13.  On December 31, 2014, Defendant sent an unsolicited advertisement to Plaintiff’s  ink-and-paper facsimile machine. The fax advertises the Aeroflow Vista MultiPost Cervical  Collar (the “Product”). It states that “in addition to back braces, Aeroflow Healthcare is pleased  to announce that we now offer Cervical Collars!” It touts the Product as a treatment method for  neck pain. A copy of this facsimile is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A.      14.  Exhibits A is exemplary of the junk faxes Defendant sends.   15.  Defendant did not have Plaintiff’s prior express invitation or permission to send  advertisements to Plaintiff’s fax machine.    16.  Defendant’s faxes do not contain opt-out notices that comply with the  requirements of the TCPA.  18.  Further, Plaintiff also seeks to certify the following sub-class of persons (the  “Subclass”) regarding :  All persons and entities, residing in the State of Florida, who  hold telephone numbers that received a facsimile transmission  from Defendant at any time from December 23, 2011, to  present (the “Class Period”) that 1) promotes Defendant’s  products and 2) lacks an opt-out notice compliant with the  requirements of the TCPA.   19.  Plaintiff reserves the right to modify or amend the definition of the proposed  Class and Sub-Class (collectively, the “Classes”) before the Court determines whether  certification is proper.    20.  Excluded from the Classes are Defendant, any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or  controlled person of Defendant, as well as the officers, directors, agents, servants, or employees  of Defendant and the immediate family members of any such person. Also excluded are any  judge who may preside over this case and any attorneys representing Plaintiff or the Classes.   21.  Numerosity [Fed R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)]. The Members of the Classes are so  numerous that joinder is impractical. Upon information and belief, Defendant has sent illegal fax  advertisements to hundreds if not thousands of other recipients.   23.  Typicality [Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3)].  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims  of all Members of the Classes. Plaintiff received an unsolicited fax advertisement from  Defendant during the Class Period. Plaintiff makes the same claims that it makes for the  Members of the Classes and seeks the same relief that it seeks for the Members of the Classes.  Defendant has acted in the same manner toward Plaintiff and all the Members of the Classes.     27.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.   28.  The TCPA provides strict liability for sending fax advertisements in a manner that  does not comply with the statute. Recipients of fax advertisements have a private right of action  to seek an injunction or damages for violations of the TCPA and its implementing regulations. 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).   30.  Unsolicited faxes are illegal if the sender and recipient do not have an  “established business relationship.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C)(i). “Established business  relationship” is defined as “a prior or existing relationship formed by a voluntary two-way  communication between a person or entity and a business or residential subscriber with or  without an exchange of consideration, on the basis of an inquiry, application, purchase or  transaction by the business or residential subscriber regarding products or services offered by  such person or entity, which relationship has not been previously terminated by either party.” 47  U.S.C. § 227(a)(2); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(6).   31.  Regardless of whether the sender and recipient have an established business  relationship, and regardless of whether the fax is unsolicited, a faxed advertisement is illegal  unless it includes an opt-out notice on its first page that complies with the TCPA’s requirements.  See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C)(iii); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4)(iv). To comply with the law, an opt- out notice must (1) inform the recipient that the recipient may opt out of receiving future faxes  by contacting the sender; (2) provide both a domestic telephone number and a facsimile machine  number—one of which must be cost-free—that the recipient may contact to opt out of future  faxes; and (3) inform the recipient that the sender’s failure to comply with an opt-out request  within thirty days is a violation of law. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2)(D); 47 CFR §   32.  Defendant faxed unsolicited advertisements to Plaintiff that did not have  compliant opt-out notices, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C) and 47 C.F.R. §   33.  Defendant knew or should have known (a) that Plaintiff had not given express  invitation or permission for Defendant to fax advertisements about its products; (b) that  Defendant’s faxes did not contain a compliant opt-out notice; and (c) that Exhibit A is an  advertisement.   34.  Defendant’s actions caused damage to Plaintiff and the Class Members.  Defendant’s junk faxes caused Plaintiff and the Class Members to lose paper, toner, and ink  consumed in the printing of Defendant’s faxes through Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ fax  machines. Defendant’s faxes cost Plaintiff and the Class Members time that otherwise would  have been spent on Plaintiff’s and the Class Members’ business activities.   35.  In addition to statutory damages (and the trebling thereof), Plaintiff and the Class  are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief under the TCPA.  36.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each of the preceding paragraphs as  though fully set forth herein.   37.  Plaintiff and the Members of the Sub-Class are “consumers” within the meaning  of Fla. Stat. § 501.203(7).   38.  Defendant is a “person” or “entity” as used in FDUTPA.   39.  Pursuant to FDUTPA, unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or  practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are  unlawful.   41.  Within four years prior to the filing of this complaint and continuing to the  present, Defendant violated FDUTPA by engaging in unfair practices against Plaintiff and the  Sub-Class.   42.  Defendant was engaging in “trade or commerce” within the meaning of Fla. Stat.  § 501.203(8).   43.  The practices described herein also offend established public policy regarding the  protection of the consuming public and legitimate business enterprises against companies, like  Defendant, who engage in unfair methods of competition.   44.  Defendant’s conduct, which caused substantial injury to Plaintiff and the Sub- Class could have been avoided, and is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to any  consumers or competition.   45.  Defendant’s business acts and practices are also unfair because they have caused  harm and injury-in-fact to Plaintiff and Sub-Class Members.    46.  In addition to actual damages, Plaintiff and the Sub-Class are entitled to  declaratory and injunctive relief as well as reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Fla.  Stat. § 501.201, et seq.  64.1200(a)(4)(iii).    Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act   47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4)   Violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act  Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq.  