3.02, 3.05(1), 3.05(2), 3.16(2), 3.16(3) and 3.16(4).    44.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other  members of the Class (“Class”), defined as all persons who called a telephone number that was  disseminated or disclosed in the Advertisement and who signed a Fee Agreement.  The Class  Period is limited to statute of limitations applicable to each cause of action.  Plaintiff brings this  Class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2) (the latter  cited statute because each Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally  to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate  respecting the class as a whole).   45.  Excluded from the Class are the following: Defendants and their employees,  principals, affiliated entities, legal representatives, successors and assigns of all of the foregoing.    47.  Common questions of law or fact exist as to all members of the Class (including  Plaintiff).  These questions predominate over the questions affecting only individual class  members.  These common legal or factual questions include:   a Whether Defendants’ Advertisement is likely to deceive Class Members or  the general public;   b Whether publication or dissemination of Defendants’ Advertisements  constitute an unfair method of competition, or an unfair or deceptive act or  practice;  c Whether Defendants’ representations are unconscionable;  d Whether Defendants’ representations are otherwise unlawful;   e Whether Defendants have been or will be unjustly enriched; and   f. The appropriate relief that should be granted to Plaintiff and the Class.    48.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class in that Plaintiff was an  Uber driver who called the telephone number disseminated or disclosed in the Advertisement  and  signed a Fee Agreement.  Plaintiff, therefore, is no different in any relevant respect from  any other Class member, and the relief sought is common to the Class.    49.  Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because his interests do not  conflict with the interests of the Class Members he seeks to represent, and he has retained  counsel competent to conduct complex class action litigation.  Plaintiff and his counsel will  adequately protect the interests of the Class.    51.  The Class may be certified because Defendants have acted or refused to act on  grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby making appropriate preliminary and final  equitable relief with respect to the Class.   52.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth therein.    53.  Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, constitutes unfair or deceptive acts or  practices and unfair methods of competition in trade or commerce in violation of M.G. L. c. 93A,   § 2 and the regulations promulgated thereunder, including without limitation, 940 C.M.R. §§    54.  M.G.L., c. 93A, § 2 provides that “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or  deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared  unlawful.”    55.  M.G.L., c. 93A, § 9 permits any consumer injured by a violation of M.G.L., c. 93A, §2 to  bring a civil action, including a class action, for damages and injunctive relief.    57.  Defendants engaged in unfair and deceptive acts and/or practices in the conduct of trade  or commerce in violation of M.G.L., c. 93A, § 2 by disseminating the Advertisement which was  false and misleading for at least the reasons alleged in paragraphs 25, 31 and 32.    58.  Defendants’ unfair and deceptive scheme to mislead Plaintiff and the Class fraudulently  induced the Plaintiff and the Class to agree to an arbitration provision in the Fee Agreement  pursuant to which Defendants would arbitrate wage act claims having nothing whatever to do  with the FTC court settlement Fund.  This fraud and resultant unfair and deceptive act and  practice has the capacity, tendency, and/or likelihood to deceive or mislead reasonable  consumers and others, who are non-consumers, entitled to bring an action under M.G.L. c. 93A,  Sec 11.    60.  Pursuant to 940 C.M.R. § 3.16(3) and § 3.16(4), violations of the foregoing provisions  are also violations of c. 93A, § 2.    61.  Defendant’s violations of M.G.L., c. 93A were willful and knowing.    62.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unfair and deceptive acts, Plaintiff and  the Class were injured.  The injuries suffered by Plaintiff and the Class include, but are not  limited to agreeing to pay outrageous, oppressive and unconscionable legal fees for services to  be rendered by Defendants under the Fee Agreement.    63.  Had Plaintiff and the Class not heard the Advertisement, they would have not have  known to call an 800 number and not, therefore, entered into the Fee Agreement.    65.  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class are entitled to injunctive relief in the form of  an order directing Defendants to cease their false and misleading Advertisement and to void or  reform the Fee Agreement as the Court shall approve or order.   66.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set  forth herein.    67.  Defendants’ Advertisement is untrue, deceptive, and misleading, in violation of M.G.L.  c. 266, § 91.    68.  At all times relevant to this action, Defendants knew, or could, upon reasonable  investigation, have ascertained that their Advertisement was untrue, deceptive, and misleading.    69.  Defendants’ untrue, deceptive and misleading Advertisement has been promulgated  during the Class Period.    70.  As a person who is aggrieved by Defendants’ false and misleading Advertisement,  Plaintiff brings this class action to seek all available remedies under M.G.L. c. 266, § 91,  including injunctive relief. The injunctive relief would include, without limitation, an order  directing Defendants to cease their false and misleading Advertisement, and publish corrective  advertising.   71.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth therein.    73.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misconduct as set forth above,  Defendants have been unjustly enriched.  Specifically, by Defendants’ misconduct described  herein, Defendants have accepted a benefit (the ability to collect excess, outrageous, oppressive  and unconscionable fees).  Defendants have an appreciation or knowledge of the benefit  conferred on it by Plaintiff and the Class.   74.  It would be inequitable for Defendants to profit from Defendants’ wrongful conduct.   75.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated (i.e., the Class), seeks   primarily, among other relief, to void the Fee Agreement and/or reform that Fee Agreement, as  the Court shall determine proper and appropriate.    76.  Defendants should also disgorge any profits realized from the Fee Agreement.  Untrue and Misleading Advertising under M.G.L. c. 266, § 91    VIOLATION OF MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAWS (“M.G.L.”),  CHAPTER 93A, § 2   