1.  a statement that the recipient is legally entitled to opt-out of receiving  future faxed advertisements – knowing that he or she has the legal right to request  an opt-out gives impetus for recipients to make such a request, if desired;   13.  On information and belief, both Defendants receive some or all of the revenues  from the sale of the products, goods and services advertised on Exhibit A, and both Defendants  profit and benefit from the sale of the products, goods and services advertised on Exhibit A.   14.  Plaintiff had not invited or given permission to Defendants to send the fax.    15.  On information and belief, Defendants faxed the same and other unsolicited  facsimiles without the required opt-out language to Plaintiff and more than 25 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.    16.  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.    17.  Defendants’ facsimile attached as Exhibit A did not display a proper opt-out  notice as required by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.  18.  Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, incorporates  Paragraphs 1 through 17 as though fully set forth herein, as and for its paragraph 18.   2.  a statement that the sender must honor a recipient’s opt-out request within  30 days and the sender’s failure to do so is unlawful – thereby encouraging  recipients to opt-out, if they did not want future faxes, by advising them that their  opt-out requests will have legal “teeth”;   20.  Class Size (F. 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 (F. 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.   23.  Fair and Adequate Representation (F. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (4)):  The Plaintiff will  fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class. It is interested in this matter,  has no conflicts and has retained experienced class counsel to represent the class.   25.  Common Conduct (F. R. Civ. P. 23 (b) (2)):  Class certification is also appropriate  because the Defendants have acted and refused to act 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).   28.  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).   3.  a statement advising the recipient that he or she may opt-out with respect  to all of his or her facsimile telephone numbers and not just the ones that receive a  faxed advertisement from the sender – thereby instructing a recipient on how to  make a valid opt-out request for all of his or her fax machines;   31.  The Fax. Defendants sent the on or about October 17, 2012, advertisement via  facsimile transmission from telephone facsimile machines, computers, or other devices to the  telephone lines and facsimile machines of Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class. The Fax  constituted an advertisement under the Act. Defendants failed to comply with the Opt-Out  Requirements in connection with the Fax. The Fax was transmitted to persons or entities without  their prior express invitation or permission and/or Defendants are precluded from asserting any  prior express invitation or permission or that Defendants had an established business relationship  with Plaintiff and other members of the class, because of the failure to comply with the Opt-Out  Notice Requirements. By virtue thereof, Defendants violated the JFPA and the regulations  promulgated thereunder by sending the Fax via facsimile transmission to Plaintiff and members  of the Class.  Plaintiff seeks to certify a class which includes this fax and all others sent during  the four years prior to the filing of this case through the present.   33.  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.   34.  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.   37.  Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, incorporates  Paragraphs 1 through 36 as though fully set forth herein, as and for its paragraph 37.   38.  In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Plaintiff brings Count II for violation of the  New Jersey Junk Fax Statute (56:8-157, et seq.), which is part of the New Jersey Consumer  Fraud Act (56:8-1 et seq.), on behalf of the following Class of persons:  All New Jersey residents who (1) on or after four years prior to the  filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of  material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any  property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3)  which Defendants did not have prior express invitation or  permission, or (4) which did not display a proper opt-out notice.   40.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the other Class  members.  Plaintiff’s counsel are experienced in handling class actions and claims involving  unsolicited advertising faxes.  Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s counsel has any interests adverse  or in conflict with the absent Class members.    42.  The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Junk Fax Statute  prohibit a person from using any telephone facsimile machine, computer or other device from  sending an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine within this state.   43.  The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act which incorporates the New Jersey Junk  Fax Statute 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.”   44.  The court shall award actual damages sustained or $500 for each violation,  whichever is greater, along with costs of the suit, reasonable attorneys’ fees and to enjoin future  violations.  If the court finds that Defendants were requested to cease and desist, the court shall  award $1000 for each subsequent transmission along with costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’  fees.  N.J.S.A. 56:8-159.   45.  Defendants violated N.J.S.A. 56:8-157 et seq. and 56:8-1 et seq. by sending  unsolicited advertisements (such as Exhibit A) to Plaintiff and other members of the Class  without first obtaining their prior express invitation or permission and by not displaying clear  and conspicuous notices on the first page of the unsolicited advertisements as required by  50.  Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, incorporates  Paragraphs 1 through 49 as though fully set forth herein, as and for its paragraph 50.   51.  In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, Plaintiff brings Count III for violation of  the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (56:8-1 et seq.), on behalf of the following Class of  persons:  All New Jersey residents who (1) on or after four years prior to the  filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of  material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any  property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3)  which Defendants did not have prior express invitation or  permission, or (4) which did not display a proper opt-out notice.   52.  Defendants’ faxes are an “advertisement” as defined by N.J.S.A. 56:8-1(a).   53.  Plaintiff, and all those similarly situated are “persons” as defined by N.J.S.A.  56:8-1(d).   55.  Defendants’ practice of transmitting unauthorized advertisements that includes  and/or excludes prohibited terms and/or information including, but not limited to per se  violations of the CFA, constitutes an unlawful act and an unconscionable commercial practice  under the CFA.   JUNK FAX PREVENTION ACT OF 2005, 47 USC § 227   VIOLATION OF THE NEW JERSEY JUNK  FAX STATUTE N.J.S.A 56: 8-157 et seq.    VIOLATION OF THE NEW JERSEY  CONSUMER FRAUD ACT 56: 8-1 et seq.  