1.  a statement that the recipient is legally entitled to opt-out of receiving  future faxed advertisements – knowing that he or she has the legal right to request  an opt-out gives impetus for recipients to make such a request, if desired;   19.  On information and belief, on or about February 21, 2013, Defendants transmitted  by telephone facsimile machine an unsolicited facsimile to Plaintiff.  A copy of the facsimile is  attached hereto as Exhibit A.   2.  a statement that the sender must honor a recipient’s opt-out request within  30 days and the sender’s failure to do so is unlawful – thereby encouraging  recipients to opt-out, if they did not want future faxes, by advising them that their  opt-out requests will have legal “teeth”;   20.  On information and belief, Defendants receive some or all of the revenues from  the sale of the products, goods and services advertised on Exhibit A, and Defendants profit and  benefit from the sale of the products, goods and services advertised on Exhibit A.   21.  Plaintiff had not invited or given permission to Defendants to send the fax.    22.  On information and belief, Defendants faxed the same and other unsolicited  facsimiles without the required opt out language to Plaintiff and more than 25 other recipients or  sent the same and other advertisements by fax with the required opt out language but without  first receiving the recipients’ express permission or invitation.    23.  There is no reasonable means for Plaintiff (or any other class member) to avoid  receiving unauthorized faxes. Fax machines are left on and ready to receive the urgent  communications their owners desire to receive.    25.  Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, incorporates  Paragraphs 1 through 17 as though fully set forth herein, as and for its paragraph 18.   26.  In accordance with F. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3), Plaintiff brings this  Count I pursuant to the JFPA, on behalf of the following class of persons:  All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this  action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material  advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property,  goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3) which  Defendants did not have prior express permission or invitation, or  (4) which did not display a proper opt-out notice.  Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, their employees, agents and members of the  Judiciary. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the class definition upon completion of class  certification discovery.   27.  Class Size (F. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)): Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon  such information and belief avers, that the number of persons and entities of the Plaintiff Class is  numerous and joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and  upon such information and belief avers, that the number of class members is at least forty.   30.  Fair and Adequate Representation (F. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (4)):  The 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.   31.  Need for Consistent Standards and Practical Effect of Adjudication (F. R. Civ. P.  23 (b) (1)):  Class certification is appropriate because the prosecution of individual actions by  class members would: (a) create the risk of inconsistent adjudications that could establish  incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants, and/or (b) as a practical matter,  adjudication of the Plaintiff's claims will be dispositive of the interests of class members who are  not parties.   32.  Common Conduct (F. R. Civ. P. 23 (b) (2)):  Class certification is also appropriate  because the Defendants have acted and refused to act in the same or similar manner with respect  to all class members thereby making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate. The Plaintiff  demands such relief as authorized by 47 U.S.C. §227.   34.  The JFPA makes it unlawful for any person to “use any telephone facsimile  machine, computer or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited  advertisement . . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C).   35.  The JFPA 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 prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise.” 47  U.S.C. § 227 (a) (5).   36.  Opt-Out Notice Requirements. The JFPA strengthened the prohibitions against  the sending of unsolicited advertisements by requiring, in § (b)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, that senders  of faxed advertisements place a clear and conspicuous notice on the first page of the transmission  that contains the following among other things (hereinafter collectively the “Opt-Out Notice  Requirements”):   39.  Defendants’ Other Violations. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such  information and belief avers, that during the period preceding four years of the filing of this  Complaint and repeatedly thereafter, Defendants have sent via facsimile transmission from  telephone facsimile machines, computers, or other devices to telephone facsimile machines of  members of the Plaintiff Class other faxes that constitute advertisements under the JFPA that  were transmitted to persons or entities without their prior express permission or invitation  (and/or that Defendants are precluded from asserting any prior express permission or invitation  or that Defendants had an established business relationship because of the failure to comply with  the Opt-Out Notice Requirements in connection with such transmissions). By virtue thereof,  Defendants violated the JFPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff is informed  and believes, and upon such information and belief avers, that Defendants may be continuing to  send unsolicited advertisements via facsimile transmission in violation of the JFPA and the  regulations promulgated thereunder, and absent intervention by this Court, will do so in the  future.   40.  The TCPA/JFPA provides a private right of action to bring this action on behalf  of Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class to redress Defendants’ violations of the Act, and provides for  statutory damages. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). The Act also provides that injunctive relief is  appropriate. Id.   42.  The Defendants knew or should have known that (a) the Plaintiff and the other  class members had not given express invitation or permission for the Defendants or anybody else  to fax advertisements about the Defendants’ goods or services; (b) the Plaintiff and the other  class members did not have an established business relationship; (c) Defendants transmitted  advertisements;  (d) the Faxes did not contain the required Opt-Out Notice; and (e) Defendants’  transmission of advertisements that did not contain the required opt-out notice was unlawful.   43.  The Defendants’ actions caused damages to the Plaintiff and the other class  members. Receiving the Defendants’ junk faxes caused the recipients to lose paper and toner  consumed in the printing of the Defendants’ faxes. Moreover, the Defendants’ faxes used the  Plaintiff's and the other class members’ telephone lines and fax machine. The Defendants’ faxes  cost the Plaintiff and the other class members time, as the Plaintiff and the other class members  and their employees wasted their time receiving, reviewing and routing the Defendants’  unauthorized faxes. That time otherwise would have been spent on the Plaintiff's and the other  class members’ business activities. The Defendants’ faxes unlawfully interrupted the Plaintiff's  and other class members' privacy interests in being left alone.   WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, RUSSELL M. HOLSTEIN, PH.D., LLC, individually and on  behalf of all others similarly situated, demands judgment in its favor and against Defendants,  44.  Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, incorporates  Paragraphs 1 through 43 as though fully set forth herein, as and for its paragraph 44.   45.  In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Plaintiff brings Count II for violation of the  New Jersey Junk Fax Statute (56:8-157, et seq.), which is part of the New Jersey Consumer  Fraud Act (56:8-1 et seq.), on behalf of the following Class of persons:  All New Jersey residents who (1) on or after four years prior to the  filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of  material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any  property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3)  which Defendants did not have prior express permission or  invitation.   48.  A class action is an appropriate method for adjudicating this controversy fairly  and effectively.  The interest of each individual Class member in controlling the prosecution of  separate claims is small and individual actions are not economically feasible.   49.  The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Junk Fax Statute  prohibit a person from using any telephone facsimile machine, computer or other device from  sending an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine within this state.   50.  The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act which incorporates the New Jersey Junk  Fax Statute 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 prior express invitation or permission.”   51.  The court shall award actual damages sustained or $500 for each violation,  whichever is greater, along with costs of the suit, reasonable attorneys’ fees and to enjoin future  violations.  If the court finds that Defendant was requested to cease and desist, the court shall  award $1000 for each subsequent transmission along with costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’  fees.  N.J.S.A. 56:8-159.   52.  Defendant violated N.J.S.A. 56:8-157 et seq. and 56:8-1 et seq. by sending  unsolicited advertisements (such as Exhibit A) to Plaintiff and other members of the Class  without first obtaining their prior express permission or invitation and by not displaying clear  and conspicuous notices on the first page of the unsolicited advertisements as required by  57.  Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, incorporates  Paragraphs 1 through 56 as though fully set forth herein, as and for its paragraph 57.   58.  In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Plaintiff brings Count III for violation of  the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (56:8-1 et seq.), on behalf of the following Class of  persons:  All New Jersey residents who (1) on or after four years prior to the  filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of  material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any  property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3)  which Defendants did not have prior express permission or  invitation.   60.  Plaintiff, and all those similarly situated are “persons” as defined by N.J.S.A.  56:8-1(d).   61.  Defendant’s violation of the New Jersey Junk Fax Statute constitute a per se  violation of the New Jersey CFA, as the New Jersey Junk Fax Statute was promulgated pursuant  to the CFA.   62.  Defendant’s practice of transmitting unauthorized advertisements that includes  and/or excludes prohibited terms and/or information including, but not limited to per se  violations of the CFA, constitutes an unlawful act and an unconscionable commercial practice  under the CFA.   63.  As a direct result of the above-referenced statutory violations, Plaintiff and all  those similarly situated have suffered ascertainable losses and are entitled to statutory  compensation as required under N.J.S.A. 56:8-157, et seq.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, RUSSELL M.HOLSTEIN, PH.D., LLC, individually and on  behalf of all others similarly situated, demands judgment in its favor and against Defendants,  JUNK FAX PREVENTION ACT OF 2005, 47 USC § 227   VIOLATION OF THE NEW JERSEY JUNK  FAX STATUTE N.J.S.A 56: 8-157 et seq.    VIOLATION OF THE NEW JERSEY  CONSUMER FRAUD ACT 56: 8-1 et seq.  