10.  Unfortunately, many of the people whose cell phones were called as a result of  Defendant’s autodialing and artificial or prerecorded voice message practices never actually  consented to receive such calls.   11.  On information and belief, many of these individuals were called more than once,  and Defendant lacks a sufficiently adequate system for limiting the number of autodialed or  prerecorded calls to cell phones for which it does not have prior express permission to call.   These are unsolicited “cold calls” made for the purpose of generating leads for sales of  Defendant’s products and/or services.  Facts Relating to Plaintiff Benzion   12.  Starting in or about March 2012, Plaintiff Benzion began to receive calls to his  cell phone—sometimes multiple times a day—consisting of an automated, prerecorded message  advertising a “free” wireless security system in exchange for putting the company’s sign in his  yard.     13.  These calls came from numbers including but not limited to (503) 563-0357,  (503) 902-8127, and (503) 902-8279.   14.  After answering one of these calls from (503) 902-8279 on or about April 9, 2012,  Plaintiff Benzion went through the call’s automated process to speak with a live representative,  who informed Plaintiff that he was promoting Vivint.   15.  Many, if not all, of these calls from or on behalf of Defendant were made using an  automatic telephone dialing system, equipment having the capacity to dial Plaintiff’s number  without human intervention.     17.  Plaintiff has never given Defendant permission to contact his cell phone, whether  through the use of an autodialer, prerecorded or artificial voice message, or otherwise.  Plaintiff’s  number is registered with the National Do-Not-Call List.   18.  In fact, on at least one occasion in or around April 2012, in which Defendant  caused Plaintiff’s cell phone to be called using a prerecorded voice message, when the message  prompted Plaintiff to press a certain number to be removed from the call list, Plaintiff pressed  that number.  This had no effect in stopping Defendant’s calls to Plaintiff’s cell phone;  Defendant continued to call Plaintiff’s cell phone via an autodialer and/or using prerecorded  voice messages.  Plaintiff even continued to receive calls from or on behalf of Defendant after  directly requesting that further calls cease during his conversation with Defendant’s  representative on or about April 9, 2012.   19.  Plaintiff was damaged by Defendant’s calls.  His privacy was wrongfully invaded,  and Plaintiff has become understandably aggravated with having to deal with the frustration of  repeated, unwanted phone calls forcing him to divert attention away from his work and other  activities, especially given Defendant’s complete disregard of his repeated requests to cease.  Facts Relating to Plaintiff Glaser   20.  Plaintiff Glaser owns and pays for two prepaid cellular telephones, one of which  is used primarily by his wife.   22.  The call consisted of a prerecorded voice message offering a “free” wireless  security system in exchange for Plaintiff putting its sign in his yard.    23.  On information and belief, this call was made by or on behalf of Defendant, and  the sign referenced in the message was to be a sign for Vivint.   24.  Additionally, on or about April 23, 2012, Plaintiff’s wife received a call on her  cell phone from (253) 246-8515.   25.  On information and belief, this was a similar prerecorded voice message call  made by or on behalf of Defendant.   26.  On information and belief, these and the other prerecorded voice calls from  Defendant were made using an autodialer—equipment with the capacity to dial phone numbers  without human intervention.     27.  Neither Plaintiff nor his wife has ever given Vivint express permission to contact  their cell phones, let alone via an autodialer or with an artificial or prerecorded voice message.   28.  Both cell phone numbers attributable to Plaintiff are listed on the National and  Florida Do-Not-Call Lists.   29.  On information and belief, Plaintiff’s phones have received other home security  sales calls from Vivint, as well.   30.  Plaintiff was damaged by Defendant’s conduct; not only was Plaintiff Glaser’s  privacy wrongfully invaded, but the calls cost him money through his prepaid phone plan.  32.  It is a violation of the TCPA to make “any call (other than a call made for  emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any  automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice … to any telephone  number assigned to a … cellular telephone service….”  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   33.  “Automatic telephone dialing system” refers to any equipment that has the  “capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.”  See, e.g., Hicks v. Client Servs., Inc.,  No. 07-61822, 2009 WL 2365637, at *4 (S.D. Fla. June 9, 2009) (citing FCC, In re: Rules and  Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991: Request of ACA  International for Clarification and Declaratory Ruling, 07–232, ¶ 12, n. 23 (2007)).   34.  Defendant used equipment having the capacity to dial numbers without human  intervention to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cellular telephones of Plaintiffs and  the other members of the Class defined below.  Many of these calls, including calls to Plaintiffs,  utilized prerecorded messages.   35.  These calls were made without regard to whether or not Defendant had first  obtained express permission from the called party to make such calls.  In fact, Defendant did not  have prior express consent to call the cell phones of Plaintiffs and the other members of the  putative Class when its calls were made.   36.  As such, Defendant’s calls were willful or, at a minimum, negligent.  See 47  U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).   38.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to Section 227(b)(3)(B) of the  TCPA, Plaintiffs and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled  to a minimum of $500.00 in damages for each violation.   39.  Because Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and the other  members of the putative Class had not given prior express consent to receive its autodialed and   prerecorded voice calls to their cellular telephones—and/or willfully used an automatic  telephone dialing system and/or prerecorded voice message to call the cell phones of Plaintiffs  and the other members of the Class without prior express permission—the Court should treble  the amount of statutory damages available to Plaintiffs and the other members of the putative  Class pursuant to Section 227(b)(3) of the TCPA.  Class Allegations   40.  Plaintiffs bring this case on behalf of a Class defined as follows:  All persons in the United States who, within four years prior to the filing of this action,  Defendant or some person on Defendant’s behalf called on their cell phone using an  artificial or prerecorded voice message or device with the capacity to dial numbers  without human intervention, where Defendant’s records fail to indicate prior express  permission from the recipient to make such call.    41.  Upon information and belief, Defendant called more than 100 phone numbers in  the four years prior to the filing of this action utilizing a device with the capacity to dial numbers  without human intervention or a message that had been recorded ahead of time, where Defendant  did not have prior express permission for such call.     43.  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the putative  Class.  The factual and legal bases of Defendant’s liability to Plaintiffs and the other members of  the putative Class are the same:  Defendant violated the TCPA by causing the cellular telephone  number of each member of the putative Class, including Plaintiffs, to be called using an  automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or prerecorded voice message without prior  express permission.    44.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.  Plaintiffs  have no interests that might conflict with the interests of the Class.  Plaintiffs are interested in  pursuing their claims vigorously, and they have retained counsel competent and experienced in  class and complex litigation, including with regards to the claims alleged herein.   46.  No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action  that would preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior alternative exists for the  fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.   47.  Defendant has acted and failed to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiffs  and the other members of the Class, thereby making relief appropriate with respect to the Class  as a whole.  Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the putative Class, should  they even realize that their rights have been violated, would likely create the risk of inconsistent  or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the Class that would establish  incompatible standards of conduct.   7.  Defendant is a home automation company that provides and markets home  security products and services, among other things.   8.  Within the four years prior to the filing of this action, Defendant—whether  directly, through affiliate marketers, or otherwise—used equipment to dial the cellular telephone  numbers of potential customers, including Plaintiffs.  On information and belief, the dialing  equipment used had the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)  