12.  On February 23, 2016, Defendant sent an unsolicited advertisement to Plaintiff’s  ink-and-paper facsimile machine. The fax advertises Ichthammol ointment (the “Product”). It  touts that “Ichthammol ointment has a number of uses as a natural cure for a variety of minor  skin injuries and conditions.”  A copy of this facsimile is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit  A.    13.  Exhibit A is an exemplary of the junk faxes Defendant sends.   14.  Upon information and belief, Plaintiff has received multiple fax advertisements  from Defendant similar to Exhibit A.   15.  Defendant did not have Plaintiff’s prior express invitation or permission to send  advertisements to Plaintiff’s fax machine.    16.  Defendant’s faxes do not contain opt-out notices that comply with the  requirements of the TCPA.  17.  In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of the  following class of persons (the “Class”):  All persons and entities who hold telephone numbers that  received a facsimile transmission from Defendant at any time  during the applicable statute of limitations to present (the  “Class Period”) that 1) promotes Defendant’s products and 2)  contains an opt-out notice identical or substantially similar to  that contained on the facsimile advertisement attached as  Exhibit A to the Complaint.   19.  Excluded from the Class are Defendant, any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or  controlled person of Defendant, as well as the officers, directors, agents, servants, or employees  of Defendant and the immediate family members of any such person. Also excluded are any  judge who may preside over this case and any attorneys representing Plaintiff or the Class.   20.  Numerosity [Fed R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)]. The Members of the Class are so numerous  that joinder is impractical. Upon information and belief, Defendant has sent illegal fax  advertisements to hundreds if not thousands of other recipients.   22.  Typicality [Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3)].  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims  of all Class Members. Plaintiff received an unsolicited fax advertisement from Defendant during  the Class Period. Plaintiff makes the same claims that it makes for the Class Members and seeks  the same relief that it seeks for the Class Members. Defendant has acted in the same manner  toward Plaintiff and all Class Members.     23.  Fair and Adequate Representation [Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)]. 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.   26.  The TCPA provides strict liability for sending fax advertisements in a manner that  does not comply with the statute. Recipients of fax advertisements have a private right of action  to seek an injunction or damages for violations of the TCPA and its implementing regulations. 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).   27.  The TCPA makes it unlawful to send any “unsolicited advertisement” via fax  unless certain conditions are present. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C). “Unsolicited advertisement” is  defined 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).   28.  Unsolicited faxes are illegal if the sender and recipient do not have an  “established business relationship.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C)(i). “Established business  relationship” is defined as “a prior or existing relationship formed by a voluntary two-way  communication between a person or entity and a business or residential subscriber with or  without an exchange of consideration, on the basis of an inquiry, application, purchase or  transaction by the business or residential subscriber regarding products or services offered by  such person or entity, which relationship has not been previously terminated by either party.” 47  U.S.C. § 227(a)(2); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(6).   30.  Defendant faxed unsolicited advertisements to Plaintiff that did not have  compliant opt-out notices, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C) and 47 C.F.R. §   31.  Defendant knew or should have known (a) that Plaintiff had not given express  invitation or permission for Defendant to fax advertisements about its products; (b) that  Defendant’s faxes did not contain a compliant opt-out notice; and (c) that Exhibit A is an  advertisement.   32.  Defendant’s actions caused actual damage to Plaintiff and the Class Members.  Defendant’s junk faxes caused Plaintiff and the Class Members to lose paper, toner, and ink  consumed in the printing of Defendant’s faxes through Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ fax  machines. Defendant’s faxes cost Plaintiff and the Class Members time that otherwise would  have been spent on Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ business activities.   33.  In addition to statutory damages (and the trebling thereof), Plaintiff and the Class  are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief under the TCPA.  35.  Plaintiff and the Members of the Sub-Class are “consumers” within the meaning  of Fla. Stat. § 501.203(7).   36.  Defendant is a “person” or “entity” as used in FDUTPA.   37.  Pursuant to FDUTPA, unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or  practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are  unlawful.   38.  FDUTPA’s ‘unfair prong’ is also violated by a violation of “[a]ny law, statute,  rule, regulation, or ordinance which proscribes unfair methods of competition, or unfair,  deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices.” Fla. Stat. 501.203(3)(c). Thus FDUTPA’s ‘unfair  prong’ is violated by a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.   39.  Within four years prior to the filing of this complaint and continuing to the  present, Defendant violated FDUTPA by engaging in unfair practices against Plaintiff and the  Sub-Class.   40.  Defendant was engaging in “trade or commerce” within the meaning of Fla. Stat.  § 501.203(8).   41.  The practices described herein also offend established public policy regarding the  protection of the consuming public and legitimate business enterprises against companies, like  Defendant, who engage in unfair methods of competition.   42.  Defendant’s conduct, which caused substantial injury to Plaintiff and the Sub- Class could have been avoided, and is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to any  consumers or competition.   44.  In addition to actual damages, Plaintiff and the Sub-Class are entitled to  declaratory and injunctive relief as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Fla.  Stat. § 501.201, et seq.  64.1200(a)(4)(iii).    64.1200(a)(4).     Violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act  Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq.   Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act   47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4)  