27.  Within the last four years, Defendant has caused numerous calls with prerecorded  messages to be transmitted to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone ending in 8532 (the “8532 Number”),  including on or about November 13, 2019 and November 14, 2019.     28.  The prerecorded calls at issue were transmitted to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, and  within the time frame relevant to this action.   29.  When Plaintiff listened to Defendant’s message she was easily able to determine  that it was a prerecorded message. Rahn v. Bank of Am., No. 1:15-CV-4485-ODE-JSA, 2016 U.S.  Dist. LEXIS 186171, at *10-11 (N.D. Ga. June 23, 2016) (“When one receives a call, it is a clear- cut fact, easily discernible to any lay person, whether or not the recipient is speaking to a live  human being, or is instead being subjected to a prerecorded message.”).   30.  Defendant’s prerecorded call constitutes telemarketing because it encourages the  future purchase or investment in property, goods, and/or services, i.e., selling Plaintiff insurance  policies from its various insurance industry customers.    31.  The prerecorded call Plaintiff received originated from a telephone number owned  and/or operated by or on behalf of Defendant.   37.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf  of herself and all others similarly situated.   38.  Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of the Class defined as follows:  All persons within the United States who, within the four years  prior to the filing of this Complaint, were sent a call using an  artificial or prerecorded voice, from Defendant or anyone on  Defendant’s behalf, to said person’s cellular telephone number,  without emergency purpose and without the recipient’s prior  express written consent.   42.  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 is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and  e) Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.   48.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.    49.  It is a violation of the TCPA to make “any call (other than a call made for  emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any  automatic telephone dialing system … to any telephone number assigned to a … cellular telephone  service ….” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).    50.  Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant – used equipment having the  capacity to dial numbers without human intervention to make non-emergency telephone calls to  the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class defined below.    51.  These calls were made without regard to whether or not Defendant had first  obtained express permission from the called party to make such calls. In fact, 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.    52.  Defendant has, therefore, violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using an  automatic telephone dialing system 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.   53.  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.    PROPOSED CLASS   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  