28.  Defendant’s text message constitutes telemarketing/advertising because it promotes  Defendant’s business, goods and services.   29.  Specifically, Defendant asks Plaintiff to list a property with Defendant, so that  Defendant can help sell it.   30.  Defendant collects a commission for every home it sells or helps to sell.   31.  Upon information and belief, Defendant caused similar text messages to be sent to  individuals residing within this judicial district.     32.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express consent to be  contacted by text messages using an ATDS.     33.  Plaintiff is the sole user of the 4254 Number.    34.  The number used by or on behalf of Defendant (833-778-2774) is known as a “long  code,” a standard 10-digit phone number that enabled Defendant to send SMS text messages en masse,  while deceiving recipients into believing that the message was personalized and sent from a telephone  number operated by an individual.   35.  Long codes work as follows: Private companies known as SMS gateway providers have  contractual arrangements with mobile carriers to transmit two-way SMS traffic. These SMS gateway  providers send and receive SMS traffic to and from the mobile phone networks' SMS centers, which  are responsible for relaying those messages to the intended mobile phone. This allows for the  transmission of a large number of SMS messages to and from a long code.   36.  The impersonal and generic nature of Defendant’s text message, demonstrates that  Defendant utilized an ATDS in transmitting the messages.     38.  The Platform has the capacity to store telephone numbers, which capacity was in fact  utilized by Defendant.   39.  The Platform has the capacity to generate sequential numbers, which capacity was in  fact utilized by Defendant.   40.  The Platform has the capacity to dial numbers in sequential order, which capacity was  in fact utilized by Defendant.     41.  The Platform has the capacity to dial numbers from a list of numbers, which capacity  was in fact utilized by Defendant.   42.  The Platform has the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention, which  capacity was in fact utilized by Defendant.     43.  The Platform has the capacity to schedule the time and date for future transmission of  text messages, which occurs without any human involvement.   45.  The above execution these instructions occurred seamlessly, with no human  intervention, and almost instantaneously.  Indeed, the Platform is capable of transmitting thousands of  text messages following the above steps in minutes, if not less.     46.  Further, the Platform “throttles” the transmission of the text messages depending on  feedback it receives from the mobile carrier networks.  In other words, the platform controls how  quickly messages are transmitted depending on network congestion.  The platform performs this  throttling function automatically and does not allow a human to control the function.   48.  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.  49.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of  himself and all others similarly situated.   50.  Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the below defined Class:  All persons within the United States who, within the four  years prior to the filing of this Complaint, were sent a text  message using the same type of equipment used to text  message Plaintiff, from Defendant or anyone on  Defendant’s behalf, to said person’s cellular telephone  number.     51.  Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. Plaintiff does not  know the number of members in the Class but believes the Class members number in the several  thousands, if not more.  54.  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 and Class members’  cellular telephones using an ATDS;  (2) Whether Defendant can meet their burden of showing that they obtained prior  express written 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.   55.  The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If Plaintiff’s  claim that Defendants routinely transmits text messages to telephone numbers assigned to cellular  telephone services is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of  being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.  60.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.    62.  The TCPA defines an “automatic telephone dialing system” (hereinafter “ATDS”)  as “equipment which has the capacity – (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called,  using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.”  Id. at § 227(a)(1).   63.  Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant – used equipment having the  capacity to store telephone numbers, using a random or sequential generator, and to dial such  numbers and/or to dial numbers from a list automatically, without human intervention, to make  non-emergency telephone calls to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of the  Class.    64.  These calls were made without regard to whether Defendant had first obtained  express permission from the called party to make such calls. In fact, Defendant did not have prior  express consent to call the cell phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class  when its calls were made.    65.  Defendant 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 prior express consent.    PROPOSED CLASS   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  