14.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff was a citizen of the State of Florida.  Plaintiff is, and  at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153 (39).    15.  AIA is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation and “persons,” as  defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153 (39).    16.  At all times relevant AIA conducted business in the State of Florida and in Broward  County, within this judicial district.    17.  AIA utilizes bulk SPAM text messaging, or SMS marketing, to send unsolicited  text messages, marketing and advertising AIA’s insurance services, including at least 1 unsolicited  text message to Plaintiff.    18.  For example, on or about February 12, 2018, at approximately 11:18 a.m. (EST),  AIA sent an unsolicited text message to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone ending in “6258”.   19.  On or about March 5, 2018, at approximately 12:37 P.m. (EST), AIA sent another  unsolicited text message to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone ending in “6258”.   21.  Plaintiff was at no time given an option to “opt-out” of receiving future unsolicited  text messages from AIA.    22.  At no time did Plaintiff provide Plaintiff’s cellular phone number to AIA through  any medium, nor did Plaintiff consent to receive such unsolicited text messages.    23.  Plaintiff has never signed-up for, and has never used, AIA’s services, and has never  had any form of business relationship with AIA.   25.  Upon information and belief, this ATDS has the capacity to store or produce  telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator.    26.  Upon information and belief, this ATDS has the capacity to store numbers on a list  and to dial numbers from a list without human intervention.   27.  This text message constituted a call that was not for emergency purposes as defined  by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(i).    28.  Plaintiff did not provide AIA or its agents prior express consent to receive text  messages, including unsolicited text messages, to her cellular telephone, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.   29.  The unsolicited text message by AIA, or their agents, violated 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1).   30.  AIA is and was aware that it is placing unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff and  other consumers without their prior express consent.   31.  Plaintiff was damaged by AIA’s text message. In addition to using Plaintiff’s  cellular data, her privacy was wrongfully invaded, and Plaintiff has become understandably  aggravated with having to deal with the frustration of repeated, unwanted robo-text messages  forcing her to divert attention away from her  work and other activities.  33.  Excluded from the Class are: any Defendant, and any subsidiary or affiliate of that  Defendant, and the directors, officers and employees of that Defendant or its subsidiaries or  affiliates, and members of the federal judiciary.   34.  This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action  against AIA pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because there is a well- defined community of interest in the litigation and the proposed Class is easily ascertainable.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Class definition if discovery and further investigation  reveal that any Class should be expanded or otherwise modified.   35.  Numerosity: At this time, Plaintiff does not know the exact number of Class  Members, but among other things, given the nature of the claims and that AIA’s conduct consisted  of a standardized SPAM text messaging campaign electronically sent to particular telephone  numbers, Plaintiff believes, at a minimum, there are greater than forty (40) Class Members.  Plaintiff believes that the Class is so numerous that joinder of all members of the Class is  impracticable and the disposition of their claims in a class action rather than incremental individual  actions will benefit the Parties and the Court by eliminating the possibility of inconsistent or  varying adjudications of individual actions.   36.  Upon information and belief, a more precise Class size and the identities of the  individual members thereof are ascertainable through AIA’s records, including, but not limited to  AIA’s text and marketing records.   39.  One or more questions or issues of law and/or fact regarding AIA’s liability are  common to all Class Members and predominate over any individual issues that may exist and may  serve as a basis for class certification under Rule 23(c)(4).   40.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class.  The claims of the Plaintiff and members of the Class are based on the same legal theories and arise  from the same course of conduct that violates the TCPA.   41.  Plaintiff and members of the Class each received at least one SPAM text  advertisement, promoting insurance products, which contained no purported opt-out notice, which  AIA sent or caused to be sent to Plaintiff and the members of the Class.   42.  Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class  because Plaintiff’s interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of the Class. Plaintiff  will fairly, adequately and vigorously represent and protect the interests of the members of the  Class and has no interests antagonistic to the members of the Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel,  who are competent and experienced in litigation in the federal courts, TCPA litigation and class  action litigation.   44.  Class-Wide Injunctive Relief and Rule 23(b)(2): Moreover, as an alternative to  or in addition to certification of the Class under Rule 23(b)(3), class certification is warranted  under Rule 23(b)(2) because AIA has acted on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff and  members of Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and  Class Members as a whole.  Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief on behalf of Class Members on grounds  generally applicable to the entire Class in order to enjoin and prevent Defendant AIA’s ongoing  violations of the TCPA, and to order AIA to provide notice to them of their rights under the TCPA  to statutory damages and to be free from unwanted text messages.  46.  It is a violation of the TCPA to make “any call (other than a call made for  emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any  automatic telephone dialing system. . .to any telephone number assigned to a . . .cellular telephone  service . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   47.  The text message sent to Plaintiff was made without regard to whether or not  Defendant had first obtained express permission. In fact, Defendant did not have prior express  consent to send text messages to the cell phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative  Class.   48.  Defendant has, therefore, violated Sec. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using an  automatic telephone dialing system to send non-emergency text messages to the cell phones of  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class without their prior express written consent.   49.  The foregoing acts and omissions of AIA constitutes numerous and multiple  violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of the above-cited  provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.    50.  As a result of AIA’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiff and  the Class are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every violation,  pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).    52.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1  through 42 and 46 – 48 of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.    53.  At all relevant times, Defendant knew or should have known that its conduct as  alleged herein violated the TCPA.   54.  Defendant knew that it did not have prior express consent to send these texts, and  knew or should have known that its conduct was a violation of the TCPA.   55.  Because Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members  did not give prior express consent to receive autodialed texts, the Court should treble the amount  of statutory damages available to Plaintiff and members of the putative Class pursuant to §  227(b)(3) of the TCPA.   56.  As a result of AIA’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b),  Plaintiff and The Class are entitled to an award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages, for each and  every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   57.  Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting such  conduct in the future.   WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court grant Plaintiff and the Class  members relief against AIA, as set forth in the Prayer for Relief below.  KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE  TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)   VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  