25.  Defendant is a dental benefits provider and administrator.     26.  Defendant’s dental benefits business includes dental plans for individuals, private  employers, and families.   27.  Defendant also operates as a dental benefits administrator that provides Medicaid,  Medicare, long term care, and children's health insurance plans and programs to state agencies and  managed care organizations.   28.  Defendant provides services to approximately 4 million children and adults  throughout the United States.   30.  One such unsolicited telemarketing text was sent to Plaintiff, who has never had  any type of relationship with Defendant.     31.  Specifically, on November 25, 2016, Defendant caused the following automated  text message to be sent to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in 5940 (the “5940 Number”):   31.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.    33.  The telephone number identified in the text message (1-800-281-9724) belongs and  is operated by Defendant.     33.  “Automatic telephone dialing system” refers to any equipment that has the  “capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.”  See, e.g., Hicks v. Client Servs., Inc., No.  07-61822, 2009 WL 2365637, at *4 (S.D. Fla. June 9, 2009) (citing FCC, In re: Rules and  Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991: Request of ACA  International for Clarification and Declaratory Ruling, 07–232, ¶ 12, n.23 (2007)).    34.  Plaintiff received the subject text within this judicial district and, therefore,  Defendant’s violation of the TCPA occurred within this district.  Upon information and belief,  Defendant caused other text messages to be sent to individuals residing within this judicial district.     34.  Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant – used equipment having the  capacity to dial numbers without human intervention to make non-emergency telephone calls to  the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class defined below.    35.  Plaintiff never provided her telephone number to Defendant.   35.  These calls were made without regard to whether or not Defendant had first  obtained consent from the called party to make such calls. In fact, Defendant did not have consent  to call the cell phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class when its calls were  made.    36.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with her consent to be contacted  using an ATDS.     36.  Defendant has, therefore, violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using an  automatic telephone dialing system to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cell phones of  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class without their consent.    37.  Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 5940 Number, and is financially  responsible for phone service to the 5940 Number.    37.  Defendant knew or should have known that it did not have consent to make these  calls, and knew or should have known that it was using equipment that at constituted an automatic  telephone dialing system. The violations were therefore willful or knowing.    38.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA,  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled to a  minimum of $500.00 in damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to an  injunction against future calls. Id.    39.  Specifically, upon information and belief, Defendant utilized a combination of  hardware and software systems to send the text message at issue in this case.  The systems utilized by  Defendant have the current capacity or present ability to generate or store random or sequential numbers  or to dial sequentially or randomly at the time the call is made, and to dial such numbers, en masse, in  an automated fashion without human intervention.   40.  Defendant’s unsolicited text message caused Plaintiff actual harm, including  invasion of her privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.   Defendant’s text message also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to his daily life.  See  Patriotic Veterans, Inc. v. Zoeller, No. 16-2059, 2017 WL 25482, at *2 (7th Cir. Jan. 3, 2017) (“Every  call uses some of the phone owner's time and mental energy, both of which are precious.”).  41.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf  of himself and all others similarly situated.   42.  Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of a Class defined as follows:  All persons within the United States who, within the four  years prior to the filing of this Complaint, received a  telephone call or text message made through the use of any  automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or  prerecorded voice, from Defendant or anyone on  Defendant’s behalf, to said person’s cellular telephone  number, not for emergency purposes and without the  recipient’s prior express consent.   46.  There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class which  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class.  Among the questions  of law and fact common to the Class are:  (1) Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff’s and Class  members’ cellular telephones using an ATDS;  (2) Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing that it obtained prior  express consent to make such calls;  (3) Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and willful;  (4) Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and  (5) Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.   PROPOSED CLASS   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  