(Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. – Telephone Consumer Protection Act)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   11.  During Autumn of 2017, Plaintiff Scarleth Samara provided her cellullar telephone  number ending in -8762 in connection with the purchase of an IDT calling product.   12.  Samara then received numerous text message advertisements at the same number  from Defendant’s 5-digit short message service (“SMS”) code, including the following  advertisement received October 27, 2017:   IDT Promo: El 27   y 28 de Oct, Claro   Nicaragua ofrece 5x  en recargas de $7  o mas. Recarga hoy   con tarjetas IDT o   en Boss Revolution    13.  The text messages were not addressed to Plaintiff by name and were written in an  impersonal manner.    14.  Defendant sent the same (or substantially the same) generic telemarketing and/or  advertising text messages at random through an automatic telephone dialing system to Plaintiff  and Class.    15.  Prior to sending these text messages, Defendant never informed Plaintiff and Class  clearly, conspicuously, and in writing that they would receive recurring automated telemarketing  and/or advertising text messages on their cellular phone.    17.  The text message calls alleged herein were exclusively made by Defendant or on  their behalf.    18.  Through their conduct, Defendant caused Class Members actual harm by sending  the unauthorized text message calls at issue. Plaintiff and members of the Class were not only  subjected to the aggravation that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unauthorized text  messages, but also costs paid to their cell phone service providers for the receipt of such  unauthorized text messages.    19.  Moreover, Plaintiff and members of the Class suffered injuries in the form of  invasion of privacy and violations of their statutory rights.   20.  Defendant was and is aware that the above-described text messages were being sent  on a widespread basis, and that the text messages were being sent to consumers who had not  provided prior express written consent to receive them.  22.  Numerosity: The exact number of Class members is unknown and not available to  Plaintiff at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. Upon information and  belief, Defendant sent telemarketing and/or advertising text messages to thousands of consumers  who fall into the definition of the Class. Class members can be identified through Defendant’s  records.   23.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff and the putative 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’s conduct violated the TCPA;  (b)  Whether Defendant sent text messages to Class Members using an  automated telephone dialing system (“ATDS”), as contemplated by the  28.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   29.  In an effort to solicit consumers, Defendant sent unauthorized and unwanted  telemarketing and/or advertising text message calls to Plaintiff and the Class' cellular telephones  without their prior express written consent.   30.  Defendant sent the telemarketing and/or advertising text messages to Plaintiff and  the Class' cellular telephone numbers 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 phone numbers, and to dial such numbers en masse.   31.  Defendant utilized equipment that sent the telemarketing and/or advertising text  messages to Plaintiff and other members of the putative Class simultaneously and without human  intervention.   32.  Defendant took steps to physically place such text message calls and/or was so  involved in placing the calls as to be deemed to have initiated them.    33.  By sending telemarketing and/or advertising text messages to Plaintiff and  members of the Class's cellular telephones without prior express written consent, as defined  pursuant 47 U.S.C. § 64.1200(f)(8), and by utilizing an ATDS, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(I)(A)(iii).   35.  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.    36.  Additionally, as a result of Defendant unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the other  members of the Class are entitled to an injunction under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A) to ensure that  Defendant’s violations of the TCPA do not continue into the future. 