18.  The Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax imposes a tax on the “gross  receipts” received by “Resort hotels” from occupants of a “transient lodging establishment.” The  Clark County Code defines “gross receipts” to include the total amount of “rent” received and  any forfeited deposits valued in money. § 4.08.005(8). The Clark County Code defines “rent” as  “the amount charged for a sleeping room/space in a transient lodging establishment,” including,  inter alia, “payment processing fees, check-in fees, accommodation fees, facility fees, access  fees, charges for additional overnight guests, late check-out fees, and utility surcharges.” §   19.  Treasure Island is a “Resort hotel” as defined by the Clark County Code §   20.  Defendants are responsible for paying the Combined Transient Lodging Tax.  Clark County Code § 4.08.010 states that the transient lodging tax “shall be collected from every  operator,” and “constitutes a debt owed by the operator.”    21.  While the tax “may be collected from the paying transient guests,” “[t]he operator  is liable to Clark County for the tax whether or not it is actually collected from the paying  transient guest.” Clark County Code § 4.08.010(c) (emphasis added).     22.  Because Defendants are responsible for paying the Combined Transient Lodging  Tax, they were acting for their own benefit, and not as agents of Clark County, when they  charged Plaintiff and the Class the tax.     23.  The Clark County Code permits hotel operators to reduce their tax liability under  § 4.08.010 by retaining 2 percent for themselves, as an incentive for timely remission to the  taxing authorities.   25.  In 1998, the ITFA imposed a national moratorium on states and their political  subdivisions from imposing any new taxes on Internet access:   (a) Moratorium.—No State or political subdivision thereof may impose any of the  following taxes:  (1) Taxes on Internet access.  ITFA § 1101(a)(1).    26.  Following a series of extensions which maintained the ITFA on a continuous  basis, on July 15, 2014, the United States House of Representatives (“House”) voted to pass the  Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (H.R. 3086; 113th Congress) (“PITFA”), a bill that  amended the ITFA to make permanent the ban on state and local taxation of Internet access,  among other things. On June 9, 2015, the House voted and approved H.R. 235, the PITFA,  which makes permanent the ban on federal, state, and local taxation of email and Internet access  originally enacted in the ITFA. PITFA was passed by Congress and the ITFA became permanent  law on February 24, 2016. The ITFA’s moratorium on the taxation of Internet access has been  continuous from 1998 to the present, subject to the exceptions provided for in the ITFA, none of  which are applicable to the Defendants.    28.  The ITFA, provides for two general categories of exceptions for the provision of  “Internet access services”: (1) a so called “grandfather” exception; and (2) limited exceptions for  Internet Service Providers.    29.  The grandfather provision provides that the ITFA does not prohibit states and  their political subdivisions from imposing a tax on Internet access if the tax was “generally  imposed and actually enforced prior to October 1, 1998.” ITFA § 1104. The grandfather clause  originally permitted 13 states, later reduced to seven, that directly taxed Internet access in 1998 –  Hawaii, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin – to continue to  do so. Neither the Defendants nor Clark County generally imposed and actually enforced a tax  on Internet access prior to October 1, 1998. Upon information and belief, prior to bundling  Internet access with the goods and services included in the Resort Fee, Defendants did not  impose a tax on the sale of Internet access.    30.  Neither the Defendants nor the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax  meet the “grandfather” exception to the ITFA because, among other things, the tax is not now,  nor has it ever been, a tax on Internet access or included a tax on Internet access that is  “generally imposed.” Clark County Code § 1104(a)(1). Furthermore, neither the State of Nevada  nor Clark County has “generally collected” tax on Internet access or made any “rule or other  public proclamation” that the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax applies to Internet  access services. Id. § 1104(a)(1)(B).   32.  Defendants do not fall within the scope of the exceptions for Internet Service  Providers because they are not telecommunications carriers engaged in the provision of a  telecommunication service, persons engaged in the business of providing an Internet access  service; persons engaged in the business of providing an Internet information location tool; or  similarly engaged in the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation of a  communication made by another person, without selection or alteration of the communication,  within the meaning of the ITFA. See ITFA § 1101(d).    33.  The ITFA specifically mandates that where a business can, as Defendants can  here, reasonably identify the portion of the bundle that constitutes charges for Internet access, the  business may not tax the entire bundle: “If charges for Internet Access are aggregated with and  not separately stated from the charges for telecommunications or other charges that are subject to  taxation, then the charges for Internet access may be subject to taxation unless the Internet access  provider can reasonably identify the charges for Internet access from its books and records kept  in the regular course of business.” ITFA § 1106(a).    35.  The introduction of “resort fees” charged by hotels and resorts in the United  States began as a way for hotel owners and operators to increase revenues.    36.  Properties in Las Vegas, such as Treasure Island, were among the first to realize  that the demand for Wi-Fi and Internet access was increasing and that, by bundling Internet  access into a mandatory Resort Fee that included other goods and services that were of lesser  value and were otherwise previously provided for free, they could increase their profits by  charging a high mandatory per-night fee.    37.  In an attempt to generate more revenues from Plaintiff and members of the Class,  Defendants began bundling Internet access charges into Resort Fees that included other goods  and services of minimal value.     38.  The charges for Internet access included in the Resort Fee charged by Defendants  and on which Plaintiff and the Class paid the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax,  have a monetary value that is less than the full amount of the Resort Fee paid, but greater than  $0, and, upon information and belief, can be reasonably identified from Defendants’ books and  records kept in the regular course of business.   39.  Treasure Island has 2,884 rooms.   4.08.005(18). From the beginning of the Class Period1 through January 14, 2017, the Clark  County Combined Transient Lodging Tax applicable to Resort hotels including Treasure Island  was 12 percent. See Clark County Code 4.08.010, Table 4.08.010(a). From January 15 through  February 28, 2017, the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax applicable to Treasure  Island was 12.5 percent. On March 1, 2017, the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax  applicable to Resort hotels including Treasure Island that are within the “primary gaming  corridor” area, as defined by Clark County Code § 4.08.005(16), increased to 13.38 percent.    41.  As set forth in this image from the Treasure Island website, the Treasure Island  Resort Fee includes “WiFi Internet Access.” The Treasure Island website states that Internet  Access is valued at $25 to $99 per day:    42.  As set forth in the above image from the Treasure Island website showing a  sample room quotation, Treasure Island charges the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging  Tax to its $35.00 Resort Fee.     44.  Upon information and belief, Treasure Island did not charge the Clark County  Combined Transient Lodging Tax on these stand-alone internet access charges.  D.  The ITFA Requires that Defendants Identify the Amount of Their Resort  Fees that Are for Non-Taxable Internet Access and Apply the Combined  Transient Lodging Only to the Taxable Amount.   45.  After bundling internet access into their Resort Fees, Defendants began charging  Plaintiff and members of the Class the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging tax on these  amounts.     46.  Defendants can reasonably identify the portion of their Resort Fees that  constitutes internet access.   47.  Indeed, as noted above, upon information and belief, Defendants did not charge  the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax on their stand-alone internet access charges  that were in effect prior to their bundled Resort Fees.   48.  Accordingly, Defendants violated the ITFA by failing to identify the amount of  their Resort Fees that constitutes internet access, subtracting this amount from their Resort Fee,  and then charging Plaintiff and members of the Class the Clark County Combined Transient  Lodging Tax on this reduced amount.   49.  Defendants’ behavior resulted in Plaintiff and members of the Class paying tens  of millions of dollars in unlawful and erroneous taxes.      E.  The ITFA Requires Defendants to Identify the Amount of Their Resort Fee  that is Attributable to Internet Access and to Apply the Combined Transient  Lodging Tax Only to the Portion of the Resort Fee that Includes Taxable  Goods and Services Which Excludes Internet Access.   51.  Defendants can reasonably identify the portion of their Resort Fee that constitutes  Internet access. As alleged, upon information and belief, Defendants did not charge the Clark  County Combined Transient Lodging Tax on their stand-alone Internet access charges that were  in effect prior to the time that they began to charge Resort Fees that included Internet access.  Accordingly, Defendants violated the ITFA by failing to identify the portion of their Resort Fee  that constitutes Internet access, subtracting this amount from their Resort Fee, and then charging  Plaintiff and members of the Class the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax on the  taxable portion.   52.  As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff and members of the Class paid  unlawful and erroneously-charged taxes on Internet access in violation of the ITFA.    V.  53.  Plaintiff brings this action individually and as a class action pursuant to Federal  Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of the following proposed Class (the “Treasure Island  Class”):  Treasure Island Class: All persons and entities that paid the Clark County Combined  Transient Lodging tax on the portion of a Resort Fee charged by Treasure Island that  constitutes charges for Internet access, during the period beginning November 22, 2013  and continuing until such time the illegal conduct alleged herein has ceased.    54.  The proposed Treasure Island Class is referred to herein as the "Class.”   56.  Plaintiff seeks to represent the Class for any damages and injunctive relief, and  assert his claims on behalf of both themselves and the Class members they seek to represent.    57.  The numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) is satisfied here because the  members of the proposed Class are so numerous and geographically dispersed that joinder of all  its members is impracticable. Although the exact number Class member is unknown at this time,  there are believed to total at least tens of thousands of members of each Class nationwide.  Therefore, the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1) is met.    58.  The commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2) is satisfied because there are  questions of law or fact common to Plaintiff and the other Class members, including:   (a)  Whether Defendants charging the Clark County Combined Transient  Lodging Tax on Internet access charges bundled within Resort Fees violated the ITFA;  (b)  Whether Defendants can reasonably identify the portion of their Resort  Fees that constitute charges for Internet access;  (c)  The proper measure and appropriate formula to be applied in determining  damages for the injuries sustained by the Class; and   (d)  Whether Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to declaratory,  injunctive, or other equitable relief.    60.  Plaintiff’s counsel have identified and thoroughly investigated the claims set forth  herein, and are highly experienced in the management and litigation of class actions and complex  litigation. Plaintiff’s counsel have extensive knowledge of the applicable law and possess the  resources to commit to the vigorous prosecution of this action on behalf of Plaintiff and the other  Class members. Accordingly, Plaintiff satisfies the adequacy of representation requirements of  Rule 23(a)(4).   61.  This action also meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). Defendants have acted,  or refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff and other Class members, making  final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the proposed Class  appropriate.    63.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-62 as though fully set forth herein,  and bring this Cause of Action against all Defendants.   64.  The ITFA as amended, bars states and their political subdivisions from imposing  taxes on Internet access and requires businesses to disaggregate charges for Internet access from  other fees subject to taxation when calculating and collecting tax due.    65.  Despite the prohibition on taxation of Internet access, Defendants improperly and  illegally applied the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax on the portion of the Resort  Fee that constitutes charges for Internet access.   66.  Defendants could reasonably identify the amounts that they charged Plaintiff and  the Class for Internet access but, in violation of the ITFA, failed to subtract that amount from  their Resort Fee when calculating and applying the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging  Tax due on the taxable portion of their Resort Fee.    67.  As a result of Defendants’ violations of the ITFA, Plaintiff and the Class were  damaged in the amount of the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax that they paid on  the value of Internet access included in the Resort Fee, together with interest on that amount.  68.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-67 as though fully set forth herein,  and bring this Cause of Action against all Defendants.   69.  Section 4.08.055 of the Clark County Code states that the “[t]he operator [of a  hotel] shall refund any over-collection of the combined transient lodging tax to the occupant.”   71.  Plaintiff and members of the Class are “occupant[s]” within the meaning of the  Clark County Code.    72.  Defendants charged, and Plaintiff paid, the Clark County Combined Transient  Lodging Tax on the portion of the Resort Fee that constitutes charges for Internet access.    73.  Defendants could reasonably identify the amounts they charged Plaintiff and the  Class for Internet access but, in violation of the ITFA, failed to subtract that amount from their  Resort Fee when calculating and applying the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax  due on the taxable portion of their Resort Fee.    74.  The ITFA prohibits states and their political subdivisions from imposing taxes on  charges for Internet access and requires business, like Defendants, to disaggregate charges for  Internet access from other taxable charges when calculating and collecting tax from customers  such as Plaintiff and the Class.   75.  Tax amounts collected from Plaintiff and the Class by Defendants for Internet  access were “over-collected” and Defendants is required to refund those amounts to Plaintiff and  the Class.   76.  In violation of Section 4.08.055 of the Clark County Code, Defendants have not  refunded the tax amounts that they over-collected for Internet access to Plaintiff and the Class.   77.  As a result of Defendants’ violations of the Clark County Code, Plaintiff and the  Class were damaged in the amount of Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax charged  by Defendants for Internet access, together with interest on that amount.  79.  The Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“Nevada DTPA”), NEV. REV. STAT. §  598.0903, et seq., prohibits deceptive trade practices.    80.  NEV. REV. STAT. § 598.0923 provides that a person engages in a “deceptive trade  practice” if, in the course of business or occupation, the person “[v]iolates a state or federal  statute or regulation relating to the sale or lease of goods or services.”   81.  Defendants engaged in deceptive trade practices in violation of the Nevada DTPA  by charging Plaintiff tax on Internet access in violation of a federal statute or regulation relating  to the sale or lease of goods or services, namely, the ITFA.     82.  NEV. REV. STAT. § 41.600 provides a cause of action to any person who is injured  by a violation of a deceptive trade practice as defined by the Nevada DTPA.    83.  Defendants’ violations as set forth above occurred in the course of business;  specifically in the course of renting hotel rooms to Plaintiff and the Class.   84.  Plaintiff and the Class suffered ascertainable losses caused by Defendants’  violations of the Nevada DTPA, namely overpayment of taxes resulting from Defendants’  application of the Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax to the portion of their Resort  Fees that constitute charges for Internet access.    85.  Defendants’ violations of the Nevada DTPA are continuing, and, if not enjoined,  present a continuing risk to Plaintiff, the Class, and the general public.   86.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the Nevada DTPA,  Plaintiff and the Class have suffered injury-in-fact and/or actual damage.   88.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-87 as though fully set forth herein,  and bring this Cause of Action against all Defendants.   89.  As set forth above, Plaintiff and the Class entered into contracts with Defendants  to pay Resort Fees to Defendants in exchange for the provision of goods and services, including  Internet access.    90.  Pursuant to those contracts, Plaintiff and the Class paid Defendants Resort Fees  and charges listed by Defendants as taxes on those Resort Fees.    91.  In charging taxes on Resort Fees, Defendants created the objectively justified  expectation that all charges designated as taxes were valid and compliant with all relevant laws  and regulations.    92.  Despite the prohibition on state and local taxes imposed by the ITFA, Defendants  charged Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class taxes for Internet access in violation of the  96.  As set forth above, Defendants collected from Plaintiff and the Class tax amounts  in excess of that required to be collected under the Clark County Code.    97.  Pursuant to Clark County Code §§ 4.08.040 and 4.08.055, Defendants are entitled  to retain two (2) percent of the taxes collected from Plaintiff and the Class for Internet access and  must remit the remainder to the Department.   98.  By doing so, Defendants received money from Plaintiff and the Class to which  they had and have no right at law or in equity.   99.  It would be inequitable for Defendants to retain any such monies that they had no  legal right to charge and they ought to in equity and good conscience return such money to  Plaintiff.  A.  The Clark County Combined Transient Lodging Tax   Contractual Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing   Money Had and Received   Unjust Enrichment  105.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-104 as though fully set forth herein,  and bring this Cause of Action against all Defendants.  106.  Under Clark County Code Section 4.08.040, Defendants may retain for  themselves a percentage of the Combined Transient Lodging Tax they collect.  107.  Upon information and belief, Defendants retain the permitted amount of tax that  they collect and, therefore, wrongfully obtain a legal benefit.  108.  Defendants collected these amounts to the detriment of Plaintiff and the Class,  and thus appreciated the benefit.  109.  Defendants retained funds that in good conscience and equity they should not be  entitled to retain.  110.  As a result, Defendants are unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff and the  Class.  111.  Defendants’ profits from their wrongful conduct in over-collecting and retaining  the taxes. Plaintiff and the Class therefore seek full disgorgement and restitution of the amounts  Defendants retained as a result of their unlawful and/or wrongful conduct alleged herein.  Violation of the Clark County Code, Section 4.08.005, et seq.   Violation of the Internet Tax Freedom Act   Violations of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, NEV. REV. STAT. §§ 598.0903, et  seq., Pursuant to NEV. REV. STAT. § 41.600  