11.  Furthermore, The JFPA defines “unsolicited advertisement” as “any  material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods,  or services which is transmitted to any person without that person’s prior express  invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(5).   12.  The Squip Junk Fax is a “dual purpose” fax.  The Federal  Communications Commission (“FCC”) defines these types of communications as  “offers for free goods and services that are part of an overall marketing campaign  to sell property, goods, or services.” Report and Order, In re Rules and Regulations  Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 18 FCC Rcd.  14014, ¶¶ 139-142 (2003). In other words, the FCC has concluded that a “dual  purpose” fax is an advertisement under the TCPA.3    14.  Put broadly, Defendant offers free samples to those in the medical  profession in hopes its recipients will purchase products from Defendant in bulk so  its recipients can then sell Squip’s products to their patients.      15.  While Defendant advertises its free Nasaline saline rinsing system  within the Squip Junk Fax, it’s ulterior motive is clear: to advertise and solicit its  recipients to go to Defendant’s website to purchase its products.  Squip invites a  viewer of its website how to order wholesaler and distributor purchasing.5 In  Squip’s privacy policy on its website it mentions that “The information collected  about you is used to process orders and to ensure that you are provided with the  best service.”6    16.  The Squip Junk Fax advertises the commercial availability of any  property, goods, or services when it advertises its Nasaline saline rinsing system  and solicits contact from its recipient.     18.  Unsolicited faxes cause harm to their recipients. A junk fax recipient  loses the use of its fax machine, paper, and ink toner. An unsolicited fax wastes the  recipient’s time that would have been spent on something else. A junk fax also  interferes with, invades, and intrudes upon the recipient’s privacy. Unsolicited  faxes prevent fax machines from receiving authorized faxes, prevent their use for  authorized outgoing faxes, cause undue wear and tear on the recipients’ fax  machines, and require additional time and labor to attempt to discern the source  and purpose of the unsolicited message. Such faxes are annoying and are a hassle  to deal with.   19.  On behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff brings  this case as a class action asserting claims against Defendant under the JFPA.   21.  On or about July 13, 2016 at 11:46 p.m., Squip transmitted by  telephone facsimile machine an unsolicited fax to Plaintiff Lackawanna.  See  Exhibit A.   22.  The Squip Junk Fax advertises the availability of Squip’s Nasaline  saline rinsing system. See Exhibit A.   23.  The Squip Junk Fax from Defendant also solicited Plaintiff to visit its  website at www.squipusa.com. See Exhibit A.   24.  The Squip Junk Fax from Defendant further solicited Plaintiff to enter  his identification and address information in order to have a free saline nasal  rinsing system sent to him. See Exhibit A.   26.  Squip created or made the Squip Junk Fax, which it knew or should  have known advertises its products (namely, its Nasaline nasal rinsing system) that  Squip intended to and did in fact distribute to Plaintiff and the other members of  the Class.   27.  The Squip Junk Fax is part of Squip’s work or operations to market its  goods or services that are performed by Squip and/or on behalf of Squip.  Therefore, the Squip Junk Fax constitutes material furnished in connection with  Squip’s work or operations.   28.  Plaintiff had not invited or given permission to Squip to send the  Squip Junk Fax and had no prior relationship with Squip.   29.  Squip faxed the same unsolicited facsimile message to Plaintiff and  more than 40 other recipients without first receiving the recipients’ express  permission or invitation.   30.  There is no reasonable means for Plaintiff (or any other Class  member) to avoid receiving unauthorized faxes. Fax machines are left on and ready  to receive the urgent communications their owners actually desire to receive.   32.  In accordance with F. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3), Plaintiff  brings this class action pursuant to the JFPA, on behalf of the following Class of  persons:  Squip Junk Fax Class: All persons who (1) on or after four years  prior to the filing of the initial complaint in this action, (2) were sent,  by Defendant or on Defendant’s behalf a telephone facsimile message  substantially similar to Exhibit A, (3) from whom Defendant claims it  obtained prior express permission or invitation to send those faxes in  the same manner as Defendant claims it obtained prior express  consent to fax the Plaintiff.   33.  The following individuals are excluded from the Class: (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 Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or  former employees, officers and directors; (3) Plaintiff’s attorneys; (4) persons who  properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (5) the  legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons; and (6)  persons whose claims against Defendant have been fully and finally adjudicated  and/or released. Plaintiff anticipates the need to amend the class definitions  following appropriate discovery.   36.  Typicality (F. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (3)): Plaintiff’s claims are typical of  the claims of all Class members. Plaintiff received an unsolicited facsimile sent by  or on behalf of the Defendant advertising goods and services of the Defendant  during the Class Period. Plaintiff is making the same claims and seeking the same  relief for itself and all class members based upon the same federal statute. The  Defendant has acted the same or in a similar manner with respect to the Plaintiff  and all the Class members.   37.  Fair and Adequate Representation (F. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (4)): The  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class.  It is interested in this matter, has no conflicts and has retained experienced class  counsel to represent the Class. Plaintiff is committed to keeping itself apprised of  the litigation and to representing the Class Members’ interests.    40.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully  set forth herein.   41.  The JFPA makes unlawful for any person to “use any telephone  facsimile machine, computer or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile  machine, an unsolicited advertisement …” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C).   42.  The JFPA defines “unsolicited advertisement” as “any material  advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or  services which is transmitted to any person without that person’s prior express  invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise.” 47 U.S.C. § 227 (a) (5).   43.  The faxes sent by Defendant advertised its services, namely its retail- management and consulting services, which were commercial in nature, and were  advertisements under the TCPA.  See Exhibit A.   44.  Plaintiff and the other members of the Squip Junk Fax Class never  gave prior express consent, invitation or permission to receive the faxes.   48.  Defendant’s Other Violations of the TCPA. Plaintiff is informed  and believes, and upon such information and belief avers, that during the period  preceding four years of the filing of this Complaint and repeatedly thereafter,  Defendant has sent via facsimile transmission from telephone facsimile machines,  computers, or other devices to telephone facsimile machines of members of the  Squip Junk Fax Class faxes that constitute advertisements under the JFPA that  were transmitted to persons or entities without their prior express permission or  invitation (and/or that Defendant is precluded from asserting any prior express  permission or invitation because of the failure to comply with the Opt-Out Notice  Requirements in connection with such transmissions). Defendant violated the  JFPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff is informed and  believes, and upon such information and belief avers, that Defendant is continuing  to send unsolicited advertisements via facsimile transmission in violation of the  JFPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and absent intervention by this  Court, will do so in the future.   50.  The JFPA is a strict liability statute. The Defendant is liable to the  Plaintiff and the other members of the Squip Junk Fax Class even if it did not  intend to send the faxes or to send them without first obtaining prior express  invitation or permission.   51.  The Defendant knew or should have known that (a) Plaintiff and the  other members of the Squip Junk Fax Class had not given express invitation or  permission for the Defendant or anybody else to fax advertisements about the  Defendant’s goods or services; (b) the Squip Junk Faxes constituted an  advertisement; and (c) the Squip Junk Faxes did not apprise recipients of their legal  right to opt out.   53.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of  the Squip Junk Fax Class are each entitled to, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), a  minimum of $500.00 in damages for each violation of such act.   54.  Furthermore, in the event the Court finds that Defendant’s conduct  was willful and knowing, the Court should, under 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(3)(C), treble  the amount of statutory damages recoverable by Plaintiff and the other members of  the Squip Junk Fax Class.  6.  This case challenges Defendant’s practice of sending unsolicited fax  advertisements.   7.  Defendant is company that makes natural medical products which  help those who suffer from allergies, asthma, bronchitis and other respiratory  disorders.  Defendant purportedly sells its natural medical products in 27 countries  world-wide to domestic and international distributors and wholesalers, including  the United States.1 2        8.  In its ordinary course of business, Defendant utilizes a facsimile  machine and sends solicitation faxes en masse in its overly aggressive attempts to  market itself, its services, and its products.   9.  To market Defendant’s services and products to potential clients,  including doctors’ offices, Defendant sends out unsolicited faxes that advertise the  existence of Defendant, its services, and its products.  See “Squip Junk Fax,” a true  and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.   Claim for Relief for Violation of the JFPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Squip Junk Fax Class)  