advertisements from Defendant.   CONVERSION   TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. § 227  