15.  Class Definition: Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of itself and a Class of similarly situated individuals or business,  defined as follows:  All persons in the United States who received a facsimile, soliciting  their participation in a paid research study/project, from or on behalf  of Defendant and who had no ongoing business relationship with  Defendant and had not given consent to receive facsimiles from  Defendant, within the four years prior to the filing of the Complaint  until the class is certified.   16.  Numerosity: The exact number of class members is unknown and is not available  to Plaintiff at this time, but individual joinder in this case is impracticable.  The Class likely  consists of thousands of individuals and businesses, given the extensive nature of Defendant’s  business and the need to contact hundreds if not thousands of the individuals to participate in its  surveys.  Nonetheless, class members can be easily identified through Defendant’s or its agents’  records.  4   17.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and those questions predominate over  any questions that may affect individual members of the Class.  Common questions for the Class  include but are not limited to the following:  a)  Whether Defendant sent the attached fax or had it sent on its behalf;  b)  Whether Defendant had or attempted to obtain consent;  c)  How Defendant compiles its list of individuals/companies to send facsimiles;  d)  Whether Defendant has processes in place to prevent unsolicited facsimiles;  e)  Whether Defendant’s conduct was willful;  f)  Whether Defendant’s facsimiles were advertisements; and   g)  Whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of the TCPA.   18.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other Class members and  it sustained the same damages as other members of the Class as a result of Defendant’s actions.   19.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect  the interests of the Class, and Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex  litigation and class actions including TCPA cases.  Furthermore, Plaintiff has no interests  antagonistic to the Class, and Defendant has no defenses unique to Plaintiff.  Plaintiff and its  counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of members of the Class,  and they have the financial resources to do so.   20.  Superiority: This case is appropriate for certification because class proceedings are  the best method available for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy in light of the  common issues across the class.   5  21.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   22.  The TCPA expressly prohibits unsolicited facsimile advertising, 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(C).   23.  The TCPA defines an “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); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(1).   24.  The Sixth Circuit also looks to dictionary definitions of the word “advertising” to  further clarify its meaning to “the action of calling something” of a “commercial nature” to the  attention of the public.”  Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., 788  F.3d 218, 221-222 (6th Cir. 2015).”     25.  As such, a facsimile intending to draw the attention of the public to the desire of  a defendant to enlist survey takers for a commercial purpose is an “advertisement” under the  TCPA.  See Lyngaas, D.D.S. v. J. Reckner Associates, Inc, U.S. Dist. Ct., E.D.Mich., 2:17-CV- 12867 (Order filed 07/31/18, ECF No. 29).   Defendant violated this provision by sending an  unsolicited fax to Plaintiff.   26.  Federal Courts have found that facsimile solicitations to participate in marketing  surveys in exchange for payment are advertisements within the purview of the TCPA.  See  Fischbein v. Olson Research Group, Inc., 959 F.3d 559 (3rd Cir. 2020).   27.  Accordingly, Defendant’s facsimile is regulated by the TCPA, and Defendant’s  transmission of it without prior consent or a business relationship is unlawful.  6   28.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the  Class have suffered actual damages as set forth above.   29.  Under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), Plaintiff and members of the Class are each  entitled to, inter alia, a minimum of $500 in statutory damages for each violation.   30.  Should the Court determine that Defendant’s misconduct was willful and knowing,  the Court may, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by Plaintiff and members of the Class to $1,500 for each violation.  7.  On or about November 4, 2019, Defendant sent an unsolicited facsimile to Plaintiff  (attached hereto as Exhibit 1).   8.  Plaintiff and Defendant had no prior or existing business relationship, and Plaintiff  did not give Defendant its fax number or consent to be sent a facsimile.   9.  The facsimile was one page long and stated it was a “PAID TELEPHONE  Violation of 47 U.S.C § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  