13.  A relatively inexpensive type of marketing involves advertising through Short  Message Services. The term “Short Message Services” or “SMS” describes a messaging system  that allows cellphone subscribers to use their cellphones to send and receive short text messages,  usually limited to 160 characters.   14.  An “SMS message” is a text message call directed to a wireless device through the  use of the telephone number assigned to the device. When an SMS message call is received, the  recipient’s cellphone rings or makes a sound, alerting the recipient that a text message call has  been received.   16.  Moreover, in contrast to regular forms of advertising that are paid for solely by the  advertiser, SMS calls can actually cost their recipients money, because cellphone users like  Plaintiff have to pay their respective wireless service providers either for each text message call  they receive, incur a usage allocation deduction to their text messaging plan, or pay a fixed or  variable usage fee, regardless of whether or not the message was authorized.   17.  Accordingly, Congress enacted the TCPA to prevent unsolicited advertising calls to  consumers’ cellphones. “Voluminous consumer complaints about abuses of telephone technology  – for example, computerized calls dispatched to private homes – prompted Congress to pass the  TCPA.” Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 132 S. Ct. 740, 744 (2012).   19.  When it passed the TCPA, Congress intended to provide consumers a choice as to  how telemarketers may call them and found that “[t]echnologies that might allow consumers to  avoid receiving such calls are not universally available, are costly, are unlikely to be enforced, or  place an inordinate burden on the consumer.” Pub. L. No. 102–243, § 11. Congress also found  that “[m]any consumers are outraged over the proliferation of intrusive, nuisance calls,” and that  “the evidence presented to the Congress indicates that automated or prerecorded calls are a  nuisance and an invasion of privacy . . . .” Id. §§ 12-13.    2.  (Figure 2).   20.  The TCPA’s ban on unsolicited automated calls has been interpreted to extend to  automated text messages sent to cellular phones. See, e.g., In re Rules & Regulations  Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 27 F.C.C.R. 15391, 2012 WL  5986338 (Nov. 29, 2012); Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 667 (2016); Satterfield  v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946, 953-54 (9th Cir. 2009).   Allegations Specific to Plaintiff   21.  Defendant cultivates and produces marijuana and other cannabis products, and sells  medical and recreational cannabis products through a network of Reef Dispensary retail stores  located in Nevada and Arizona.   23.  However, Defendant often fails to ensure that the recipients of its messages have  provided prior express written consent as required under the TCPA.    24.  Beginning at least as early as August 2018, and continuing thereafter, Defendant  began transmitting automated text message advertisements to the cellphones of those whom it  hoped would be potential customers of its Reef Dispensary stores.   25.  For instance, on August 31, 2018, at 9:44 AM, Plaintiff’s cellphones rang, indicating  that a text message call was being received. The “from” field of the message was identified as  “(317) 561-4779,” which is a longcode—a specialized telephone number utilized by Defendant  and/or its agents for the transmission of automated text messages en masse.    26.  The text message that Plaintiff received on August 31st appears below in Figure 1.  (Figure 1).   28.  The text message that Plaintiff received on September 20th appears below in Figure   29.  As seen in Figures 1 and 2 above, the scripts of the automated text messages that  Plaintiff received were generic and non-personalized. The text messages did not refer to Plaintiff  by name, nor did they include his phone number or any other personally identifying information.  Rather, the contents of the automated text messages Plaintiff received were the same as the  contents of the many other automated messages Defendant sent to other recipients.   31.  Defendant did not obtain Plaintiff’s express written consent before sending him the  text message advertisements he received.   32.  The unauthorized text messages Plaintiff received caused actual, concrete injuries,  not only because the messages were sent in violation of the TCPA, but also because they invaded  Plaintiff’s privacy, interfered with Plaintiff’s unrestricted use of his cellphone, and caused  Plaintiff to waste time and effort reviewing and deleting the unauthorized messages sent by  Defendant.  33.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of herself and a nationwide class (the “Class”), defined as:   All persons in the United States who, during the period of four years  prior to the filing of this Class Action Complaint through the present,  subscribed to or regularly used a cellphone number that was sent one  or more automated text message advertisements by or on behalf of  Defendant, and for whom Defendant does not have a record of prior  express written consent to receive such messages.   34.  Expressly excluded from the Class are any members of the judiciary assigned to  preside over this matter; any officer, director, or employee of Defendant; and any immediate  family members of such officers, directors, or employees.   35.  Upon information and belief, the Class contains hundreds, if not thousands, of  members such that joinder of all members is impracticable.    37.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Class in that  the factual and legal bases of Defendant’s liability to Plaintiff and to the other members of the  Class are the same. Plaintiff and the other members of the Class have all suffered harm and  damages as a result of Defendant’s unlawful and wrongful conduct.     39.  Defendant has acted and failed to act on grounds generally applicable to the Plaintiff  and the other members of the Class, requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure  compatible standards of conduct toward the members of the Class, and making injunctive or  corresponding declaratory relief appropriate for the Class as a whole.    40.  Absent a class action, most members of the Class would find the cost of litigating  their claims to be prohibitive and would have no effective remedy. The class treatment of common  questions of law and fact is superior to multiple individual actions or piecemeal litigation in that  it conserves the resources of the courts and the litigants, and promotes consistency and efficiency  of adjudication.  41.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   42.  Defendant made unsolicited text message calls to the cellular telephone numbers of  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class using an automatic telephone dialing system, that is,  using equipment that had the capacity at the time the calls were placed to automatically dial  sequentially from a list of such wireless telephone numbers, as well as to store or produce  telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator and to  automatically dial such numbers without human intervention.   44.  Defendant’s text message calls constitute advertising under 47 C.F.R.  § 64.1200(f)(1) and telemarketing under § 64.1200(f)(12), because Defendant’s text messages  advertise the commercial availability of its cannabis goods and services, and because Defendant  sent these messages for the purpose of encouraging the called parties to purchase property, goods,  and services from Reef Dispensary retail stores.   45.  Defendant failed to obtain express written consent from Plaintiff and the other  members of the Class before sending the messages at issue.   46.  Defendant has, therefore, violated the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   47.  As a result of Defendant’s illegal conduct, Plaintiff and the Class members have had  their privacy rights violated, have suffered actual and statutory damages, and, under  § 227(b)(3)(B), are each entitled to, inter alia, a minimum of $500.00 in damages for each such  violation of the TCPA.   48.  To the extent Defendant knew or should have known that the Class members did  not provide prior express written consent to be sent the wireless spam at issue, the Court should,  pursuant to section 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by Plaintiff  and the Class members.  Background   Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227)  on behalf of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class  