22.  At no point has Plaintiff Tiefenthaler sought out or solicited information  regarding Defendant Target’s “Circle” program.   23.  Plaintiff Tiefenthaler’s telephone number, (608) 239-XXXX, is registered to a  cellular telephone service.   25.  The plain text of the text message received by Plaintiff (cited in the paragraph  above) demonstrates that the message was sent for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or  rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services as it seeks to have him sign up for  Target’s loyalty program, which is a service.  This message therefore qualified as telemarketing.   47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(12).   26.  The SMS “short code” of 59569 is associated with Defendant Target, and is  identified by Target as its primary contact number with regard to text messages.1    27.  A text message containing an SMS short code is characteristic of a message sent  using an ATDS that dials a large volume of telephone numbers from a prepared list.   28.  The fact that a SMS code was used to send the text message is evident that it was  sent using an ATDS, as SMS codes are reserved for automatically made text messages.   29.  As a result, the system that sent text messages to Plaintiff Tiefenthaler qualifies as  an ATDS pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 227(a)(1)(A).   30.  This is further supported by the non-personalized generic nature of the text  message advertisements.   31.  Moreover, since December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff Tiefenthaler’s cellular  telephone number has been listed on the NDNC list.  Plaintiff Tiefenthaler’s number is used  exclusively for residential, non-commerical purposes.   33.  Defendant Target is a “person” as the term is defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39).   34.  Target had the ability to prevent unauthorized texts in violation of the TCPA from  being placed by automated calling/texting operations conducted by itself or by its vendors or  marketing partners.   35.  The calls were not necessitated by an emergency.   36.  Plaintiff’s privacy has been violated by the above-described telemarketing  robocalls from Defendant. The calls were an annoying, harassing nuisance.   37.  Plaintiff and all members of the Class, defined below, have been harmed by the  acts of Defendant because their privacy has been violated, they were annoyed and harassed, and,  in some instances, they were charged for incoming calls.  Plaintiff and the Class Members were  also harmed by use of their cell phone battery and the intrusion on their cellular telephone that  occupied it from receiving legitimate communications.  38.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if  fully stated herein.   39.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the following classes (the  “Classes”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.   41.  Plaintiff Tiefenthaler is a member of and will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of, these Classes as he has no interests that conflict with any of the class  members.   42.  Excluded from the Classes are counsel, the Defendants, and any entities in which  the Defendants have a controlling interest, the Defendants’ agents and employees, any judge to  whom this action is assigned, and any member of such judge’s staff and immediate family.   43.  Plaintiff and all members of the Classes have been harmed by the acts of the  Defendant, including, but not limited to, the invasion of their privacy, annoyance, waste of time,  the use of their cell phone battery, and the intrusion on their cellular telephone that occupied it  from receiving legitimate communications.   44.  This Class Action Complaint seeks injunctive relief and money damages.   45.  The Classes as defined above are identifiable through the Defendants’ dialer  records, other phone records, and phone number databases.     46.  Plaintiff does not know the exact number of members in the Classes, but Plaintiff  reasonably believes Class members number, at minimum, in the hundreds in each class.     47.  The joinder of all Class members is impracticable due to the size and relatively  modest value of each individual claim.   49.  There are well defined, nearly identical, questions of law and fact affecting all  parties. The questions of law and fact, referred to above, involving the class claims predominate  over questions which may affect individual Class members.    50.  There are numerous questions of law and fact common to Plaintiff and to the  proposed Classes, including but not limited to the following:  (a) whether Defendant utilized an automatic telephone dialing system to send its  texts to the members of the Robotext Class;  (b) Whether agents operating on behalf of Defendant utilized an automatic  telephone dialing system in sending text messages to members of the  Robotext Class;  (c) whether Defendant systematically made multiple telephone calls to members  of the National Do Not Call Registry Class;  (d) whether Defendant made calls to Plaintiff and members of the Classes without  first obtaining prior express written consent to make the calls;  (e) whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of the TCPA; and   (f) whether members of the Classes are entitled to treble damages based on the  willfulness of Defendant’s conduct.   51.  As a person who received non-emergency telephone calls using an automatic  telephone dialing system without his prior express consent within the meaning of the TCPA,  Plaintiff asserts claims that are typical of each Class member who also received such phone calls.   52.  As a person whose telephone number was placed on the National Do Not Call List  and who received more than one text message in a twelve month period, Plaintiff asserts claims  that are typical of the National Do Not Call Registry Class.   54.  Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting complex  litigation and class actions, and especially TCPA class actions.  Plaintiff and his counsel are  committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the other members of the Classes,  and have the financial resources to do so.   55.  Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only  individual class members, and a class action is the superior method for fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy.  The only individual question concerns identification of class  members, which will be ascertainable from records maintained by Defendant and/or its agents.   56.  The likelihood that individual members of the Classes will prosecute separate  actions is remote due to the time and expense necessary to prosecute an individual case.    57.  Plaintiff is not aware of any litigation concerning this controversy already  commenced by others who meet the criteria for class membership described above.    58.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   59.  Target violated the TCPA by sending, or causing to be sent via an agent, text  messages to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and members of the Robotext Class using an  automated dialer without their prior express written consent.   61.  Plaintiff and Robotext Class members are also entitled to and do seek injunctive  relief prohibiting the Defendant from advertising their goods or services, except for emergency  purposes, using an ATDS or pre-recorded voice in the future.  62.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   63.  Target violated the TCPA by sending, or causing to be sent via an agent, text  messages to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and members of the Robotext Class using an  automated dialer without their prior express written consent.   64.  As a result of the Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. §  227 et seq., Plaintiff and each member of the Robotext Class is entitled to treble damages of  $1,500 for each and every violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).   65.  Plaintiff and Robotext Class members are also entitled to and do seek injunctive  relief prohibiting the Defendant from advertising their goods or services, except for emergency  purposes, using an ATDS or pre-recorded voice in the future.  66.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   68.  As a result of the Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiff and  National Do Not Call Registry Class members are entitled to an award of up to $500 in statutory  damages for each and every violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   69.  Plaintiff and National Do Not Call Registry Class members are also entitled to  and do seek injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant from advertising their goods or services,  except for emergency purposes, to any number on the National Do Not Call Registry in the  future.  70.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.    71.  Target knowingly and/or willingly violated the TCPA and the Regulations by  making, or having its agent make, two or more telemarketing text messages within a 12-month  period on Target’s behalf to Plaintiff and the members of the National Do Not Call Registry  Class while those persons’ phone numbers were registered on the National Do Not Call Registry.   73.  Plaintiff and National Do Not Call Registry Class members are also entitled to  and do seek injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant from advertising their goods or services,  except for emergency purposes, to any number on the National Do Not Call Registry in the  future.  Knowing and/or Willful Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (47 U.S.C. 227, et seq. and 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1200(d))  on behalf of the National Do Not Call Registry Class   Knowing and/or Willful Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C.  227, et seq.) on behalf of Robotext Class   Statutory Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (47 U.S.C. 227, et seq.) on behalf of the Robotext Class   Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act   (47 U.S.C. 227, et seq. and 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1200(d))   on behalf of the National Do Not Call Registry Class  