10.  MLB Media is a limited partnership in which the club owners of Major League  Baseball (“MLB”) teams are limited partners. MLB Media operates as the internet, telephone, and  media marketing arm for MLB.    11.  Given that MLB club owners, including the Giants, provided MLB Media’s initial  capital contributions, MLB Media is under constant pressure to perform.    12.  Desperate to help drive the fan engagement that the MLB club owners so critically  rely on, and to combat nosediving ratings and declining fan engagement, MLB Media and the club  owners, including the Giants, began skirting their obligations under the TCPA and employed  intrusive and illegal telephone marketing strategies.    14.  The shortcode telephone numbers listed in the preceding paragraph were each  leased, purchased, or otherwise acquired by Defendant MLB Media and are each an “MLB Media  Shortcode” and collectively the “MLB Media Shortcodes.”    15.  The MLB Media Short Code registrations were part of MLB Media’s scheme to  gain access to baseball fans’ cell phones and bombard them with advertisements and telemarketing  pitches.   16.  The MLB Media Shortcodes were obtained from Telcordia Technologies, Inc., a  company that assigns these number resources.    17.  Short code telephone numbers are used to send text messages en masse from  telephone dialing systems that have the capacity to produce or store telephone numbers using a  random or sequential number generator and to send such messages in an automated fashion without  human intervention.    19.  MLB Media’s marketing tactics walk consumers into an onslaught of marketing  messages delivered straight to their cell phones without regard to whether the text recipients are  trying to drive safely, pray in peace, focus attention on their jobs or families or otherwise  attempting to seek solitude in their homes or elsewhere.    b. The  Giants’ Participation in MLB Media’s Integrated Text Marketing Scheme   20.  The Giants operate a San Francisco-based major league baseball team in the  Western Division of the American League.   21.  The Giants operate an advertisement and telemarketing campaign that involves  sending advertisement and telemarketing text messages to consumers’ wireless telephones without  first obtaining their prior express written consent.    22.  Through MLB Media, the Giants use the MLB Media Shortcodes 99778 and/or  80899 to send illegal advertisement and telemarketing text messages to consumers and to further  MLB Media’s and the Giants’ marketing campaigns. Advertisement and telemarketing text  messages from Defendants that promote the Giants are sent from MLB Media Shortcodes 99778  and/or 80899.   24.  Defendants sent to Lee’s Cell Number, inter alia, the following unsolicited  messages from MLB Media Shortcode 99778 through the use of an ATDS:   a. May 1, 2019:   41.   Excluded from the Classes are Defendants, any entity in which Defendants have a  controlling interest or which has a controlling interest of either of Defendants, and any of  Defendants’ legal representatives, assigns or successors.  Also excluded is any judge presiding  over or attorney appearing or participating in this case and any member of any such person’s  immediate family.  Members of the Classes are referred to as “Class Members.”    42.  Plaintiff reserve the right to modify the definition of the Classes or to add, when  appropriate, one or more issue classes under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4) or subclasses under Fed. R.  Civ. P. 23(c)(5).    43.  Plaintiff and all Class Members have been impacted and harmed by the acts of  Defendants and/or their agents, affiliates or subsidiaries.    44.  Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages on behalf of herself and the  Classes.   45.  This action may properly be brought and maintained as a class action pursuant to  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). This class action satisfies the numerosity, typicality, adequacy,  commonality, predominance and superiority requirements.    47.  The number of persons within each Class is substantial, believed to amount to  thousands of persons dispersed throughout the United States. It is therefore impracticable to join  each member of the Classes as a named plaintiff. Further, the size and relatively modest value of  the claims of the individual members of the Classes renders joinder impracticable. Accordingly,  utilization of the class action mechanism is the most economically feasible means of determining  and adjudicating the merits of this litigation.   Typicality   48.  Plaintiff received at least one text message from Defendants sent via an ATDS  without providing her “prior express written consent” to receive “advertisement or “telemarketing”  text messages via an “ATDS” within the meaning of the TCPA. This is the same harm suffered by  the absent Class Members. Consequently, Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the other Class  Members she seeks to represent, and Plaintiff’s interests are consistent with and not antagonistic  to those of the other Class Members she seeks to represent.  Plaintiff and all Class Members have  been impacted by, and face continuing harm resulting from, Defendant’s violations and/or  misconduct as alleged herein.   Adequacy of the Plaintiff   50.  Plaintiff retained and is represented by experienced, qualified and competent  counsel committed to prosecuting this action. These counsel are experienced in handling complex  class action claims, including class actions alleging TCPA violations.   Commonality and Predominance   51.  There are well-defined common questions of fact and law that exist as to all  members of the Classes and predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of  the Classes. These common legal and factual questions do not vary from Class Member to Class  Member, may be determined without reference to the individual circumstances of any Class  Member, and include (but are not limited to) the following:   a. Whether Defendants caused to be transmitted, advertisement or telemarketing text  messages to Class Members’ cell phones;  b. Whether Defendants were transmitted using an ATDS;   c. Whether Defendants can meet their burden in proving that they obtained the  Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ prior express written consent (as defined by 47  C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(8)) to send them advertisement and/or telemarketing text  messages with an ATDS;   d. Whether the complained-of conduct was knowing and/or willful;  e. Whether Defendants should be enjoined from engaging in such conduct in the  future.   53.  A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy because individual litigation of the claims of all Class Members  is impracticable. Even if Class Members could afford to pursue individual litigation, the court  system could not. It would be unduly burdensome to the courts for individual litigation of  numerous cases to proceed. Individualized litigation also presents the potential for varying,  inconsistent or contradictory judgments, and would magnify the delay and expense to all parties  and the court system resulting from multiple trials of the same factual issues. By contrast, the  maintenance of these claims as a class action, with respect to some or all the issues presented  herein, presents few management difficulties, conserves the resources of the parties and of the  court system and protects the rights of each Class Member. Plaintiff does not anticipate any  difficulty in the management of this action as a class action.    55.  Additionally, the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class Members may  create a risk of multiple adjudications with respect to them that would, as a practical matter, be  dispositive of the interests of other members of the Class who are not parties to such adjudications,  thereby substantially impairing or impeding the ability of such nonparty Class Members to protect  their interests. The prosecution of individual actions by Class Members could further establish  inconsistent results and/or establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants.    56.  Defendants and/or any of their affiliates, subsidiaries, or agents have acted on  grounds generally applicable to the Classes, thereby making final injunctive relief and  corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the Classes appropriate.    57.  Moreover, on information and belief, the TCPA violations complained of herein  are substantially likely to continue in the future if an injunction is not entered.   58.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-57 as if fully stated here.    59.  The foregoing acts and omissions constitute violations of the TCPA, including but  not limited to each of the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227.    61.  Plaintiff and all Class Members are also entitled to, and seek, an award of $500.00  in statutory damages for each text message transmitted in violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).   62.   Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1-57 as if fully stated here.    63.  The foregoing acts and omissions constitute knowing and/or willful violations of  the TCPA, including but not limited to each of the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227.    64.  Because of Defendants’ knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227,  Plaintiff and all Class Members are entitled to, and seek, injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct  violating the TCPA in the future.    65.   Plaintiff and all Class Members are also entitled to, and seek, treble damages of up  to $1,500.00 for each message transmitted in violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(3).   KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATION   OF THE TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Classes Against Defendants)   VIOLATION OF THE TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Classes Against Defendants)   a.  Defendants’ Integrated Text Message Marketing Campaign  