11. Defendant is a private university and contacts consumers to solicit them to sign up for college classes using an Automated Telephone Dialing System (“ATDS”).  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 [solicitation] 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 this rule, Defendant fails to obtain any prior express written consent to make these autodialed solicitation calls to cellular telephone numbers.  15. In fact, HBU advertises its autodialing technology on its very own website, as shown below:  17. When placing these calls to consumers, Defendant failed to obtain prior express written consent as required by the TCPA from cellular telephone owners/users to make such calls.  18. At all times material to this Complaint, Defendant was and is fully aware that unwanted autodialed telemarketing calls are being made to consumers’ cellular telephones through its own efforts and their agents.  19. Defendant knowingly made (and continues to make) autodialed solicitation calls to cellular telephones without the prior express written consent of the call recipients. In so doing, Defendant not only invaded the personal privacy of Plaintiff and members of the putative Class, but also intentionally and repeatedly violated the TCPA. 20. On August 11, 2006, Plaintiff Hicks’ cellular telephone number was registered on the National Do Not Call Registry.  21. Plaintiff Hicks became a registered nurse after studying at Austin Community College (hereinafter “ACC”).  22. While studying at ACC, Hicks signed a document with ACC that stated that ACC would not share nor sell her information with any other schools or organizations.  24. The next day, on September 14, 2017 at 9:41 a.m., Hicks received another call from the 1710 Number (the “September 14th Call”).  25. Upon answering the September 14th Call, Hicks noticed a slight pause. This artificially long pause is indicative of the caller using an autodialer to place the calls.  26. During the September 14th Call, HBU again solicited Hicks to sign up for their online programs and their HBU agent explained to Hicks that HBU had partnered with her former school, although, curiously, HBU’s agent did not specifically state Hicks’ former school by name (ACC) until Hicks herself mentioned her former school’s name.  27. During the September 14th Call, Hicks demanded that HBU stop calling her.  28. HBU owns/operates and/or utilizes the 1710 Number to place solicitation calls to potential consumers.  30. By making unauthorized autodialed telephone calls as alleged herein, HBU has caused consumers actual harm in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy. In addition, the calls disturbed Hicks’ use and enjoyment of her cellular telephone, in addition to the wear and tear on the phone’s hardware (including the phone’s battery) and the consumption of memory on Hicks’ cellular telephone. In the present case, a consumer could be subjected to many unsolicited collection calls as HBU does not take care to ensure that the recipients of its autodialed solicitation calls have given their prior express written consent to be called, even those on the National Do Not Call Registry.  31. In order to redress these injuries, Hicks, on behalf of herself and a class of similarly situated individuals, brings suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., which prohibits unsolicited autodialed telephone calls to cellular telephones.  32. On behalf of the Classes, Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited autodialed telephone calling activities and an award of statutory damages to the class members, together with costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. 34. The following individuals are excluded from the Class: (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 class; (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.  35. Numerosity: The exact size 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 placed autodialed solicitation calls to thousands of consumers who fall into the definition of the Class. Members of the Class can be easily identified through Defendant’s records.  37. 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.  39. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing factual allegations as if fully set forth herein.  40. Defendant made autodialed solicitation telephone calls to cellular telephone numbers belonging to Plaintiff and other members of the Autodialed No Consent Class without first obtaining prior express written consent to receive such calls.  41. Defendant made the telephone calls using equipment that had the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers using a random or sequential number generator, to receive and store lists of phone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse, without human intervention.  42. The telephone dialing equipment utilized by Defendant, also known as a predictive dialer, dialed numbers from a list, or dialed numbers from a database of telephone numbers, in an automatic and systematic manner. Defendant’s autodialer disseminated information en masse to Plaintiff and other consumers.  44. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the Autodialed No Consent Class are each entitled a minimum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) in damages for each such violation of the TCPA.  45. 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 Autodialed No Consent Class. 46. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.  47. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) provides that 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” 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.  48. 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.”  51. Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) by initiating, or causing to be initiated, telephone solicitations to wireless 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. These consumers requested to not receive calls from Defendant, as set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3).  52. 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 engaged in telemarketing regarding the existence and/or use of any do not call list, and by failing to internally record and honor do not call requests.  53. Defendant made more than one unsolicited telephone call to Plaintiff and other members of the Do Not Call Registry Class within a 12-month period without their prior express consent to receive such calls. Plaintiff and other members of the Do Not Call Registry Class never provided any form of consent to receive telephone calls from Defendant, and/or Defendant does not have a current record of consent to place telemarketing calls to them.  55. Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class received more than one telephone call 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 Do Not Call Registry 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.  56. To the extent Defendant’s misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing, the Court should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by the members of 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 Autodialed No Consent Class)  Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227) (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class) 