32.  Advertising to cellular phones uses the called party’s equipment.    33.  Lower Insurance Rates transmitted autodialed and prerecorded calls  to cellular phones—those of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class— to promote Direct Auto Insurance’s products and services without the called parties’  prior express written consent.   A.  Relationship between Lower Insurance Rates and Direct Auto Insurance.   34.  Lower Insurance Rates offers insurance rate comparison tools to  consumers on behalf of insurance companies and service providers.      35.  Lower Insurance Rates contracts with various insurance companies  and service providers, including Direct Auto Insurance, to generate business and  connect to consumers to offer “competitive” insurance quotes.     36.  Lower Insurance Rates is an “online marketplace, [that is] run by, and  work[s] directly with insurance providers to help aggregate the right insurance  offers and present them to [consumers.]. See www.lower-insurance-rates.com (last visited  June 13, 2019).    37.  Lower Insurance Rates acts as an intermediary between insurance  companies, such as Direct Auto Insurance, to solicit business.      39.  Once Lower Insurance Rates connects with a consumer through a  robocall, Lower Insurance Rates uses prerecorded voice prompts and menu transfer  the call to an insurance company, such as Direct Auto Insurance, to generate an  insurance quote.    40.  Lower Insurance Rates programs its autodialer menu to transfer a  connected call directly to Direct Auto Insurance after the called party answers a  series of voice prompts with their information.    41.  Once a call is transferred, Direct Auto Insurance collects additional  information from the called party to advertise and promote an insurance quote.    B.  Lower Insurance Rates called cellular phones on behalf of Direct Auto  Insurance using an autodialer and prerecorded voice.   42.  Lower Insurance Rates called Plaintiff’s cellular phone using an  autodialer and a prerecorded voice to advertise Direct Auto Insurance’s  “competitive” rates and insurance options on behalf of Direct Auto Insurance.   43.  On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff received two autodialed and prerecorded  calls from Lower Insurance Rates that were made on behalf of Direct Auto  Insurance.      44.  The first call began with “dead air.” Plaintiff answered and said  “Hello?” three times before he heard a distinctive “click” and a prerecorded voice  introduced himself as “Justin” from Lower Insurance Rates.    46.  Once the call was transferred, Plaintiff completed an over-the-phone  application with for an auto insurance quote with one of Direct Auto Insurance’s  license insurance agents.     47.  After Direct Auto Insurance provided Plaintiff with an insurance  quote, Plaintiff received a second call that same day.    48.  The second call began with a distinctive pause and a “click.” After  Plaintiff said, “Hello?” a prerecorded voice came on the line:  Hi there! This is a courtesy call from the insurance network customer  satisfaction team. We’re calling to confirm that you received a  competitive quote from one of our agents. Press “1” is you already  received a quote and are satisfied with your experience. Press “2” if you  didn’t receive a quote or would like to get an additional quote.     49.  Both calls began with a distinctive pause and a “click” after Plaintiff  answered. A pause followed by a “click” is evidence of the caller’s use of a predictive  dialer, which uses an algorithm to “predict” when telemarketing agents will be  available to field the call. See 2003 Order, 18 FCC Rcd. at 14022, n. 31.2    50.  The above facts demonstrate that the calls were made as part of a  telemarketing campaign, and that the calls were made using an automatic  telephone dialing system (“ATDS”) and a prerecorded voice.    52.  “The statutory definition of ATDS is not limited to devices with the  capacity to call numbers produced by a ‘random or sequential number generator,’  but also includes devices with the capacity to dial stored numbers automatically.  Accordingly, we read § 227(a)(1) to provide that the term automatic telephone  dialing system means equipment which has the capacity—(1) to store numbers to be  called or (2) to produce numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number  generator—and to dial such numbers.” Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, 904 F.3d  1041, 1052 (9th Cir. 2018).   53.  Lower Insurance Rates used a device that had either: (A) the capacity  to call numbers produced using a random or sequential number generator, or (B)  the capacity to dial stored numbers automatically. Id.   54.  Lower Insurance Rates initiated unauthorized telephone solicitations  to the cellular phones of Plaintiff and other members of the Class using an ATDS  and prerecorded voice to advertise the availability of a refinance with Direct Auto  Insurance without their prior express written consent.    56.  Defendants’ autodialed and prerecorded voice calls to cellular phones  were designed to encourage and offer Direct Auto Insurance’s goods or services for  sale, including “competitive” insurance quotes.   57.  Plaintiff did not give Lower Insurance Rates or Direct Auto Insurance  his cellular telephone number or request that either company call his cellular phone  about an insurance quote.     58.  Plaintiff did not expressly consent in writing to receive Defendants’  autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing calls to his cellular phone.   59.  Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), Plaintiff brings this action  against Defendants on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated  throughout the United States.   60.  Plaintiff proposes the following class definition:   All persons in the United States to whom one or more  telemarking or advertising calls were initiated (1) to their  cellular telephone number, (2) by or on behalf of any or all of the  Defendants, (3) using an automatic telephone dialing system or  an artificial or prerecorded voice, (4) on or after June 21, 2015,  and (5) without their prior express written consent.   61.  Excluded from the class are Defendants, any entity in which any  Defendant has a controlling interest, each of their respective officers or legal  representatives, and any Judge assigned to this action, including his or her  immediate family.   63.  Plaintiff is a member of the proposed class.   64.  The automated technology that Lower Insurance Rates used to call  Plaintiff’s cellphone is capable of contacting thousands of people a day, and so the  potential class members number in the hundreds or thousands, at least. Individual  joinder of so many persons is impracticable.   65.  Use of a prerecorded voice and voice prompt menu further increases  the scale at which Lower Insurance Rates can make the calls without human  intervention.      67.  Plaintiff’s claims are based on the same facts and legal theories as the  claims of all class members and therefore are typical of the claims of class members.  Plaintiff and the other class members all received telephone calls to their cellular  telephone lines through the same or similar dialing system and or the same or  similar prerecorded voice.   68.  Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the class because his  interests do not conflict with the interests of the Class he seeks to represent.  Plaintiff is a victim of ATDS telemarketing to his cellular phone using a  prerecorded voice without any emergency purpose and without his prior express  written consent, and he is committed to the vigorous prosecution of this action.  Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex TCPA class  action litigation. Plaintiff will vigorously prosecute this action. Plaintiff and his  counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interest of members of the class.   70.  The likelihood that individual class members will prosecute separate  actions is remote because individual litigation of the claims of all class members is  economically unfeasible and procedurally impracticable given the expense involved  and the small recoveries available through individual actions.  71.  Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein, and brings Count I individually and on behalf of the class.     72.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants constitute numerous  and multiple violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. §227, by making calls, except for  emergency purposes, to the cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and members of  the class using an ATDS and/or artificial or prerecorded voice.   73.  As a result of Defendants’ violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. §227,  Plaintiff and members of the class are entitled to an award of $500 in damages for  each and every call made to their cellular telephone numbers using an ATDS or  artificial or prerecorded voice in violation of the TCPA, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(3)(B).   75.  Defendants’ violations were knowing or willful.   CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. § 227, ET SEQ.  