12.  Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1-11 as if set forth fully  herein.   13.  Plaintiff brings this Count on behalf of himself and a Class of all persons who  were charged a transaction fee for the use of automated teller machine number  TRA819364CD00001 located at 4999 Old Orchard Center, Skokie, Illinois 60077.   14.  On information and belief, the putative Class consists of hundreds of persons and  is so numerous that joinder of all putative Class members, whether otherwise required or  permitted, is impracticable.  The actual number of putative Class members is in the exclusive  control of one or more Defendants.   15.  Questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over any questions  affecting only individual putative class members, including:  (a)  Whether, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3)(A) and 12 C.F.R. § 205.16,  Defendants were ATM operators at all relevant times during that class  period that imposed a fee on consumers for providing host transfer  services to those consumers; and  (b)  Whether, at all relevant times during the class period, Defendants failed to  comply with the notice requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3) and 12  C.F.R. § 205.16(c).   16.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the putative Class members,  including:  (a)  Plaintiff and all putative Class members used an ATM operated by  Defendants;  4  (b)  Defendants failed to provide notice compliant with 15 U.S.C. §  1693b(d)(3) and 12 C.F.R. § 205.16(c) to Plaintiff and all putative Class  members; and  (c)  One or more Defendants illegally imposed a fee on Plaintiff and all  putative Class members for their respective use of the ATM at Issue.   17.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class, and Plaintiff  has hired counsel able and experienced in class action litigation.   18.  Questions of law or fact common to the putative class predominate over any  questions affecting only individual putative Class members, and a class action is superior to  other available methods for the full and efficient adjudication of the controversy.   19.  This Court and the parties would enjoy economies in litigating common issues on  a class-wide basis instead of a repetitive individual basis.   20.  The size of each putative Class member’s actual damages is too small to make  individual litigation an economically viable option.   21.  No unusual difficulties will likely occur in the management of the Class as all  questions of law or fact to be litigated at the liability stage are common to the putative Class and  all compensatory relief is concomitant with a liability finding and can be calculated by  automated and objective means.   22.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3)(D)(i) and 12 C.F.R. § 205.16(a), and on  information and belief, Automated Financial, LLC was an ATM operator at all times relevant to  this action.   23.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3)(D)(i) and 12 C.F.R. § 205.16(a), and on  information and belief, MetaBank, doing business as Meta Payment Systems, a division of  MetaBank, was an ATM operator at all times relevant to this action.  5   24.  According to its website, Automated Financial, LLC “is a full service ATM  provider” with a portfolio consisting of “over 4000 ATM sites across the United States.”   25.  Automated Financial, LLC lists MetaBank as one of its partners and provides  custom branding kits to reinforce branding.   26.  The ATM at Issue contains MetaBank branding and tells customers to report  operational problems to Automated Financial, LLC and its website, www.atmconnection.com.   27.  According to its website, MetaBank’s “knowledgeable ATM team is comprised of  experienced industry leaders who value the importance of communication and the benefit of  onsite visits.”   28.  As ATM operators, Defendants are responsible for compliance with the notice  requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3) and 12 C.F.R. § 205.16(c).   29.  Defendants failed to comply with the notice requirements of 15 U.S.C. §  1693b(d)(3) and 12 C.F.R. § 205.16(c) when providing ATM services to Plaintiff and all putative  Class members.   30.  Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3)(C) and 12 C.F.R. § 205.16(e), a fee was  therefore illegally imposed on Plaintiff and all putative Class members for their respective use of  the ATM at Issue.   31.  Because, on information and belief, all Defendants acted jointly to effectuate  operation of the ATM at Issue, they are jointly and severally liable.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the putative Class, requests that  this Court enter judgment in his favor and against Automated Financial, LLC and MetaBank,  doing business as Meta Payment Systems, a division of MetaBank, jointly and severally, and  award the following:  6  A.  Actual and statutory damages as set forth in the EFTA and Regulation E;  B.  Attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and  C.  Such other relief as this Court deems proper.  Plaintiff Demands A Trial By Jury  Respectfully submitted,  By: /s/ Lance A. Raphael  One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys  Lance A. Raphael  Stacy M. Bardo  Allison Krumhorn  The Consumer Advocacy Center, P.C.  180 W. Washington St., Ste. 700  Chicago, IL 60602  (312) 782-5808   VIOLATION OF EFTA AND REGULATION E  