18.  Defendant operates a consumer loan company. Unfortunately for  consumers, Defendant utilized (and continues to utilize) a sophisticated telephone  dialing system to call individuals en masse promoting its services. On information  and belief, Defendant obtained these telephone numbers (i.e., leads) by purchasing  marketing lists containing consumers’ telephone numbers.   20.  On or about April 15, 2019, Defendant twice contacted Plaintiff on his  cellular telephone number via ATDS, as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(l) without  first obtaining Plaintiff’s written consent. Two additional calls were placed by  Defendant on April 18, 2019.   21.  Plaintiff’s cellular phone number has been included in the National  Do Not Call Registry prior to 2019.   22.  Plaintiff also was sent a text message on April 15, 2019. A true and  correct copy of the text message from 424-383-5733 is attached hereto as Exhibit  A.   23.  On information and belief, and based on the circumstances of the call  as described above, Defendant called Plaintiff using an ATDS because there were  pauses of several seconds and clicks before a live person started speaking.   Plaintiff had no business relationship with Defendant, and Defendant is located  over 2,000 miles from Plaintiff.   24.  Due to the number and frequency of calls, it was obvious to Plaintiff  that a computer was dialing his number.   25.  Plaintiff understood the purpose of Defendant’s call was to have  Plaintiff apply for a consumer loans offered by Defendant.   26.  Plaintiff is the exclusive user of the cellular telephone that Defendant  called.   28.  Plaintiff did not provide Defendant with prior express written consent  to receive calls to his cellular telephone utilizing an ATDS and/or artificial or pre- recorded voice, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A).    29.  Defendant’s call which utilized an ATDS invaded Plaintiff’s privacy  and violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).   30.  Plaintiff has reason to believe Defendant has called, and continues to  call, thousands of wireless telephone consumers to market its products and services  without consent required by the TCPA.    31.  In order to redress injuries caused by Defendant’s violations of the  TCPA, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals,  brings suit under the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., which prohibits certain  unsolicited voice  and text calls to cell phones.    32.  On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class, Plaintiff seeks an injunction  requiring Defendant to cease all wireless telemarketing activities and an award of  statutory damages to the Class members.  33.  Plaintiff restates, re-alleges and incorporates by reference each  preceding paragraph as though fully set forth herein.   34.  Defendant made unsolicited and unauthorized calls using an ATDS to  Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ cellular telephones for the purpose of marketing  products and/or services to Plaintiff and the Class.   36.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitutes numerous  and multiple violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each and every  one of the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.   37.  Defendant’s conduct invaded Plaintiff’s privacy.   38.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.,  Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for  each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   39.  Because Defendant had knowledge that Plaintiff and the Class did not  consent to the receipt of the aforementioned telephone solicitations, and Defendant  knowing and intentionally made the telephone solicitations to Plaintiff, the Court  should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory  damages recoverable by Plaintiff and the Class.   40.  Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct in the future.   42.  Plaintiff reserves the right to modify the class definition as the  contours and parameters of the class become apparent through discovery in this  matter.   43.  Plaintiff and the Class members were harmed by Defendant’s acts in  at least the following ways: Defendant, either directly or through its agents,  illegally contacted Plaintiff and the Class via their cellular telephones by using an  ATDS, thereby causing Plaintiff and the Class to incur certain cellular telephone  charges or reduce cellular telephone time for which Plaintiff and the Class  members previously paid; and Plaintiff and Class members’ privacy was invaded.   44.  The exact size of the Class is presently unknown but can be  ascertained through a review of Defendant’s records, and it is clear that individual  joinder is impracticable. On information and belief Defendant made telephone calls  to thousands of consumers who fall within the definition of the Class.   45.  There are many questions of law and fact common to the claims of  Plaintiff and the Class, and those questions predominate over any questions that  may affect individual members of the Class.    47.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the  Class. Plaintiff and the Class sustained damages as a result of Defendant’s uniform  wrongful conduct during transactions with Plaintiff and the Class.   48.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests  of the Class and have retained counsel competent and experienced in complex  class actions.   49.  Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class, and  Defendant has no defenses unique to Plaintiff.    50.  This class action is appropriate for class certification because  Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class  as a whole, thereby requiring the Court's imposition of uniform relief to ensure  compatible standards of conduct toward the Class and making an award of  damages and final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the Class as a  whole.   51.  Defendant’s practices challenged herein apply to and affect the Class  members uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinges on  Defendant’s conduct with respect to the Class as a whole, not on facts or law  applicable only to Plaintiff.   53.  The damages suffered by the individual members of the Class will  likely be relatively small, especially given the burden and expense of individual  prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendant’s actions.   54.  Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the individual members of  the Class to obtain effective relief from Defendant’s misconduct.   55.  Even if members of the Class could sustain such individual litigation,  it would still not be preferable to a class action, because individual litigation would  increase the delay and expense to all parties due to the complex legal and factual  controversies presented in this Complaint.   56.  By contrast, a class action presents far fewer management difficulties  and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and  comprehensive supervision by a single court. Economies of time, effort and  expense will be fostered, and uniformity of decisions ensured.  57.  Plaintiff restates, re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs  1 through 33 as though fully set forth herein.   58.  Among other things, the TCPA and its accompanying regulations  prohibit telemarketers from making telephone solicitations to persons who have  listed their telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, a database  established to allow consumers to exclude themselves from telemarketing calls  unless they consent to receive the calls in a signed, written consent.   60.  Consumers who do not want to receive telemarketing calls may  indicate their preference by registering their telephone numbers on the National Do  Not Call Registry. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2).    61.  These registrations must be honored indefinitely, or until the  registration is cancelled by the consumer or the telephone number is removed by  the database administrator. Id.   62.  Because a telephone subscriber listed on the Registry must take an  affirmative step to register his or her number, a telemarketer who wishes to call a  person listed on the Registry must take a similarly affirmative step, and must  obtain the registrant’s signed, written agreement to be contacted by the  telemarketer. Id. § 64.1200(c)(2)(ii). The written agreement must also include the  telephone number to which the calls may be placed. Id.   63.  A person whose number is on the Registry and has received more than  one telephone solicitation within any twelve-month period by or on behalf of the  same entity in violation of the TCPA, can sue the violator and seek the greater of  actual damages or $500, a figure that may be trebled for willful or knowing  violations. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).   64.  Telemarketers who wish to avoid calling numbers listed on the  Registry can easily and inexpensively do so by “scrubbing” their call lists against  the Registry database. The scrubbing process identifies those numbers on the  Registry, allowing telemarketers to remove those numbers and ensure that no calls  are placed to consumers who opt-out of telemarketing calls.   66.  Regulations implementing the TCPA also require entities to maintain  internal Do Not Call registries. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d). Once an entity receives a  request from a residential telephone subscriber not to receive calls, the number  must be placed on the entity’s internal registry within a reasonable time, not to  exceed thirty days from the date of the request. Id. at § (d)(3).   67.  A seller of goods or services can be liable for TCPA violations even if  the seller does not directly place or initiate the calls.   68.  The provision that establishes a private right of action against an  entity that violates the DNC Registry restrictions provides that “[a] person who has  received more than one telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf  of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this subsection”  may bring an action for damages and injunctive relief. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)  (emphasis added). Likewise, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3) provides that once a  number is added to an entity’s internal Do Not Call registry, “the person or entity  on whose behalf the telemarketing call is made will be liable for any failures to  honor the do-not-call request.”   69.  As explained by the FCC, the TCPA and its regulations “generally  establish that the party on whose behalf a solicitation is made bears ultimate  responsibility for any violations.” See Rules and Regulations Implementing the  Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Mem. and Order, 10 FCC Rcd.  12391, 12397 ¶ 13 (1995).   71.  The FCC reaffirmed this in 2013, when it held that (a) a seller may,  under principles of apparent authority, actual authority, and ratification, be liable  for violations of § 227(c) by third parties, and (b) a seller may also be liable, under  the express terms of § 227(c), for calls placed “on behalf of” the seller. In re Joint  Pet. Filed by Dish Network, 28 FCC Rcd. 6574 (2013).   72.  Between April 15, and April 19, 2019, Plaintiff received four  telemarketing calls and a text message on his cellular telephone line, a number  he had listed on the Do Not Call Registry prior to 2014 from Defendant.   73.  These calls were placed in an effort to sell Plaintiff consumer loan  services.   74.  Because Plaintiff did not provide Defendant with a signed, written  agreement to receive Defendant’s telemarketing calls, the calls violated the TCPA.   75.  Plaintiff brings this Count pursuant to Rule 23(a), Rule 23(b)(2), and  Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure individually and on behalf  of:  All persons whose telephone numbers were listed on the Do Not Call  Registry, and to whom, during the four years prior to the filing of this  Complaint, more than one call within any twelve-month period was  placed by or at the direction of, to promote the sale of Defendant’s  services.   Excluded from the class are employees and agents of Defendant as well as  members of the judiciary.   77.  The proposed class can be identified through telephone records and  databases used in transmitting the telemarketing calls.   78.  The number of class members is believed to be in the thousands,  rendering the classes so numerous that individual joinder of all class members is  impracticable.   79.  Plaintiff is a member of the proposed class.   80.  There are questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiff  and the proposed Class, including but not limited to the following:  a. Did Defendant place telemarketing calls to Plaintiff and class  members?  b. Is Defendant liable under TCPA § 227(c) for telemarketing calls?  c. Were the calls placed under Defendant’s actual authority?  d. Were the calls placed under Defendant’s apparent authority?  e. Did Defendant ratify the illegal conduct by accepting the benefit of  its illegally-generated business and failing to exercise its authority  to end the violations?  f. Were the calls placed for Defendant’s benefit, or on Defendant’s  behalf?  g. Did Defendant place telemarketing calls to persons on the National  Do Not Call Registry?   81.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the classes. Like all class  members, he received Defendant’s telemarketing calls on a number listed on the  National Do Not Call Registry.   83.  Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions  affecting only individual class members, and a class action is the superior method  for fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.    84.  The likelihood that individual members of the class will prosecute  separate actions is remote due to the time and expense necessary to pursue  individual litigation; the low dollar-value of individual claims; the lack of an  attorney fee-shifting provision in the TCPA; the fact that class members are  unlikely to know that their rights have been violated; and the fact that few if any  recipients of Defendant’s telemarketing calls have brought private TCPA  enforcement actions against Defendant.   85.  In violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), Plaintiff and all class members  received telemarketing calls promoting the sale of Defendant’s services on cellular  telephone lines listed on the National Do Not Call Registry.   86.  Plaintiff and class members received more than one such call in a  twelve- month period.   87.  Defendant is liable for those violations under principles of actual  authority, apparent authority, and ratification, and because the calls were placed on  Defendant’s behalf and for their benefit.  89.  On or about April 15, 2019, Plaintiff received a text message (“Text”)  on his cellular telephone asking him to confirm he needs “$5,000.00 cash out.”  A  true and correct copy of the screen shot of the Text is attached hereto as Exhibit A.   90.  The text identifies that it was sent from telephone number 424-383- 5733. Plaintiff is informed and believes, upon such information and belief avers,  that Defendant sent text messages to consumers en masse.   91.  The text is an advertisement of Defendant’s services containing  automated content.   92.  On information and belief, Defendant sent or transmitted, or had sent  or transmitted on its behalf, the Text to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone using an  automatic telephone dialing system as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A) and the  FCC. Defendant’s system placed the Texts to Plaintiff automatically, using a list or  database of telephone numbers, and dialing without human intervention.   93.  Plaintiff never requested, desired, permitted, or otherwise provided his  prior express consent to Defendant to send or transmit the Text or any other texts  to his cellular telephone.   94.  Plaintiff never provided his prior express written consent to Defendant  to send or transmit the Text or any other advertisement or telemarketing to his  cellular telephone.   95.  As a result of receiving the Text, Plaintiff wasted data storage  capacity, suffered the nuisance, waste of time, and aggravation that accompanies  receipt of such unauthorized advertisements, and was subjected to an intrusion  upon seclusion and invasion of privacy.    97.  On information and belief, Defendant sent text messages to the Class  members using equipment that had the capacity to store or produce telephone  numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial  such numbers without human intervention.   98.  On information and belief, the Class members did not provide  Defendant with prior express written consent to receive such text messages and, as  a result, incurred expenses to their wireless services, wasted data storage capacity,  suffered the aggravation that accompanies receipt of such unauthorized  advertisements, and were subjected to an intrusion upon seclusion.    UNSOLICITED TEXT MESSAGE   VIOLATION OF 47 U.S.C. 227(C) —  TELEMARKETING IN VIOLATION OF THE TCPA’S DO NOT CALL  PROVISIONS   VIOLATONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227 FOR THE USE OF AN ATDS   