11.  In addition, the TCPA prohibits making “any call” using “an artificial or  prerecorded voice” to a wireless number.  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   12.  According to findings by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”),  such calls are prohibited because autodialed and prerecorded telephone calls are a greater  nuisance and invasion of privacy than live solicitation calls, and such calls are costly and  inconvenient.   13.  The FCC has issued rulings clarifying that in order to obtain an individual’s  consent, a clear, unambiguous, and conspicuous written disclosure must be provided by the  individual.  2012 FCC Order, 27 FCC Rcd. at 1839 (“[R]equiring prior written consent will  better protect consumer privacy because such consent requires conspicuous action by the  consumer—providing permission in writing—to authorize autodialed or prerecorded  telemarketing calls. . . .”).  B.  Defendants’ Robocalls to Plaintiff and Class Members   14.  Prior to the calls at issue in this action, Plaintiff had never had any contact with  Defendants.  Plaintiff has never consented in writing, or otherwise, to receive telephone calls  from Defendants.  Plaintiff has never provided Defendants with her telephone number.   15.  The following chart shows each date and time that Defendants called Plaintiff on  her cellular telephone number to sell her electricity:  19.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other persons  similarly situated.   20.  Plaintiff proposes the following Robocall Class definition, subject to amendment  as appropriate:  All persons within the United States who (a) received a non- emergency telephone call; (b) on his or her cellular telephone or  residential telephone line; (c) made by or on behalf of Defendants  in order to promote their products or services; (d) for whom  Defendants had no record of prior express written consent; (e) and  such phone call was made with the use of an artificial or  prerecorded voice; (f) at any time in the period that begins four  years before the filing of the complaint in this action to the date  that class notice is disseminated.    21.  Collectively, all these persons will be referred to as the “Robocall Class.”   Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, this proposed class.  Excluded from the Robocall Class  are Defendants and any entities in which Defendants have a controlling interest, Defendants’  agents and employees, any Judge and/or Magistrate Judge to whom this action is assigned and  any member of such Judges’ staffs and immediate families.    23.  Collectively, all these persons will be referred to as the “Autodialer Class.”   Plaintiff represents, and is a member of, this proposed class.  Excluded from the Autodialer Class  are Defendants and any entities in which Defendants have a controlling interest, Defendants’  agents and employees, any Judge and/or Magistrate Judge to whom this action is assigned and  any member of such Judges’ staffs and immediate families.   24.  Plaintiff does not know the exact number of members in the proposed classes, but  reasonably believes based on the scale of Defendants’ business, and the number of autodialed  robocalls that she received, that the classes are so numerous that individual joinder would be  impracticable.   25.  Plaintiff and all members of the proposed classes have been harmed by the acts of  Defendants in the form of multiple involuntary telephone and electricity charges, the  aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of  unsolicited and harassing telephone calls, and violations of their statutory rights.   26.  The disposition of the claims in a class action will provide substantial benefit to  the parties and the Court in avoiding a multiplicity of identical suits.  The proposed classes can  be identified easily through records maintained by Defendants.   28.  As a person who received numerous and repeated calls on her telephone using an  autodialers and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice without her prior express written consent,  Plaintiff asserts claims that are typical of each member of the classes.  Plaintiff will fairly and  adequately represent and protect the interests of the proposed classes, and has no interests which  are antagonistic to any member of the proposed classes.   29.  Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims  involving violations of federal and state consumer protection statutes.   30.  A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy.  Class wide relief is essential to compel Defendants to comply with the TCPA.  The  interest of the members of the proposed classes in individually controlling the prosecution of  separate claims against Defendants are small because the statutory damages in an individual  action for violation of the TCPA are relatively small.  Management of these claims is likely to  present significantly fewer difficulties than are presented in many class claims because the calls  at issue are all automated and the members of the classes, by definition, did not provide the prior  express consent required under the statute to authorize calls to their telephones.   32.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as  if fully stated herein.   33.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants constitute numerous and multiple  knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each of the above- cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.   34.  As a result of Defendants’ knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et  seq., Plaintiff and members of the proposed classes are entitled to treble damages of up to  $1,500.00 for each and every call in violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(3)(C).   35.  Plaintiff and members of the proposed classes are also entitled to and do seek  injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct violating the TCPA by Defendants in the future.   36.  Plaintiff and members of the proposed classes are also entitled to an award of  attorneys’ fees and costs.  37.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as  if fully stated herein.   38.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants constitute numerous and multiple  violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each of the above-cited provisions of 47  U.S.C. § 227 et seq.   40.  Plaintiff and members of the proposed classes are also entitled to and do seek  injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct violating the TCPA by Defendants in the future.   41.  Plaintiff and members of the proposed classes are also entitled to an award of  attorneys’ fees and costs.  9.  In 1991, Congress enacted the TCPA in response to a growing number of  consumer complaints regarding certain telemarketing practices.   A.  The Telephone Consumer Protection Act Of 1991   KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER  PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. §  227, et seq.  