22.  On or about December 22, 2020 and December 28, 2020, Defendant caused the  following automated marketing text messages to be transmitted to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number  ending in 7451 (the “7451 Number”):   23.  At the time Plaintiff received these messages she was the subscriber and/or sole user of  the 7451 Number.    24.  The 7451 Number is Plaintiff’s personal cell phone number and not a business phone  number.   25.  The 7451 Number has been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry since  January of 2006.   27.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with her express written consent to  be contacted by text messages using an ATDS.   28.  The impersonal and generic nature of Defendant’s text message, demonstrates that  Defendant utilized an ATDS in transmitting the messages. The messages include no personal identifiers  and are formatted in a generic manner.    29.  The number used by Defendant (586-210-9192) 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.     30.  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.    31.  Upon information and belief, Defendant caused similar text messages to be sent to  individuals residing within this judicial district.   32.  To send the text messages, Defendant used a messaging platform (the “Platform”) that  permitted Defendant to transmit thousands of automated text messages without any human  involvement.    33.  Upon information and belief, the Platform has the capacity to store telephone numbers.   34.  Upon information and belief, the Platform has the capacity to generate sequential  numbers.   35.  Upon information and belief, the Platform has the capacity to dial numbers in sequential  order.   37.  Upon information and belief, the Platform has the capacity to dial numbers without  human intervention.   38.  Upon information and belief, the Platform has the capacity to schedule the time and date  for future transmission of text messages.   39.  Defendant’s unsolicited text message caused Plaintiff additional harm, including  invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.   Defendant’s call also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to her daily life.   40.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of  herself and all others similarly situated.   41.  Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the Class defined as follows:  NO CONSENT 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 for the purpose of promoting and/or  advertising Defendant’s goods and/or services.  DO NOT CALL CLASS: All persons in the United States who from four years prior  to the filing of this action: (1) were sent a text message or phone call by or on behalf of  Defendant; (2) more than one time within any 12-month period; (3) where the person’s  telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty  days; (4) for the purpose of advertising and/or promoting Defendant’s products and  services.   42.  Plaintiff reserves the right to modify the Class definitions as warranted as facts are  learned in further investigation and discovery.    46.  There are numerous questions of law and fact common to members of the Class which  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class.  Among the questions  of law and fact common to the members of the Class are:  a) Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff’s and Class members’  cellular telephones using an ATDS;  b) Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing that it obtained prior express  written consent to make such calls;  c) Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and willful;  d) Whether Defendant initiated telemarketing calls to telephone numbers listed on the  National Do Not Call Registry;  e) Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and  f) Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.   52.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.    54.  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).   55.  Defendant used an ATDS to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cellular  telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class defined below.    56.  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.    57.  Defendant has, therefore, violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using an ATDS  to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cell phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the  putative Class without their prior express written consent.   58.  Defendant knew that it did not have prior express consent to make these calls, and knew  or should have known that it was using equipment that at constituted an automatic telephone dialing  system. The violations were therefore willful or knowing.    59.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA, Plaintiff  and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled to a minimum of $500.00  in damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the members of the Class are also entitled to an injunction  against future calls. Id.   60.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1-51 as if fully set  forth herein.   62.  Additionally, it is a violation of the TCPA regulations promulgated by the FCC  to “[i]nitiate, or cause to be initiated, any telephone call that includes or introduces an advertisement or  constitutes telemarketing, using an automatic telephone dialing system…other than a call made with the  prior express written consent of the called party or the prior express consent of the called party when  the call is made  …”  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2).    63.  Defendant transmitted calls using an automatic telephone dialing system to the  telephone numbers of Plaintiff and members of the putative class without their prior express written  consent.    64.1200(a)(1)(iii).    64.  Defendant has, therefore, violated § 64.1200(a) by using an automatic telephone dialing  system to make non-emergency telephone calls to the telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of  the putative Class without their prior express consent.    65.  Defendant knew that it did not have prior express written consent to make these calls,  and knew or should have known that it was using an automatic telephone dialing system. The violations  were therefore willful or knowing.    66.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA, Plaintiff  and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled to a minimum of $500.00  in damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to an injunction against future  calls. Id.    68.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1-51 as if fully set  forth herein.   69.  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.”   70.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e), provides that § 64.1200(c) and (d) “are applicable to any person  or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone numbers.”   71.  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) further provides that “[n]o person or entity shall initiate any call  for telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or entity has  instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing calls  made by or on behalf of that person or entity.”    72.  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” 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. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c).   73.  Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) by initiating, or causing to be initiated,  telephone solicitations to 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.    75.  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.  PROPOSED CLASS   Violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the No Consent Class)   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and No Consent Class)   Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class)  