10. Discovery may reveal the transmission of additional faxes as well.   12. Defendant Athenahealth, Inc., as the entity whose products or services were advertised in the fax, derived economic benefit from the sending of the fax.  13. Defendant Athenahealth, Inc., either negligently or wilfully violated the rights of Plaintiff and other recipients in sending the fax.  14. The fax refers to a website registered to Defendant Athenahealth, Inc.  15. Plaintiff had no prior relationship with Defendant and had not authorized the sending of fax advertisements to Plaintiff.  16. The  fax does not contain an “opt out” notice in the form required by 47 U.S.C. § 227.  17. On information and belief, the fax attached hereto was sent as part of a mass broadcasting of faxes.  18. On information and belief, Defendant has transmitted similar unsolicited fax   advertisements to at least 40 other persons in Michigan.  19. There is no reasonable means for Plaintiff or other recipients of Defendant’s unsolicited advertising fax to avoid receiving illegal faxes.  Fax machines must be left on and ready to receive the urgent communications authorized by their owners. 20. Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 1-19.   21. The TCPA makes unlawful the “use of any telephone facsimile machine, computer or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine ...” 47 U.S.C. §227(b)(1)(C).  23. Plaintiff and each class member suffered damages as a result of receipt of the unsolicited faxes, in the form of paper and ink or toner consumed as a result.  Furthermore, Plaintiff’s statutory right of privacy was invaded.  24. Plaintiff and each class member is entitled to statutory damages.  25. Defendant violated the TCPA even if its actions were only negligent.  26. Defendant should be enjoined from committing similar violations in the future. 27. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(3), Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of a class, consisting of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. §1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of Defendant Athenahealth, Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale (d) and which did not contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C. §227.  29. There are questions of law and fact common to the class that predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members.  The predominant common questions include: a. Whether Defendant engaged in a pattern of sending unsolicited fax advertisements; b. The manner in which Defendant compiled or obtained its list of fax numbers; c. Whether Defendant thereby violated the TCPA.  30. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class actions and claims involving unlawful business practices.  Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff's counsel have any interests which might cause them not to vigorously pursue this action.   31. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class members.  All are based on the same factual and legal theories.  32. A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy.  The interest of class members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate claims against Defendant is small because it is not economically feasible to bring individual actions.  9. Some time in 2015, prior to filing this complaint, Plaintiff Michigan Urgent Care & Primary Care Physicians, P.C. received the unsolicited fax advertisement attached as Exhibit A on its facsimile machine. 