14. HII operates as an outbound call center and lead generator for Defendant Teladoc.    16. If a consumer is interested, HII (on behalf of Defendant Teladoc) will send the  consumer a Teladoc contract to register for paid services, including a written agreement to sign  up with Teladoc.    17. The agreement is between the consumer and Defendant Teladoc directly.    18. HII was given actual and apparent authority by Defendant Teladoc to bind the  consumer with and was given the apparent authority to represent to others that they had  partnered with Defendant Teladoc.    19. In addition, Defendant Teladoc ratified HII and its lead generators actions by  accepting the benefits from HII and its lead generators telemarketing practice.   20. Defendant Teladoc knew or should have known that HII and its lead generators  were making calls on Teladoc’s behalf and for their benefit in violation of the TCPA.   21. Defendant Teladoc should not be allowed to retain all of the financial windfalls of  its unlawful telemarketing activities without being held liable for the violations of the TCPA.     23. Despite this warning, Defendant Teladoc has partnered with HII to generate leads  for its own profits.   24. By the time Plaintiff Hale and Plaintiff Cline received calls by HII or its HII’s  lead generators in March 2019, HII had already been sued specifically for Telephone Consumer  Protection Act violations approximately 10 times.  This was public record and Defendant  Teladoc knew or should have known about HII’s past allegations of violating the TCPA when  Defendant Teladoc contracted with HII to make telemarketing calls on its behalf.   25. Teladoc’s telemarketing partner HII has had other troubling lawsuits related to its  telemarketing, and the telemarketing of its lead generators, who sell products on behalf of  Defendant Teladoc. On November 2, 2018, the FTC posted a press release announcing that a  Federal judge temporarily shut down Simple Health, a lead generator of HII, who had collected  more than $100 million in revenue by “preying on Americans in search of health insurance,  selling these consumers worthless plans that left tens of thousands of people uninsured.”2 On  June 6, 2019 HII announced that it planned to acquire Simple Health. Multiple states have filed  cease and desist orders against HII including the State of Montana in 2016,3 the State of  Michigan,4 and the State of Arkansas.5 The State of Florida at one time denied HII’s licensure as  a third party administrator.6 7    27. These actions against Teladoc’s telemarketer HII and its telemarketers were all  brought prior to the calls received by the Plaintiffs on behalf of Defendant Teladoc.   28. Despite these other prior TCPA lawsuits and the multiple state investigations and  litigation, Defendant Teladoc chose to contract with HII to sell their products and services on  their behalf.    29. HII, as Defendant Teladoc’s lead generator, has a current D- rating with the Better  Business Bureau that Defendant Teladoc could have researched before hiring them as their  telemarketer.9     31. Defendant Teladoc knew or should have known about the allegations of its  telemarketing partner prior to and during the partnership with HII. Legality of Unsolicited Autodialed and Prerecorded Calls   32. As explained by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) in its 2012  order, the TCPA requires “prior express written consent for all autodialed or prerecorded  [solicitation] calls to wireless numbers and residential lines.” In the Matter of Rules and  Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG No. 02-278,  FCC 12-21, 27 FCC Rcd. 1830 ¶ 2 (Feb. 15, 2012).    33. Yet in violation of this rule, Defendant Teladoc hired HII and its lead generators  who failed to obtain any express written consent from consumers prior to placing prerecorded  and/or autodialed solicitation calls.   35. Defendant Teladoc through HII, has failed to implement, supervise, or maintain  an internal do not call system whereby consumers would be removed from the calling lists once  those consumers ask for the calls to stop.    36. Defendant Teladoc’s agent HII and its lead generators do not have internal Do  Not Call policies, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d), or they do not adhere to these policies.   37. As part of Defendant Teladoc’s screening process, they should have ensured that  HII or its affiliates abide by the TCPA and DNC laws and should have regularly maintained  sufficient oversight to ensure they were abiding by those laws since they were calling on behalf  of the Defendant Teladoc.   38. On October 16, 2008, Hale registered her cellular phone number with the DNC in  order to avoid receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls.   39. Hale uses her cell phone for personal use.    40. Hale’s cell phone number is not associated with a business.   41. Hale began receiving prerecorded calls from, or on behalf of Defendant Teladoc  on her cellular phone since March of 2018.    43. For example, on March 12, 2019 Hale received 8 calls on behalf of Defendant  Teladoc to her cellular phone.    44. Hale answered two calls on March 13, 2019. Hale specifically opted-out of  receiving additional calls both by pressing the button that the prerecorded message indicated  would end the calls, and also by asking a live agent to stop calling.   45. Hale received calls from or on behalf of Defendant Teladoc from the following  numbers on March 13, 2019, 704-550-3351, 704-550-3336, 704-550-3324, 704-550-3299, 704- 550-3294, and 704-550-3279.   46. On March 25, 2019 Hale received calls from (737) 200-7360, (267) 371-5457,  (267) 371-5425.   47. Hale has received the following calls from or on behalf of the Defendant: 704- 550—2956, 704-550-2603, 704-550-2145, 704-550-2144, 704-550-2257, 704-550-2275, 704- 550-2309, 704-550-2436, 704-550-2340, 704-550-2473, 704-550-255, 704-550-2544, 704-550- 2573, 704-550-2986, 704-550-3041, 704-550-3042, 704-550-3177, 704-550-3140, 704-550- 3245, 704-550-3245, 704-550-3255, 704-550-3279, 704-550-3294, 704-550-3299, 704-550- 3336, 704-550-3351, 550-2704-550-3153, 704-550-3227, 704-550-3324, 704-550-3356, 704- 550-3227, 704-550-3205, and 704-550-3424. For many of these calls, Hale pressed 0 to be opted  out of future calls to no avail.    48. Despite the opt-out requests, Plaintiff Hale continued to receive prerecorded calls.   49. Hale became so frustrated by the intrusive calls, she called Teladoc’s telemarketer  HII or its agents on March 26, 2019 twice. In both instances, Hale opted-out of receiving calls  any more calls from Defendant Teladoc or its telemarketer HII.   51. On April 2, 2019, Hale answered a prerecorded call on behalf of Defendant  Teladoc from the number (267) 756-2353 and pressed the button that would connect her with a  live agent. The agent recognized Hale, referring to her by name, and proceeded to provide an  insurance quote.    52. Hale acted like she was interested in getting a quote and provided a fake name  Tonja Bond in order to find out who was behind the calls she was receiving so she could stop  them once and for all. Once the insurance quote was provided, Hale asked to see the plan in  writing and received an email directly from Teladoc’s telemarketing partner HII using the d/b/a  MyBenefitsKeeper20 containing the insurance plan agreement:    53. The plan Hale was quoted included a $29.99 membership to Teladoc.   54. On July 19, 2019, Hale received a pre-recorded call on her cell phone from (603)  651-3934.  The pre-recorded call stated “press 1 for your interest in healthcare, press 9 (or 0) if  you want to be placed on the do not call list.”  Hale had previously pressed 9 or 0 before for the  exact same prerecorded messages to no avail as she had continued to receive calls, so this time  she pressed 1 so she could identify this telemarketer in an attempt to finally get the calls to stop.   55. Hale was connected with an agent named Abel Zubair. Hale played along and  gave the name Tonya Bond so she could find out which company he worked for or which  company he was selling in order to stop the calls. The agent transferred her to the next agent  Emily. The call got disconnected.   56. On July 19, 2019 Hale received text messages from 913-380-9221 regarding the  disconnected call from Emily.   58. The application in the link from MyBenefitsKeeper contained an application for  Teladoc, for a Teladoc plan which costs $19.99 per month.   59. Hale received another call from on July 29, 2019 from 919-379-5214 looking for  Tonja, the name Hale gave when investigating the calls. Hale hung up the phone.    60. On August 1, 2019 Hale received a pre-recorded call about health insurance from  636-721-6750 and 708-856-8078. In each pre-recorded message, she pressed the number to be  opted out of their system.    61. On August 5, 2019 Hale received a pre-recorded call from (435) 467-3329 about  Quality Health Insurance. She pressed the digit to be put on their do not call list.   62. On August 6, 2019 Hale received a pre-recorded call from (435) 816-3042 which  solicited for Quality Health Insurance. Hale again pressed the digit to be put on the do not call  list.    63. On August 7, 2019 Hale received a pre-recorded call from (509) 547-6124 stating  “This is Quality A Plus Insurance. If you are interested in talking to a licensed agent press 8. If  not, press 4.”  Hale pressed 4.   64. On August 15, 2019 Hale received a pre-recorded call from (954) 918-1345 from  Quality Health Insurance.  She pressed the digit to be opted out.   65. In total, Hale received well over 35 calls on her cellular phone on behalf of  Defendant Teladoc from either HII, or HII’s agents on behalf of Teladoc, despite repeated  requests for the calls to stop.   67. On December 22, 2011, Cline registered his cellular phone number with the DNC  in order to avoid receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls.   68. Cline uses his cell phone for personal use. His cell phone number is not associated  with a business.   69. At the time that Cline received the calls associated with this case, he was located  in Pennsylvania but maintains his principal residence in Florida.     70. Cline began receiving autodialed and prerecorded calls from, or on behalf of  Defendant Teladoc on his cellular phone in May of 2019.    71. The autodialed and prerecorded calls that Cline received were placed by spoofed  numbers that were not in service when called back.   72. For example, on May 21, 2019, Cline received an autodialed call on behalf of  Defendant Teladoc using phone number 754-218-9438. 754-218-9438 was not in service when  Cline tried to call it back.   73. On June 28, 2019, Cline received another autodialed call on behalf of Defendant  using phone number 202-089-4718. 202-089-4718 was not in service when Cline tried to call it  back.   74. When Cline would answer the incoming calls, Cline noticed a significant pause  before a live agent would come on the line, indicating the use of an autodialer.    75. The agent would begin the solicitation of an insurance quote, at which point Cline  would tell the agent to stop calling him.   77. In response to his opt-out claims, the agents would consistently respond by  hanging-up the phone.   78. Despite the multiple opt-out requests, Plaintiff Cline continued to receive  autodialed and prerecorded calls on his cell phone.   79. On July 16, 2019, Plaintiff Cline received an autodialed call from 918-219-1898  on behalf of Defendant Teladoc to his cell phone using phone number 918-219-1898. Cline  answered the call and was connected to a live agent after a significant audible pause, indicative  that the call was made using an autodialer.   80. Cline spoke with a live agent and out of frustration and for the purposes of finally  identifying the company behind these annoying calls, he decided to play along in order to find  out who was calling him. Cline answered some qualifying questions for the purposes of his  investigation and was connected with an agent named Barbara.    81. Cline spoke with the insurance agent named Barbara about getting an insurance  quote. When he hesitated about purchasing the plan, which was never Cline’s intention in the  first place, Barbara provided Cline with her direct phone number: 855-787-8595 extension 5410.   82. When Cline tried calling 918-219-1898 back, it was not in service.    83. On July 24, 2019, Cline called 855-787-8595 extension 5410 in order to  determine exactly who was responsible for the multiple calls he was receiving.    84. Cline spoke with Barbara giving her a fake name John Cahill so that he could  finally identify which company was part of this scheme.     86. The insurance application specifically lists Teledoc as part of Plaintiff’s intended  coverage:   87. In total, Cline received well over 8 known calls on his cellular phone on behalf of  Defendant Teladoc by its telemarketer HII, despite not giving them consent to call him and  despite his repeated requests for the calls to stop.   88. The unauthorized telephone calls made on behalf of the Defendant, as alleged  herein, have harmed both of the Plaintiffs in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of  privacy, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of their phones, in addition to the wear and tear on  the phones’ hardware (including the phones’ battery) and the consumption of memory on the  phones.    91. The following individuals are excluded from the Classes: (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 the Defendant or its  parents have a controlling interest and their current or former employees, officers and directors;  (3) Plaintiffs’ attorneys; (4) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion  from the Classes; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded  persons; and (6) persons whose claims against the Defendant have been fully and finally  adjudicated and/or released. The Plaintiff’s anticipate the need to amend the Class definitions  following appropriate discovery.   92. Numerosity: On information and belief, there are many hundreds, if not  thousands of members of the Classes such that joinder of all members is impracticable.   94. Adequate Representation: The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Classes, and have retained counsel competent and experienced in class  actions. The Plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to those of the Classes, and the Defendant  does not have defenses unique to either of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiff Hale, Plaintiff Cline and their  counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the members of the  Classes, and have the financial resources to do so. Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel has any  interests adverse to the Classes.   96. Plaintiff Hale and Plaintiff Cline repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 95 of  this Complaint and incorporate them by reference.   97. Defendant Teladoc through its telemarketing partner HII or its agents, transmitted  unwanted solicitation telephone calls to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Prerecorded No  Consent Class on behalf of Defendant Teladoc using a prerecorded voice message.   98. These prerecorded voice calls were made en masse without the prior express  written consent of the Plaintiffs and the other members of the Prerecorded No Consent Class.   99. Defendant Teladoc, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. §§ 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), (b)(1)(B).  As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs and the other members of the Prerecorded No  Consent Class are each entitled to a minimum of $500 in damages, and up to $1,500 in damages,  for each violation.  Class Treatment Is Appropriate for TCPA Claims Arising  From Calls Made by or On Behalf of Defendant Teladoc   Defendant Teladoc Partnered with Telemarketers   to Make Telemarketing Calls on Its Behalf   Teladoc through their Marketing Partner HII Repeatedly  Called Cline’s Cell Phone Without Hale’s Consent   Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff Hale and Cline and the Prerecorded No Consent Class)   Teladoc through their Marketing Partner HII Repeatedly  Called Hale’s Cell Phone Without Hale’s Consent 