11.  Defendant CARFAX is one of the best-known providers of vehicle history reports  to car dealerships and consumers nationwide.   12.  In an effort to promote its services, Defendant CARFAX hired Defendant  Vimenture to send fax solicitations on its behalf. Specifically, Defendant Vimenture sent fax  advertisements to businesses and consumers nationwide promoting CARFAX’s Service  Network, which is a service that provides “auto shops and aftermarket service facilities” access  to CARFAX’s database of consumer vehicle history reports.3        13.  Defendants sent (or had sent on their behalf) thousands of unsolicited fax  advertisements to Plaintiff’s and the members of the Class’s fax machines without consent for  the express purpose of obtaining new customers for its Service Network. The fax messages were  unsolicited advertisements promoting Defendant CARFAX’s services.    15.  Plaintiff and Class members did not give their prior express consent to receive fax  messages from Defendants, or phone calls of any kind, nor did they desire to receive such fax  advertisements.  16.  Plaintiff Athol Motorcar is an automotive mechanic located in the State of New  York.    18.  The caller ID on Plaintiff’s fax machine stated “NETPROCO.”   19.  Plaintiff did not provide its express consent to receive faxes from Defendants, nor  did it have any other contact with Defendants.    20.  Plaintiff did not have any type of an established business relationship with  Defendant CARFAX or Defendant Vimenture.   21.  Defendants were and are aware that the unsolicited fax advertisements at issue  were (and are continuing to be) sent, and that the faxes were being transmitted to consumers and  entities that had not consented to receive them.    23.  Numerosity: The exact size of the Class is unknown and not available to Plaintiff  at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and belief,  Defendants have sent unsolicited fax advertisements to thousands of consumers and entities that  fall into the definition of the Class. Members of the Class can be identified through Defendants’  records.   24.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff and the Class, and those questions predominate over any  questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common and predominant questions  for the Class include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:  (a)  whether Defendants’ conduct violated the TCPA;  (b)  whether Defendants’ fax messages constitute unsolicited advertisements;   (c)  whether Defendants systematically sent fax advertisements to members of  the Class for whom Defendants did not have a current record of express  consent to transmit such faxes to; and  (d)  whether members of the Class are entitled to treble damages based on the  willfulness of Defendants’ conduct.   25.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the  Class in that Plaintiff and the members of the Class sustained damages arising out of Defendants’  uniform wrongful conduct and transmission of unsolicited fax advertisements.   27.  Policies Generally Applicable to the Class: This class action is appropriate for  certification because Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to  the Class as a whole, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure  compatible standards of conduct toward the members of the Class, and making final injunctive  relief appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole. Defendants’ policies challenged herein  apply and affect members of the Class uniformly and Plaintiff’s challenge of these policies  hinges on Defendants’ conduct with respect to the Class as a whole, not on facts or law  applicable only to Plaintiff. Defendants have acted and failed to act on grounds generally  applicable to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, requiring the Court’s imposition of  uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of conduct toward members of the Class. The  factual and legal bases of Defendants’ liability to Plaintiff and to the other members of the Class  are the same, resulting in injury to the Plaintiff and to all of the other members of the Class.  Plaintiff and the members of the Class have suffered harm and damages as a result of  Defendants’ unlawful and wrongful conduct.   29.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   30.  Defendants sent, or directed to be sent, unsolicited fax message advertisements to  fax machines belonging to Plaintiff and other members of the Class without their prior express  consent to receive such messages.   31.  Defendants’ fax messages are unsolicited advertisements because they advertise  and otherwise solicit consumers and businesses to purchase Defendant CARFAX’s goods and  services and Plaintiff and the members of the Class did not consent to receive such messages.  Specifically, the fax message included information about the availability of Defendant  CARFAX’s services and provided a phone number and website where a fax recipient could sign  up and pay for the same.     32.  Plaintiff and members of the Class did not provide their express consent to  receive fax messages from Defendants and did not have any form of a business relationship with  Defendants.    34.  As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the  Class suffered actual damages in the form of monies paid to receive the unsolicited fax messages  and to maintain their fax machines, and under section 227(b)(3)(B), are each entitled to, inter  alia, a minimum of $500 in damages for each such violation of the TCPA.   35.  Should the Court determine that Defendant’s conduct was willful and knowing,  the Court may, pursuant to section 227(b)(3), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable  by Plaintiff and the Class.  Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  