10.  Defendant is a lead generation company serving the insurance, automotive, and  home security industries.     11.  Text messages, like the ones sent in the instant action, are considered calls under  the TCPA. See Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of  1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd. 14014, 14115, ¶ 165 (July 3,  2003); see also Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 946, 954 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting  that text messaging is a form of communication used primarily between telephones and is  therefore consistent with the definition of a “call”).    12.  As explained by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) in its 2012  order, the TCPA requires “prior express written consent for all autodialed or prerecorded  telemarketing calls to wireless numbers and residential lines.” In the Matter of Rules and  Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG No. 02-278,  FCC 12-21, 27 FCC Rcd. 1830 ¶ 2 (Feb. 15, 2012).    13.  Yet in violation of the aforementioned rule, Defendant fails to obtain any prior  express written consent to make these autodialed text messages and prerecorded telephone calls  to cellular telephone numbers.   14.  In recent years, companies such as Defendant have turned to unsolicited  telemarketing as a way to increase its customer base. Widespread telemarketing is a primary  method by which Defendant recruits new customers.   16.  Defendant knowingly made (and continues to make) unsolicited telemarketing  text messages and prerecorded telephone calls without the prior express written consent of the  call recipients and even to those on the National Do Not Call Registry.  In so doing, Defendant  not only invaded the personal privacy of Plaintiff and members of the putative Classes, but also  intentionally and repeatedly violated the TCPA.  17.  On June 10, 2011, Plaintiff registered his cellular telephone number on the  National Do Not Call Registry to avoid receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls and text  messages on his cellular telephone.   18.  On February 18, 2017 at 4:59 a.m. (and more than 30 days after registering his  cellular telephone number on the Do Not Call Registry), Plaintiff received the first unsolicited  text message from ReviMedia.  Said unsolicited text message read, “David, You’ve caught me  off hours.  My hours are M-F 9AM-7PM EST.  Is there a good time during those hours I can  schedule a call for you?”   19.  Just over an hour later, on the same day, at 6:12 a.m., Plaintiff received a second  unsolicited text message from ReviMedia stating, “This is Best Quotes, we were reaching out to  you regarding the health insurance quote you requested.  When’s a good time to go over your  options?”3   21.  On or around February 20, 2017 at approximately 10:15 a.m., Plaintiff received a  prerecorded telephone call from 619-326-3259.     22.  During the telephone call, a prerecorded voice instructed Plaintiff to press #1 for a  quote, press #2 to schedule a call-back, and #9 to be removed from its contact list.  Plaintiff  pressed #9 to be removed from its contact list.   23.  For the sole purpose of discovering how ReviMedia obtained his information,  Plaintiff contacted ReviMedia and spoke with ReviMedia’s agent, “Joe.” “Joe” informed  Plaintiff that he could not give him that information due to security reasons.  Thereafter, Plaintiff  terminated the call.       24.  Plaintiff does not have a relationship with ReviMedia, has never provided his  telephone number directly to ReviMedia, or requested that ReviMedia send text messages or  place prerecorded telephone calls to him or offer him its services. Simply put, Plaintiff has never  provided his prior express written consent to ReviMedia to make prerecorded telephone calls or  to send text messages to him and has no business relationship with ReviMedia whatsoever.   25.  By sending unauthorized text messages and placing prerecorded telephone calls as  alleged herein, ReviMedia has caused consumers actual harm in the form of annoyance,  nuisance, and invasion of privacy. In addition, the text messages and prerecorded telephone calls  disturbed Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of his phone, in addition to the wear and tear on the  phone’s hardware (including the phone’s battery) and the consumption of memory on Plaintiff’s  phone.    27.  On behalf of the Classes, Plaintiff seeks an injunction, requiring Defendant to  cease all wireless calling and text messaging activities and an award of statutory damages to the  Class members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.  28.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)  and Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and seeks certification of  the following three Classes:  Prerecorded No Consent Class: All persons in the United States from  four years to the filing of the instant action who (1) Defendant (or a third  person acting on behalf of Defendant) called, (2) on the person’s cellular  telephone, (3) for the purpose of selling Defendant’s products and  services, (4) using a prerecorded voice, and (5) for whom Defendant  claims it obtained prior express written consent in the same manner as  Defendant claims it supposedly obtained prior express written consent to  call the Plaintiff.  Text Message No Consent Class: All persons in the United States from  four years prior to the filing of the instant action who (1) Defendant (or a  third person acting on behalf of Defendant) sent text messages, (2) to the  person’s cellular telephone number, and (3) for whom Defendant claims it  obtained prior express written consent in the same manner as Defendant  claims it supposedly obtained prior express written consent to send  automated text messages to the Plaintiff.  DNC No Consent Class: All persons in the United States who (1)  received more than one text message on his/her cellular telephone; (2)  within any 12-month period (3) where the cellular telephone number had  been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days;  (4) for the purpose of selling Defendant’s products and services; and (5)  for whom Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent in the same  manner as Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent to send  automated text messages and/or place prerecorded telephone calls to the  Plaintiff.   30.  Numerosity: The exact sizes of the Classes are unknown and not available to  Plaintiff at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and  belief, Defendant sent autodialed text messages and made prerecorded telephone calls to  thousands of consumers who fall into the definition of the Classes. Members of the Classes can  be easily identified through Defendant’s records.   32.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Classes, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class  actions. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Classes, and Defendant has no  defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting  this action on behalf of the members of the Classes, and have the financial resources to do so.  Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel has any interest adverse to the Classes.   34.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   35.  Defendant made unsolicited and unwanted telemarketing calls to telephone  numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Prerecorded No Consent Class on  their cellular telephones in an effort to sell its products and services using a prerecorded voice as  defined in the TCPA.   36.  Defendant made the telephone calls using equipment that had the capacity to store  or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator,  and/or receive and store lists of phone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse.   37.  Defendant utilized equipment that made the telephone calls to Plaintiff and other  members of the Prerecorded No Consent Class simultaneously and without human intervention.   38.  Defendant failed to obtain any prior express written consent from Plaintiff and  other called parties that included, as required by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(8)(i) a “clear and  conspicuous” disclosure informing the person signing that:  (A) By executing the agreement, such person authorizes the seller to deliver or  cause to be delivered to the signatory telemarketing calls using an automatic  telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice; and  (B) The person is not required to sign the agreement (directly or indirectly), or  agree to enter into such an agreement as a condition of purchasing any property,  goods, or services.   40.  Defendant also failed to obtain any prior express oral consent of the persons  receiving its prerecorded telephone calls.   41.  By making unsolicited telephone calls to Plaintiff and members of the  Prerecorded No Consent Class’s cellular telephones using a prerecorded voice, Defendant  violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) by doing so without prior express written consent as  required.   42.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the  Prerecorded No Consent Class suffered actual damages in the form of monies paid to receive the  unsolicited telephone calls on their cellular phones and, under Section 227(b)(3)(B), are each  entitled to, inter alia, a minimum of $500 in damages for each such violation of the TCPA.   43.  Should the Court determine that Defendant’s conduct was willful and knowing,  the Court may, pursuant to Section 227(b)(3), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by Plaintiff and the other members of the Prerecorded No Consent Class.  44.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them herein by reference.   45.  Defendant sent autodialed text messages to cellular telephone numbers belonging  to Plaintiff and other members of the Text Message No Consent Class without first obtaining  prior express written consent to receive such autodialed text messages.   47.  By sending the unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff and the cellular telephones of  members of the Text Message No Consent Class without their prior express written consent, and  by utilizing an automatic telephone dialing system to make those calls, Defendant violated 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   48.  Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). As a result of  Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Text Message No Consent Class are  each entitled to, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), a minimum of $500.00 in damages for each  violation of such act.   49.  In the event that the Court determines that Defendant’s conduct was willful and  knowing, it may, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by Plaintiff and the other members of the Text Message No Consent Class.  50.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them herein by reference.   52.  The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that “[n]o  person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential telephone subscriber  who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons  who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government.”   53.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e), provides that § 64.1200(c) and (d) “are applicable to any  person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone  numbers to the extent described in the FCC’s July 3, 2003 Report and Order, which in turn,  provides as follows:  The Commission’s rules provide that companies making telephone  solicitations to residential telephone subscribers must comply with  time of day restrictions and must institute procedures for  maintaining do-not-call lists. For the reasons described above, we  conclude that these rules apply to calls made to wireless telephone  numbers. We believe that wireless subscribers should be afforded  the same protections as wireline subscribers.4   56.  Defendant also violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) by failing to have a written policy  of dealing with do not call requests, by failing to inform or train its personnel regarding any do  not call list, and by failing to record and honor do not call requests.   57.  Defendant made more than one unsolicited text message and/or telephone call to  Plaintiff and other members of the DNC No Consent Class within a 12-month period without  their prior express consent to receive such text messages and/or telephone calls. Plaintiff and  other members of the DNC No Consent Class never provided any form of consent to receive text  messages and/or telephone calls from Defendant, and/or Defendant does not have a current  record of consent to place telemarketing text messages to them.   58.  Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) by initiating calls for telemarketing  purposes to residential and wireless telephone subscribers, such as Plaintiff and the DNC No  Consent Class, without instituting procedures that comply with the regulatory minimum  standards for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing calls and/or  text messages from them.   59.  Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff and the DNC No  Consent Class received more than one text message and/or telephone calls in a 12-month period  made by or on behalf of Defendant in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as described above. As a  result of Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff and the DNC No Consent Class  suffered actual damages and, under section 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), are each entitled, inter alia, to  receive up to $500 in damages for such violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.   Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff Van Elzen and the Text Message No Consent Class)   Telephone Consumer Protection Act   (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff Van Elzen and the Prerecorded No Consent Class)   Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff Van Elzen and the DNC No Consent Class)  