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;   14.  On information and belief, on or about January 4, 2016, Defendants transmitted  by telephone facsimile machine an unsolicited facsimile to Plaintiff.  A copy of the facsimile is  attached hereto as Exhibit A.   15.  On information and belief, all three Defendants receive some or all of the  revenues from the sale of the products, goods and services advertised on Exhibit A, and all  three Defendants profit and benefit from the sale of the products, goods and services advertised  on Exhibit A.   16.  Plaintiff had not invited or given permission to Defendants to send the fax.    17.  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.    18.  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.    19.  Defendants’ facsimile attached as Exhibit A did not display a proper opt-out  notice as required by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.  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”;   21.  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.   23.  Typicality (F. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (3)):  The Plaintiff's claims are typical of the  claims of all class members. The Plaintiff received the same faxes as the faxes sent by or on  behalf of the Defendants advertising products, goods and services of the Defendants during the  Class Period. The Plaintiff is making the same claims and seeking the same relief for itself and  all class members based upon the same federal statute. The Defendants have acted in the same or  in a similar manner with respect to the Plaintiff and all the class members by sending Plaintiff  and each member of the class the same faxes.   24.  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.   26.  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.   28.  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).   29.  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).   32.  The Fax. Defendants sent the on or about January 4, 2016, advertisement via  facsimile transmission from telephone facsimile machines, computers, or other devices to the  telephone lines and facsimile machines of Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class. The Fax  constituted an advertisement under the Act. Defendants failed to comply with the Opt-Out  Requirements in connection with the Fax. The Fax was transmitted to persons or entities without  their prior express permission or invitation and/or Defendants are precluded from asserting any  prior express permission or invitation or that Defendants had an established business relationship  with Plaintiff and other members of the class, because of the failure to comply with the Opt-Out  Notice Requirements. By virtue thereof, Defendants violated the JFPA and the regulations  promulgated thereunder by sending the Fax via facsimile transmission to Plaintiff and members  of the Class.   34.  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.   35.  The JFPA is a strict liability statute, so the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff  and the other class members even if their actions were only negligent.   36.  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’ products, 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.  