14.  You Select Health markets and sells health insurance plans for individuals,  families, and small businesses.   15.  In order to boost sales and increase its revenues, You Select Health sends  numerous faxes advertising its health insurance plans.   16.  You Select Health sends these fax advertisements to individuals and businesses  with which it has no prior relationship, and without their permission or consent, in violation of  the JFPA.   17.  The faxes sent by You Select Health constitute advertisements because they  promote the commercial availability and quality of You Select Health’s health insurance plans.   18.  The faxes sent by You Select Health did not have a clear and conspicuous notice  on the first page of the transmission that contains information regarding a recipient’s right to not  5  receive faxed advertisements and informing recipients of the sender’s obligation to comply with  opt-out requests within a reasonable time.   19.  You Select Health used a telephone facsimile machine, computer or other device  to send the fax advertisements at issue.  20.  Starting at least as early as December 6, 2017 and continuing through at least July  24, 2018, You Select Health used a telephone facsimile machine to send at least eight unsolicited  fax advertisements to Plaintiff City Plating.   21.  You Select Health sent substantially identical faxes to Plaintiff City Plating on  December 6, 2017, December 6, 2017 (again), February 13, 2018, March 15, 2018, March 27,  2018, May 22, 2018, July 18, 2018, and July 24, 2018 (A true and accurate copy of the  December 6, 2017, December 6, 2017, February 13, 2018, March 15, 2018, March 27, 2018,  May 22, 2018, July 18, 2018, and July 24, 2018 fax advertisements are attached hereto as  Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H).   22.  You Select Health’s faxes promoted its health insurance plans. (See Ex. A - H.)   23.  Plaintiff City Plating had no prior business relationship with You Select Health  and had never provided it with consent to receive advertisements through any medium, let alone  facsimiles.   24.  You Select Health created the content of the fax advertisements and transmitted  them to Plaintiff and members of the Classes with the intention of generating sales and  increasing its revenues.  25.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)  6  and 23(b)(3) individually, and on behalf of, two classes defined as follows:  No Consent Class: All persons and entities who (i) in the four years  preceding the filing of this action, (ii) received a telephone facsimile  advertisement, (iii) sent by, or on behalf of, You Select Health, (iv) for  whom You Select Health did not have a record of prior express consent to  send the facsimile advertisements at the time they were sent.  Opt-Out Class: All persons and entities who (i) in the four years  preceding the filing of this action, (ii) received an unsolicited telephone  facsimile advertisement, (iii) sent by, or on behalf of, You Select Health,  (iv) for whom You Select Health did not have a record of prior express  consent to send the facsimile advertisements at the time they were sent, (v)  where such facsimile advertisement failed to contain the required opt-out  notice.   26.  The following people are excluded from the Classes: (1) any Judge or Magistrate  presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) You Select Health, You Select  Health’s subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which You Select  Health or its parents have a controlling interest and its current or former employees, officers and  directors; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the  Classes; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or  otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel and You Select Health’s counsel; and (6) the legal  representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons.   27.  Numerosity: The exact size of the Classes is unknown and unavailable to  Plaintiff at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and  belief, You Select Health faxed unsolicited advertisements to hundreds or thousands of  individuals and entities who fall into the definition of the Classes. Class membership can be  easily determined from You Select Health’s records.   28.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the  Classes. Plaintiff is a member of the Classes, and if You Select Health violated the JFPA with  7  respect to Plaintiff, then it violated the JFPA with respect to the other members of the Classes.  Plaintiff and members of the Classes sustained damages as a result of You Select Health’s  uniform wrongful conduct.   29.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff and the Classes, and those questions predominate over any  questions that may affect individual members of the Classes. Common questions for the Classes  include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:  No Consent Class:  a.  How You Select Health gathered, compiled, or obtained the fax numbers of  Plaintiff and the No Consent Class;  b.  Whether You Select Health’s faxes advertised the commercial availability or  quality of property, goods, or services;  c.  Whether You Select Health sent the fax advertisements without first obtaining  Plaintiff and the No Consent Class’s prior express consent to do so;  d.  Whether You Select Health sent the fax advertisements without first obtaining  Plaintiff and the No Consent Class’s prior permission or invitation to do so; and  e.  Whether You Select Health’s conduct was willful such that Plaintiff and the No  Consent Class are entitled to treble damages.  Opt-Out Class:  a.  Whether You Select Health’s faxes advertised the commercial availability or  quality of property, goods, or services;  b.  Whether You Select Health’s faxes complied with the opt-out notice requirements  of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C)(iii), and the regulations promulgated thereunder; and  8  c.  Whether You Select Health’s conduct was willful such that Plaintiff and the Opt- Out Class are entitled to treble damages.   30.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Classes and has retained counsel competent and experienced in  complex class actions. Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to those of the Classes, and You  Select Health has no defenses unique to Plaintiff.   31.  Policies Generally Applicable to the Classes: This class action is appropriate for  certification because Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  Classes as wholes, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure  compatible standards of conduct toward the members of the Classes and making final injunctive  relief appropriate with respect to the Classes as a whole. Defendant’s practices challenged herein  apply to and affect the members of the Classes uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those  practices hinges on Defendant’s conduct with respect to the Classes as wholes, not on facts or  law applicable only to Plaintiff.   32.  Superiority: This case is also appropriate for class certification because class  proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of  this controversy given that joinder of all parties is impracticable. The damages suffered by the  individual members of the Classes will likely be relatively small, especially given the burden and  expense of individual prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by You Select Health’s  actions. Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the individual members of the Classes to  obtain effective relief from You Select Health’s misconduct. Even if members of the Classes  could sustain such individual litigation, it would still not be preferable to a class action, because  individual litigation would increase the delay and expense to all parties due to the complex legal  9  and factual controversies presented in this case. By contrast, a class action presents far fewer  management difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and  comprehensive supervision by a single court. Economies of time, effort, and expense will be  fostered and uniformity of decisions ensured.  33.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   34.  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).   35.  The JFPA defines “unsolicited advertisement” as “any material advertising the  commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any  person without that person’s prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise.” 47  U.S.C. § 227(a)(5).   36.  The faxes sent by You Select Health advertised the commercial availability and  quality of its goods and services and were commercial in nature. Therefore, You Select Health’s  faxes are advertisements under the JFPA.   37.  You Select Health sent the facsimile advertisements at issue to Plaintiff and  members of the No Consent Class without their prior express invitation or consent, and despite  the lack of any prior business relationship between it and members of the No Consent Class.   38.  By sending the unsolicited advertisement faxes at issue to Plaintiff and members  of the No Consent Class without their prior express consent, You Select Health violated 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C).  10   39.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   39.  As a result of You Select Health’s conduct, Plaintiff and members of the No  Consent Class suffered actual damages, including the conversion or loss of paper and toner  consumed in the printing of the faxes, the loss of use of the recipients’ fax machines during the  time required to receive, review and route the unauthorized faxes, as well as increased labor  expenses.   40.  Plaintiff and the No Consent Class are therefore entitled to a minimum of $500 in  damages for each violation under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B). To the extent You Select Health’s  misconduct is determined to be willful, the Court should treble the amount of statutory damages  under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). The standard for finding willful “intent for treble damages does not  require any malicious or wanton conduct, but rather is satisfied by merely ‘knowing’ conduct.”  Alea London Ltd. v. Am. Home Servs., Inc., 638 F.3d 768, 776 (11 Cir. 2011).   40.  The JFPA mandates that senders of faxed advertisements place a clear and  conspicuous notice on the first page of the transmission that contains information regarding a  recipient’s right to not receive faxed advertisements, as well as instructions on how to opt out of  future transmissions. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2)(D); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4)(iii).   41.  Additionally, as a result of You Select Health’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and  the other members of the No Consent Class are entitled to an injunction under 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(3)(A), to ensure that You Select Health’s violations of the JFPA do not continue into the  future.  41.  The faxes sent by You Select Health advertised the commercial availability and  11  quality of its goods and services and were commercial in nature. Therefore, You Select Health’s  faxes are advertisements under the JFPA.   42.  You Select Health sent facsimile advertisements to Plaintiff and the Opt-Out  Class that failed to contain the requisite opt-out notices. Specifically, the faxes failed to contain  language that: (i) informed fax recipients of their legal right to opt out of receiving future  facsimile advertisements; (ii) identified a facsimile number for fax recipients to transmit their  opt-out requests to You Select Health; and (iii) informed recipients of You Select Health’s own  obligation to comply with opt-out requests within a reasonable time.   43.  You Select Health’s failure to include the opt-out notice information required by  the JFPA deprived Plaintiff and members of the Opt-Out Class of the ability to make informed  decisions with respect to their legal right to not receive faxed advertisements and denied them of  the information necessary to opt out of receiving future fax advertisements.   44.  By sending the advertisement faxes at issue to Plaintiff and members of the Opt- Out Class without the opt-out information required by the JFPA, You Select Health violated 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4).   45.  Plaintiff and the Opt-Out Class are therefore entitled to a minimum of $500 in  damages for each violation under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B). To the extent You Select Health’s  misconduct is determined to be willful, the Court should treble the amount of statutory damages  under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). The standard for finding willful “intent for treble damages does not  require any malicious or wanton conduct, but rather is satisfied by merely ‘knowing’ conduct.”  Alea London Ltd. v. Am. Home Servs., Inc., 638 F.3d 768, 776 (11 Cir. 2011).   46.  Additionally, as a result of You Select Health’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and  the other members of the Opt-Out Class are entitled to an injunction under 47 U.S.C. §  12  227(b)(3)(A), to ensure that You Select Health’s violations of the JFPA do not continue into the  future.  Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the No Consent Class)   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Opt-Out Class)  