(Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  16. In recent years, marketers who often have felt stymied by federal laws limiting solicitation by telephone, facsimile machine, and e-mail have increasingly looked to alternative technologies through which to cheaply send bulk solicitations. One of the newest types of such bulk marketing is to advertise through Short Message Services.  17. The term “Short Message Service” or “SMS” describes a messaging system that allows cellular telephone subscribers to use their cellular telephones to send and receive short text messages, usually limited to 120 – 500 characters.  18. An “SMS message” is a text message call directed to a wireless device through the use of the telephone number assigned to the device. When an SMS message call is successfully made, the recipient’s cell phone rings, alerting him or her that a call is being received.  20. Text messages, or “SMS” calls, are “calls” within the context of the TCPA.  21. Bulk SMS messaging is a lucrative and inexpensive marketing platform for companies such as Defendants. Messaging platforms leverage the most direct communication link between a brand and its consumers—more than 97 percent of text messages are read; more than 90 percent within the first three minutes. Very few other marketing channels can match that.2  22. Beginning at least by 2013, Defendants launched an aggressive marketing campaign to boost its SMS texting marketing database and profile.  23. For example, calls to action promising consumers they could receive $1 off a large fountain drink by providing their cell phone numbers to Defendants were plastered on posters, signage, and on checkout screens at concession stands in Defendants’ movie theatres.  25. In 2012, Plaintiff signed up for Defendants’ customer rewards program, AMC Stubs, while attending a movie at one of Defendants’ movie theatres. Plaintiff paid a fee to become an AMC Stubs member for one year.  26. One year later, Plaintiff received a notice that her AMC Stubs membership would lapse if she did not renew it.  27. Plaintiff did not renew her membership, and she was informed in 2013 that her membership had expired.  28. Plaintiff did not expressly consent to receive autodialed telemarketing calls to her cell phone within the meaning of the TCPA.  29. On or about April 23 2015, Plaintiff’s cell phone rang, indicating that a text call was being received.  31. The text implied that Plaintiff was a member of Defendants’ AMC Stubs program. However, Plaintiff’s AMC Stubs membership lapsed at least one year prior to her receipt of the unsolicited text message.  32. Upon information and belief, since October 16, 2013, Defendants sent or transmitted, or had sent or transmitted on their behalf, the same or substantially the same text messages en masse to a list of thousands of wireless telephone numbers using a computerized automatic telephone dialing system as defined by the TCPA that stores telephone numbers from a database, or dials random or sequential numbers.  34. These text messages from Defendants, or its agents, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b). 35. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and as a class action under the provisions of Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Class is defined as follows: All persons or entities in the United States and its Territories who received one or more text message advertisements from or on behalf of Defendants since October 16, 2013. Plaintiff reserves the right to redefine the Class prior to class certification.  36. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, Defendants’ officers, directors, and employees.  37. This action is properly maintainable as a class action. Members of the Class are so numerous that their individual joinder is impracticable. The precise number of members is unknown at this time, but is believed to be at least several thousand individuals. The true number of proposed members is, however, known by Defendants, and thus, Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action by first class mail, electronic, and published notice using information in Defendant’s membership and marketing records.  39. Rule 23(a)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) are both satisfied because there are questions of law and fact which are common to the Class and which predominate over questions affecting any individual Class member. The common questions include, inter alia, the following: a. whether Defendants violated the TCPA by sending unauthorized text messages to Plaintiff and members of the Class; b. whether the equipment Defendants used to send the text messages in question was an automatic telephone dialing system as defined by the 44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.  46. The TCPA defines “telemarketing call,” or “telephone solicitation,” as “the initiation of a telephone call or message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of … goods, or services, which is transmitted to any person.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4).  47. The TCPA defines an “automatic telephone dialing system” as “equipment which has the capacity (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1).  49. Defendants made telephone solicitations, including, but not limited to, the text messages depicted above, to the wireless telephone numbers of Plaintiff and members of the Class.  50. The text messages sent to Plaintiff and the Class members were sent using equipment that had the capacity to store telephone numbers retrieved from Defendants’ database and to dial such numbers. The equipment can also be programmed to generate and dial random or sequential numbers. By using such equipment, Defendants were able to effectively send text messages simultaneously to thousands of wireless telephone numbers en masse without human intervention.  51. The text calls were made through the use of a short code dialing service and without the prior express written consent of Plaintiff and the Class members.  52. Defendants’ conduct in sending said text messages violates 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).  53. Defendants’ conduct in sending said text messages was a knowing and willful violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227. 