12.  Defendant Skyrocket Media, either directly, or through its affiliates directs  telemarketers to send unsolicited text messages on its behalf and financially benefits from the  marketing.   14.  In addition to the above statement from the FCC, Skyrocket Media knowingly  benefits from all of the marketing that is done on its behalf and has ratified any telemarketing.   Plaintiff Received Unsolicited Autodialed Text Messages to Her Cell  Phone Despite Being on the DNC List    15.  On March 25, 2017, Plaintiff Schultz registered her cellular phone number on the  DNC Registry to avoid receiving unwanted phone and text solicitations.    16.  Her cellular phone number is not associated with a business and is for personal  use.   17.  On February 21, 2019 at 3:30 PM, Schultz received an unsolicited autodialed text  message from, or on behalf of, Defendant on her cellular phone from 402-922-9644:   19.  At the newhome.esa-us.com domain, the consumer is provided with a short  survey regarding rent-to-own properties. When the survey is completed, the consumer is routed  directly to ViewForeclosureHomes.com, a website owned by Defendant Skyrocket Media.2   20.  On March 24, 2019 at 10:00 AM, Schultz received a second autodialed text  message on her cellular phone from, or on behalf of, Skyrocket Media, this time supposedly from  the phone number 833-869-4183:   21.  Clicking on furnished4clsdhomes.pw routes directly to https://eaze- listings.com/img/?aff_id=10&source=ED-CVSeeps-1-4-5:  3   23.  Plaintiff has never had a relationship with Skyrocket Media and has never  provided Skyrocket Media express written consent to contact her.   24.  Plaintiff Schultz was not looking for a rental property or rent-to-own opportunity  at the time she was called.   25.  The unauthorized text messages sent by Skyrocket Media, as alleged herein, have  harmed Plaintiff in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasions of privacy. They have also  disturbed Schultz’s use and enjoyment of her cellular phone, in addition to the wear and tear on  the phones’ hardware (including the phones’ battery) and the consumption of memory on the  phone. Text messages ring or vibrate alerting the phone user of their receipt. These messages  interfere with and interrupt a user’s experience, resulting in further annoyance and invasions of  privacy.    26.  In addition, Defendant violated the DNC rules by sending 2 solicitation text  messages within a 1-year period to Plaintiff’s phone number, which had been registered on the  Do Not Call registry for at least 30 days.   27.  Seeking redress for these injuries, Schultz, on behalf of herself and two Classes of  similarly situated individuals, brings suit under the TCPA which prohibits unsolicited autodialed  text messages to cellular telephones, including solicitation text messages to a phone number  protected by the DNC.  29.  The following individuals are excluded from the Classes: (1) any Judge or  Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, its  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents  have a controlling interest and their current or former employees, officers and directors; (3)  Plaintiff’s attorneys; (4) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion  from the Classes; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded  persons; and (6) persons whose claims against Defendant have been fully and finally adjudicated  and/or released. Plaintiff anticipates the need to amend the Class definition following appropriate  discovery.   30.  Numerosity: On information and belief, there are hundreds if not thousands of  members of the Classes such that joinder of all members is impracticable.   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 her 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 her counsel has any interest adverse to the Classes.   34.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference.   35.  Defendant and/or its agents sent unwanted solicitation text messages to cellular  telephone numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Autodialed No Consent  Class using an autodialer.    36.  These solicitation text messages were sent en masse without the consent of the  Plaintiff and the other members of the Autodialed No Consent Class to receive such solicitation  text messages.   38.  Defendant failed to obtain prior express consent of any kind. There was no oral  consent, and Defendant failed to obtain any written consent required under the TCPA or  otherwise.    39.  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 Autodialed No Consent Class are  each entitled to between $500 and $1,500 for each and every text message.  40.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference.   41.  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.”   42.  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.”4   44.  Any “person who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month  period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this  subsection may” may bring a private action based on a violation of said regulations, which were  promulgated to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone  solicitations to which they object.  47 U.S.C. § 227(c).   45.  Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) by initiating, or causing to be initiated,  telephone solicitations to telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry  Class members who registered their respective telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call  Registry, a listing of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is  maintained by the federal government, for at least 30 days.    46.  Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff and the Do Not Call  Registry Class received more than one phone call/text message in a 12-month period 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 Do Not Call Registry Class suffered  actual damages and are entitled to between $500 an $1,500 per violation.  Class Treatment Is Appropriate for Plaintiff’s TCPA Claims    Defendant Sends Text Messages Directly and/or Hires Affiliates to Send Text  Messages Directing Consumers to Defendant’s Websites   Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et. seq.)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class)   Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et. seq.)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Autodial No Consent Class)  