15. Apparently desiring to increase its sales, GB Cruise Line instituted a marketing  program in which automated calls, more commonly known as robocalls, were placed to  an unknown number of recipients.    16. One such technology to make robocalls is the use of “automatic telephone  dialing systems,” known commonly as “robodialers.”   17. “Robodialing” is the use of computerized telephone systems to place calls  automatically, without manually dialing numbers, and then deliver pre-recorded  messages, or connect calls to live agents when the system detects that a live human has  picked up.   18. Robodialing allows companies to place voluminous telephone solicitations at de  minimis costs, without staffing large telephone boiler rooms with telephone agents.  The  process is almost entirely automated.   19. Unlike more conventional advertisements, robodialing, particularly to wireless  phones, can actually cost their recipients money, because cell phone users must  frequently pay their respective wireless service providers for “minutes” of airtime, or  incur usage allocation deductions to their voice plans, regardless of whether or not the  call is authorized.   21. Under the TCPA and pursuant to the FCC’s January 2008 Declaratory Ruling,  the burden is on GB Cruise Line to demonstrate that Plaintiff provided express consent  within the meaning of the statute. See FCC Declaratory Ruling, 23 F.C.C.R. at 565 (¶ 10).   22. GB Cruise Line is a new company: it was formed on June 16, 2014 and began  actual cruises from the Port of Palm Beach to Grand Bahama Island on or about  February 2015.   23. In implementing these promotional robocalls, GB Cruise Line had no prior  relationship with the recipients, and thus lacked their informed and express consent to  receive robocalls.   24. The above-described calls violated the TCPA’s restriction on using an artificial or  prerecorded voice to call consumers’ cellular telephones.  Further, GB Cruise Line  acted “knowingly” within the meaning of the TCPA by knowingly calling recipient  consumers’ telephones using an artificial or prerecorded voice to call, without the prior  express consent of the individual being called.  Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3),  Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to the greater of the amount of their actual  damages or $500 per call together, trebled.   26. Plaintiff pressed “1” to reserve his two free tickets.   27. Less than 30 minutes later, at 3:56 p.m. that same day, Plaintiff received a  telephone call to his cell phone number from a man calling himself “Calvin.”  The man  stated: “this is Calvin from the Reservations Department.”  Plaintiff inquired what  company he was from, to which Calvin replied he was from “Grand Bahama Cruise  Line” and referred Plaintiff to the following website: http://www.mygrandcruise.com/.   28. Plaintiff did not have any previous relationship, business or otherwise, with  Grand Bahama Cruise Line.    29. Upon further inquiry, Plaintiff learned that the solicitation from Grand Bahama  was in fact not true.  There were expenses associated with the purportedly “free” cruise  and required participation in a time-share marketing presentation.   31. Under the TCPA, and pursuant to the FCC’s January 2008 Declaratory Ruling,  the burden is on GB Cruise Line to demonstrate that Plaintiff and the Class Members  provided express consent to receive such automated calls, as defined by the statute.    32. Clearly, the initial automated call was made as a ruse to obtain putative consent  for the second call through a classic two-step “survey” scam; however, automated  putative surveys done as devices to obtain “consent” to later calls are not exempt from  the provisions of the TCPA, nor is the “consent” obtained by such prohibited calls  sufficient to permit the follow-up calls.     33. Thus, the first call to the Plaintiff and the Class Members (which was made  without any prior relationship with the recipient) was a TCPA violation, as it was not  done as part of a legitimate survey, but only as a device to obtain consent for a second  call.   The purported consent given, as it was procured through such a ruse, was not  valid, meaning that the second call was also a TCPA violation.   35. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated  (the Class or Class Members).  Upon information and belief, GB Cruise Line  repeatedly made (or directed to be made on its behalf) thousands of unsolicited  telephone calls to Plaintiff and Class Members’ cellular telephones in violation of the  51. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-50 above.   52. The foregoing acts and omissions of GB Cruise Line constitute numerous and  multiple negligent violations of the TCPA,  including but not limited to each and  every one of the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.   53. As a result of GB Cruise Line’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.  Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for  each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B). Plaintiff and the Class  are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct in the future.   54. Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and  costs.  55. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-50 above.   56. The foregoing acts and omissions of GB Cruise Line constitute numerous and  multiple knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to  each and every one of the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.   58. Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief prohibiting  such conduct in the future.   59. Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs.  OF THE TCPA   PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.  