12.  Defendant Integrated Media Solutions, LLC is a media and marketing  company that owns and operates magazines, websites, direct mail programs,  database marketing operations, and service programs for dental professionals and  dental products suppliers.   13.  On information and belief, Defendant Integrated Media is the  4  publisher of Dental Product Shopper magazine and is responsible for the content of  the magazine.   14.  On information and belief, Defendant Integrated Media owns and  operates the website www.dentalproductshopper.com.   15.  Dental Product Shopper is a publication that reviews and evaluates  products for dental professionals to purchase.   16.  On information and belief, Defendants earn revenue for products  advertised in their publications.   17.  Dental Product Shopper’s companion website connects dental  professionals with product retailers to complete purchases.   18.  On information and belief, Defendants earn a fee for commercial  transactions occurring via Defendants’ companion Dental Product Shopper website.   19.  Defendants sent advertisements by facsimile to Plaintiff and a class of  similarly-situated persons. Whether Defendants did so directly or with the  assistance of a third party (yet unknown to Plaintiff), Defendants are directly liable  for violating the TCPA.   20.  Plaintiff has received at least one of Defendants’ advertisements by  facsimile. A true and correct copy of the fax received on or about September 29,  2016 is attached as Exhibit A.    21.  Exhibit A is a one-page document Defendants sent by fax promoting  Defendants’ Dental Product Shopper publication. The fax advertises the commercial  availability or quality of property, goods, or services. Exhibit A provides Defendants’  5  fax information to contact Defendants to order Defendants’ publication. Exhibit A.    22.  Defendants’ fax promotes its commercially available marketing  publication.   23.  Defendants’ free subscription offer is a pretext to advertise the  commercial products promoted in Defendants’ publication and which are available  through Defendants’ companion website.   24.  Exhibit A creates the impression that Plaintiff has a current  subscription to Defendants’ publication. However, Exhibit A does not include  Plaintiff’s practice name or address. Further, Exhibit A does not indicate that  Plaintiff  requested  or  received  express  permission  to  send  Defendants’  advertisement to Plaintiff.   25.  Plaintiff did not expressly invite or give permission to anyone to send  Exhibit A or any other advertisement from Defendants to Plaintiff’s fax machine.   26.  Exhibit A does not include a opt-out notice as required by the TCPA.  See 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (2) (D) & (E) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a) (4) (iii) & (v).   27.  On information and belief, Defendants sent advertisements by  facsimile to Plaintiff and more than 39 other persons in violation of the TCPA.   28.  Plaintiff and the other class members owe no obligation to protect their  fax machines from Defendants. Their fax machines are ready to send and receive  their urgent communications, or private communications about patients’ medical  needs, not to receive Defendants’ unlawful advertisements.   6  29.  Plaintiff brings this action as a class action on behalf of itself and all  others similarly situated as members of a class, initially defined as follows:  Each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone facsimile  messages after August 7, 2013 offering the Dental Product Shopper  publication.  Plaintiff anticipates modifying the proposed class definition, including proposing  subclasses where appropriate, after discovery about the scope and breadth of  Defendant’s fax advertising program and will do so through an amended motion for  class certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.   3.   Private right of action. A person may, if  otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a  state, bring in an appropriate court of that state:  (A)  An action based on a violation of this  subsection or the regulations prescribed under this  subsection to enjoin such violation,  (B)  An  action  to  recover  for  actual  monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive  $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever  is greater, or  (C)  Both such actions.  47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (3).   30.  Excluded from the class are Defendants, Defendants’ officers, directors,  legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns, any entity in which any  Defendant has a controlling interest, any parent, subsidiary or affiliated company of  any Defendant, and any Judge assigned to this action, including his or her  immediate family.   31.  In this action, Plaintiff intends to discover, include, and resolve the  merits of claims about all advertisements Defendants sent by fax. Exhibit B, a  Demand for Preservation of All Tangible Documents Including Electronically Stored  Information.    32.  This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class  action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. This action satisfies Rule 23 (a)’s numerosity,  commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements. Furthermore, the questions of  law or fact that are common in this action predominate over any individual  questions of law or fact making class representation the superior method to  7  adjudicate this controversy under Rule 23 (b) (3).   33.  Numerosity/impracticality of joinder. On information and belief, the  class consists of more than 39 persons and, thus, is so numerous that individual  joinder of each member is impracticable. The precise number of class members and  their identities are unknown to Plaintiff, but will be obtained from Defendants’  records or the records of third parties.   34.  Commonality and predominance. There is a well-defined community of  interest and there are common questions of law and fact that predominate over any  questions affecting only individual members of the class. These common legal and  factual questions, which do not vary from one class member to another, and which  may be determined without reference to the individual circumstances of any class  member, include, but are not limited to the following:  a. Whether Exhibit A and other yet-to-be-discovered facsimiles sent by  or on behalf of Defendants advertised the commercial availability or  quality of any property, goods or services;  b. Whether Defendants were the senders of advertisements by  facsimile promoting the commercial availability or quality of any  property, goods, or services;   c. The manner and method used to compile or obtain the list(s) of fax  numbers to which Defendants sent fax advertisements;   d. Whether the Court should award statutory damages to Plaintiff  and the other class members;  8  e. If the Court finds that Defendants willfully or knowingly violated  the TCPA, whether the Court should exercise its discretion to  increase the amount of the statutory damages award to an amount  equal to not more than three times the amount;  f. Whether the Court should enjoin Defendants from faxing  advertisements in the future; and  g. Whether Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein constituted  conversion.   35.  Typicality of claims. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the  other class members, because Plaintiff and all class members were injured by the  same wrongful practices. Plaintiff and the members of the class received  Defendants’ advertisements by facsimile and those advertisements did not contain  the opt-out notice required by the TCPA. Under the facts of this case, because the  focus is upon Defendants’ conduct, if Plaintiff prevails on its claims, then the other  putative class members will prevail as well.   36.  Adequacy of representation. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of  the class because its interests do not conflict with the interests of the class its seeks  to represent. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex  class action litigation, and TCPA litigation in particular, and Plaintiff intends to  vigorously prosecute this action. Plaintiff and its counsel will fairly and adequately  protect the interest of members of the class.   37.  Prosecution of separate claims would yield inconsistent results. Even  9  though the questions of fact and law in this action are predominantly common to  Plaintiff and the putative class members, separate adjudication of each class  member’s claims would yield inconsistent and varying adjudications. Such  inconsistent rulings would create incompatible standards for Defendants to operate  under if/when class members bring additional lawsuits concerning the same  unsolicited fax advertisements or if Defendants choose to advertise by fax again in  the future.    38.  A class action is the superior method of adjudicating the common  questions of law or fact that predominate over individual questions. A class action is  superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  lawsuit, because individual litigation of the claims of all class members is  economically unfeasible and procedurally impracticable. The likelihood of individual  class members prosecuting separate claims is remote, and even if every class  member could afford individual litigation, the court system would be unduly  burdened by individual litigation of such cases. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty to be  encountered in the management of this action that would preclude its maintenance  as a class action. Relief concerning Plaintiff’s rights under the laws herein alleged  and with respect to the class would be proper. Plaintiff envisions no difficulty in the  management of this action as a class action.  39.  Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.  10   40.  Plaintiff brings Count I on behalf of itself and a class of similarly  situated persons against Defendants.   41.  The TCPA prohibits the “use of any telephone facsimile machine,  computer or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone  facsimile machine….” 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (1).   42.  The TCPA 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 express invitation or  permission.” 47 U.S.C. § 227 (a) (4).   43.  The TCPA provides a private right of action as follows:   44.  The Court, in its discretion, may treble the statutory damages if it  determines that a violation was knowing or willful. 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (3).    45.  The TCPA requires that every advertisement sent by facsimile must  include an opt-out notice clearly and conspicuously displayed on the bottom of its  11  first page. 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (2) (D) and (E); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a) (4).   46.  Here, Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (1) (C) by sending an  advertisement by facsimile (such as Exhibit A) to Plaintiff and the other class  members without their prior express invitation or permission.   47.  Here, Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (2) (D) and (E) and 47  C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a) (4) (iii) & (v) by failing to include a compliant opt-out notice.  Exhibit A.    48.  Facsimile advertising imposes burdens on recipients that are distinct  from the burdens imposed by other types of advertising. The required opt-out notice  provides recipients the necessary information to opt-out of future fax transmissions,  including a notice that the sender’s failure to comply with the opt-out request will  be unlawful. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a) (4) (iii).   49.  Exhibit A does not state that Defendants’ failure to comply with an  opt-out request within 30 days is unlawful.   50.  Exhibit A does not inform the recipient that he/she/it has a legal right  to request that Defendants not send any future fax.   51.  Exhibit A does not inform the recipient that an opt-out request will be  valid only unless and until the person making the request subsequently provides  express invitation or permission to the sender, in writing or otherwise, to send such  advertisement to such person at such telephone facsimile machine.   52.  The TCPA is a strict liability statute and Defendants are liable to  Plaintiff and the other class members even if Defendants’ actions were negligent. 47  12  U.S.C. § 227 (b) (3).    53.  Even if Defendants did not intend to injure Plaintiff and the other  class members, did not intend to violate their privacy, and did not intend to waste  their valuable time with Defendants’ advertisements, those facts are irrelevant  because the TCPA is a strict liability statute.   54.  If Defendants’ actions were knowing or willful, then the Court has the  discretion to increase the statutory damages up to three times the amount. 47  U.S.C. § 227 (b) (3).   55.  Defendant Dental Product Shopper is liable for the fax advertisements  at issue because it sent the faxes, caused the faxes to be sent, participated in the  activity giving rise to or constituting the violation, the faxes advertise Defendant’s  good, products, or services, Defendant created the faxes to be sent or approved the  faxes to be sent, Defendant paid a fax broadcaster to send its faxes, the faxes were  sent on Defendant’s behalf, or under general principles of vicarious liability,  including actual authority, apparent authority and ratification.   56.  Defendant Integrated Media is liable for the fax advertisements at  issue because it sent the faxes, caused the faxes to be sent, participated in the  activity giving rise to or constituting the violation, the faxes advertise Defendant’s  good, products, or services, Defendant created the faxes to be sent or approved the  faxes to be sent, Defendant paid a fax broadcaster to send its faxes, the faxes were  sent on Defendant’s behalf, or under general principles of vicarious liability,  including actual authority, apparent authority and ratification.  13  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly  situated, demands judgment in its favor and against Defendants, jointly and  severally, as follows:  A.  That the Court adjudge and decree that the present case may be  properly maintained as a class action, appoint Plaintiff as the representative of the  class, and appoint Plaintiff’s counsel as counsel for the class;  B.  That the Court award $500.00 in statutory damages for each of  Defendants’ violations of the TCPA;  C.  That, if it finds Defendants willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA,  the Court exercise its discretion to increase the amount of the statutory damages  award to an amount equal to not more than three times the amount (Plaintiff  requests trebling);  D.  That the Court enter an injunction prohibiting Defendants from  violating the TCPA; and  E.  That the Court award costs and such further relief as the Court may  deem just and proper.  57.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.   58.  Plaintiff brings Count II on behalf of itself and a class of similarly  situated persons and against Defendants.   59.  By sending advertisements to their fax machines, Defendants  14  improperly and unlawfully converted the class’s fax machines to Defendants’ own  use. Where printed (as in Plaintiff’s case), Defendants also improperly and  unlawfully converted the class members’ paper and toner to Defendants’ own use.  Defendant also converted Plaintiff’s time to Defendants’ own use, as they did with  the valuable time of the other class members.    60.  Immediately prior to the sending of the unsolicited faxes, Plaintiff and  the other class members each owned an unqualified and immediate right to  possession of their fax machines, paper, toner, and employee time.   61.  By  sending  them  unsolicited  faxes,  Defendants  permanently  misappropriated the class members’ fax machines, toner, paper, and employee time  to their own use. Such misappropriation was wrongful and without authorization.   62.  Defendants knew or should have known that their misappropriation of  paper, toner, and employee time was wrongful and without authorization.   63.  Plaintiff and the other class members were deprived of the use of the  fax machines, paper, toner, and employee time, which could no longer be used for  any other purpose. Plaintiff and each class member thereby suffered damages as a  result of their receipt of unsolicited fax advertisements from Defendants.   64.  Defendants’ unsolicited faxes effectively stole Plaintiff’s employees’  time because persons employed by Plaintiff were involved in receiving, routing, and  reviewing Defendants’ illegal faxes. Defendants knew or should have known  employees’ time is valuable to Plaintiff.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly  15  situated, demands judgment in its favor and against Defendants, jointly and  severally, as follows:  A.  That the Court adjudge and decree that the present case may be  properly maintained as a class action, appoint Plaintiff as the representative of the  class, and appoint Plaintiff’s counsel as counsel for the class;  B.  That the Court award damages;   C.  That the Court award punitive damages;  D.  That the Court award attorney’s fees;   E.  That the Court award costs of suit; and  F.  That the Court award such further relief as it may deem just and  proper under the circumstances.  Respectfully submitted,  CONVERSION   TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. § 227  