14.  On information and belief, Defendants received some or all of the revenues from  the sale of the products, goods and services advertised on Exhibit A, and Defendants profit and  benefit from the sale of the products, goods and services advertised on Exhibit A.   15.  Plaintiff did not give prior express invitation or permission to Defendants to send  the fax.    16.  On information and belief, Defendants faxed the same and other unsolicited  facsimiles with opt-out language identical or substantially similar to the opt-out language of the  fax advertisement attached hereto as Exhibit A to Plaintiff and at least 40 other recipients or sent  the same and other advertisements by fax with the required opt-out language but without first  receiving the recipients’ express invitation or permission and without having an established  business relationship as defined by the TCPA and its regulations because the opt-out language  was not compliant.    17.  There is no reasonable means for Plaintiff (or any other class member) to avoid  receiving unauthorized faxes. Fax machines are left on and ready to receive the urgent  communications their owners desire to receive.    18.  Defendants’ facsimile attached as Exhibit A does not display a proper opt-out  notice as required by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.  20.  Class Size (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)): Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon  such information and belief avers, that the number of persons and entities of the Plaintiff Class is  numerous and joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and  upon such information and belief avers, that the number of class members is at least forty.   22.  Typicality (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (3)):  The Plaintiff's claims are typical of the  claims of all class members. The Plaintiff received the same or similar faxes as the faxes sent by  or on behalf of the Defendants advertising products, goods and services of the Defendants during  the Class Period. The Plaintiff is making the same claims and seeking the same relief for itself  and all class members based upon the same federal statute. The Defendants have acted in the  same or in a similar manner with respect to the Plaintiff and all the class members by sending  Plaintiff and each member of the class the same or similar faxes or faxes which did not contain  the proper opt-out language or were sent without prior express invitation or permission.   24.  Need for Consistent Standards and Practical Effect of Adjudication (Fed. R. Civ.  P. 23 (b) (1)):  Class certification is appropriate because the prosecution of individual actions by  class members would: (a) create the risk of inconsistent adjudications that could establish  incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants, and/or (b) as a practical matter,  adjudication of the Plaintiff's claims will be dispositive of the interests of class members who are  not parties.   25.  Common Conduct (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b) (2)):  Class certification is also  appropriate because the Defendants have acted in the same or similar manner with respect to all  class members thereby making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate. The Plaintiff  demands such relief as authorized by 47 U.S.C. § 227.   27.  The JFPA makes it unlawful for any person to “use any telephone facsimile  machine, computer or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited  advertisement . . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C).   30.  Defendants’ Other Violations.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such  information and belief avers, that during the period preceding four years of the filing of this  Complaint and repeatedly thereafter, Defendants have sent via facsimile transmission from  telephone facsimile machines, computers, or other devices to telephone facsimile machines of  members of the Plaintiff Class other faxes that constitute advertisements under the JFPA that  were transmitted to persons or entities without their prior express invitation or permission  (and/or that Defendants are precluded from asserting any prior express invitation or permission  or that Defendants had an established business relationship because of the failure to comply with  the Opt-Out Notice Requirements in connection with such transmissions). By virtue thereof,  Defendants violated the JFPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff is informed  and believes, and upon such information and belief avers, that Defendants may be continuing to  send unsolicited advertisements via facsimile transmission in violation of the JFPA and the  regulations promulgated thereunder, and absent intervention by this Court, will do so in the  future.   31.  The TCPA/JFPA provides a private right of action to bring this action on behalf  of Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class to redress Defendants’ violations of the Act, and provides for  statutory damages. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). The Act also provides that injunctive relief is  appropriate. Id.   32.  The JFPA is a strict liability statute, so the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff  and the other class members even if their actions were only negligent.  