13.  Defendant ACF is a merchant processing account company for small  to medium sized businesses.    15.  On information and belief, Defendant Blake Zinke personally  controlled and maintained the dialing equipment 3CLogic that was used in the  telemarketing campaign and oversaw and set the company’s policies with  respect to telemarketing in general.    16.  In Defendants’ overzealous attempts to market its services,  Defendants placed (and continue to place) phone calls to consumers that never  provided consent to be called and to consumers with whom they have had no  prior dealings or relationship. Worse yet, Defendants placed (and continue to  place) repeated and unwanted calls to consumers whose phone numbers are  listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. Consumers place their cellphone  numbers on the Do Not Call Registry for the express purpose of avoiding  unwanted telemarketing calls like those alleged here.   17.  Defendants seek to generate leads for its merchant processing  accounts for small and medium sized businesses. However, Defendants have  failed to appropriately segment ACF’s call list between landline and cell phone  numbers. As a result, Defendants have called cell phone numbers with ACF’s  auto-dialer equipment, which is expressly prohibited by the Telephone Consumer  Protection Act (TCPA).   19.  The FCC has specifically addressed such dual-purpose calls. The  Commission has ruled that “if the call notwithstanding its free offer or other  information, is intended to offer property, goods, or services for sale either during  the call, or in the future, that call is an advertisement.”2    20.  Defendants, or their agents acting on their behalf, use a variety of  local phone numbers to make these unlawful sales calls to consumers.   23.  Specifically, the hardware and software used by Defendants (or their  agent) has the capacity to store, produce, and dial random or sequential  numbers, and/or receive and store lists of telephone numbers, and to dial such  numbers, en masse, in an automated fashion without human intervention.  Defendants’ automated dialing equipment includes features as a predictive  dialer, inasmuch as it is capable of making numerous calls simultaneously (all  without human intervention).    24.  Defendants knowingly made (and continue to make) telemarketing  calls without the prior express consent of the call recipients and knowingly  continues to call them after requests to stop. As such, Defendants not only  invaded the personal privacy of Plaintiff and members of the putative Class, but  also intentionally and repeatedly violated the TCPA.   25.  On July 2, 2003 Plaintiff Christian registered his cellular phone  number on the national do not call registry to avoid receiving unsolicited  telemarketing calls on his cellular phone.   27.  On November 11, 2015 Plaintiff received two calls from 602-892- 0653. Plaintiff answered the calls, and he heard a pause before being connected  to a live operator.   28.  Plaintiff has received these same calls over the past year soliciting  him for a credit card processing account. Plaintiff has no need for a payment  processing account and has asked this caller to stop calling him.   29.  Plaintiff does not have a relationship with Defendants, has never  provided his telephone number directly to Defendants, and has never requested  that Defendants place calls to his or offer him ACF’s services. Plaintiff does not  have any business for which he uses his cellphone. Simply put, Plaintiff has  never provided any form of prior express written consent to Defendants to place  calls to him and has no business relationship with Defendants.    30.  Defendants at all times are and were aware that the above- described telephone calls were and are being made to consumers like Plaintiff  who had not consented to receive them and whose telephone numbers were  registered with the National Do Not Call Registry.  34.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other  members of the Classes. Plaintiff and the Classes sustained damages as a result  of Defendants’ uniform wrongful conduct during transactions with Plaintiff and the  Classes.   35.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately  represent and protect the interests of the Classes, and has retained counsel  competent and experienced in complex class actions. Plaintiff has no interest  antagonistic to those of the Classes, and Defendants has no defenses unique to  Plaintiff.   36.  Policies Generally Applicable to the Classes: This class action is  appropriate for certification because Defendants have acted or refused to act on  grounds generally applicable to the Classes as respective wholes, thereby  requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards  of conduct toward the Class members, and making final injunctive relief  appropriate with respect to the Classes as respective wholes. Defendants’  practices challenged herein apply to and affect the Class members uniformly,  and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinges on Defendants’ conduct with  respect to the Classes as respective wholes, not on facts or law applicable only  to Plaintiff.   38.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   40.  Defendants made the telephone calls using equipment that had the  capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or  sequential number generator, and/or receive and store lists of phone numbers,  and to dial such numbers, en masse.   41.  Defendants utilized equipment that made the telephone calls to  Plaintiff and other members of the Class simultaneously and without human  intervention.   42.  By making unsolicited telephone calls to Plaintiff and members of the  Class’s cellular telephones without prior express consent, and by utilizing an  ATDS, Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   43.  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 telephone calls on their cellular phones 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.   45.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   46.  Defendants made unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing calls to  telephone numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class on  their cellular telephone in an effort to sell its products and services after the  person informed Defendants that s/he no longer wished to receive calls from  Defendants.    47.  Defendants made the telephone calls using equipment that had the  capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or  sequential number generator, and/or receive and store lists of phone numbers,  and to dial such numbers, en masse.   48.  Defendants utilized equipment that made the telephone calls to  Plaintiff and other members of the Class simultaneously and without human  intervention.   49.  By making unsolicited telephone calls to Plaintiff and members of the  Class’s cellular telephones after they requested to no longer receive calls,  Defendants’ violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) by continuing to call them  without prior express consent.   51.  Should the Court determine that Defendants’ 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 other members of the Class.  52.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   53.  47 U.S.C. § 227(c) provides that any “person who has received more  than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same  entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection may” bring a  private action based on a violation of said regulations, which were promulgated  to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone  solicitations to which they object.   54.  The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c),  provides that “[n]o person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a]  residential telephone subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number  on the national do-not-call registry of persons who do not wish to receive  telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government.”   58.  Defendants also violated § 64.1200(d) by failing to have a written  policy of dealing with do not call requests, by failing to inform or train its  personnel regarding any do not call list, and by failing to record and honor do not  call requests.    59.  Defendants made more than one unsolicited telephone call to  Plaintiff and members of the Do Not Call Registry class within a 12-month period  without their prior express consent to receive such calls. Plaintiff and members of  the Do Not Call Registry class never provided any form of consent to receive  telephone calls from Defendants, and/or Defendants do not have a current record  of consent to place telemarketing calls to them.    60.  Defendants violated § 64.1200(d) by initiating calls for telemarketing  purposes to residential and wireless telephone subscribers, such as Plaintiff and  the Do Not Call Registry class, without instituting procedures that comply with the  regulatory minimum standards for maintaining a list of persons who request not  to receive telemarketing calls from them.   62.  To the extent Defendants’ misconduct is determined to be willful and  knowing, the Court should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), treble the amount  of statutory damages recoverable by the members of the Do Not Call Registry  class.  Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Autodialed Do Not Call Class)   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.  (On behalf of Plaintiff and Do Not Call Registry Class)   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Autodialed No Consent Class)  