23.  On or about June 13, 2019, Defendant sent the following telemarketing text message to  Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in 5783 (the “5783 Number”):   25.  Defendant’s text message constitutes telemarketing because it encouraged the future  purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling Plaintiff automobile services and  repairs.        26.  The information contained in the text message is intended to promote Defendant’s  business by conveying to the recipient the following promotional language: “If you need anything  simply reply to this text or give us a call at 2154829333.”   27.  Plaintiff received the subject texts within this judicial district and, therefore, Defendant’s  violation of the TCPA occurred within this district.  Upon information and belief, Defendant caused  other text messages to be sent to individuals residing within this judicial district.     28.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express written consent to  be contacted using an ATDS.     29.  Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 5783 Number, and is financially  responsible for phone service to the 5783 Number.    31.  The text message originated from telephone number 856-644-5475, a number which  upon information and belief is owned and operated by Defendant.   32.  The number used by Defendant (856-644-5475) is known as a “long code,” a standard  10-digit phone number that enabled Defendant to send SMS text message en masse, while deceiving  recipients into believing that the message was personalized and sent from a telephone number operated  by an individual.     33.  Long codes work as follows:  Private companies known as SMS gateway providers  have contractual arrangements with mobile carriers to transmit two-way SMS traffic.  These SMS  gateway providers send and receive SMS traffic to and from the mobile phone networks’ SMS centers,  which are responsible for relaying those messages to the intended mobile phone. This allows for the  transmission of a large number of SMS messages to and from a long code.    34.  Specifically, upon information and belief, Defendant utilized a combination of hardware  and software systems to send the text message at issue in this case.  The systems utilized by Defendant  have the capacity to store telephone numbers using a random or sequential generator, and to dial such  numbers without human intervention.     35.  To send the text message, Defendant used a messaging platform (the “Platform”) that  permitted Defendant to transmit thousands of automated text messages without any human  involvement.     37.  The Platform has the capacity to generate sequential numbers, which capacity was  in fact utilized by Defendant.   38.  The Platform has the capacity to dial numbers in sequential order, which capacity  was in fact utilized by Defendant.   39.  The Platform has the capacity to dial numbers from a list of numbers, which  capacity was in fact utilized by Defendant.   40.  The Platform has the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention, which  capacity was in fact utilized by Defendant.   41.  The Platform has the capacity to schedule the time and date for future transmission  of text messages, which occurs without any human involvement.   43.  The above execution these instructions occurred seamlessly, with no human  intervention, and almost instantaneously.  Indeed, the Platform is capable of transmitting thousands  of text messages following the above steps in minutes, if not less.   44.  Further, the Platform “throttles” the transmission of the text message depending on  feedback it receives from the mobile carrier networks.  In other words, the platform controls how  quickly messages are transmitted depending on network congestion.  The platform performs this  throttling function automatically and does not allow a human to control the function.   45.  The following graphic summarizes the above steps and demonstrates that the  dialing of the text message at issue was done by the Platform automatically and without any human  intervention:    47.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of  himself and all others similarly situated.   48.  Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of a Class defined as follows:  All persons who from four years prior to the filing of this  action (1) were sent a text message by or on behalf of  Defendant, (2) using an automatic telephone dialing  system, (3) for the purpose of soliciting Defendant’s goods  and services, and (4) for whom Defendant claims (a) it did  not obtain prior express written consent, or (b) it obtained  prior express written consent in the same manner as  Defendant claims it supposedly obtained prior express  written consent to call the Plaintiff.     49.  Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. Plaintiff does not  know the number of members in the Class but believes the Class members number in the several  thousands, if not more.  52.  There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate  over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class.  Among the questions of law and  fact common to the Class are:  (1) Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff’s and Class  members’ cellular telephones using an ATDS;  (2) Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing that it obtained prior  express written consent to make such calls;  (3) Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and willful;  (4) Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and  (5) Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.   53.  The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If Plaintiff’s  claim that Defendant routinely transmits text messages to telephone numbers assigned to cellular  telephone services is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of  being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.  58.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.    60.  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.    61.  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.    62.  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.   63.  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.    64.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA,  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled to a  minimum of $500.00 in damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to an  injunction against future calls. Id.   65.  Plaintiff re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1-57 as if fully set forth herein.   67.  Defendant knew that it did not have prior express consent to make these calls and  knew or should have known that its conduct was a violation of the TCPA.   68.  Because Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members  had not given prior express consent to receive its autodialed calls, the Court should treble the  amount of statutory damages available to Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class  pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA.   69.  As a result of Defendant’s violations, Plaintiff and the Class Members are entitled  to an award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).  Knowing and/or Willful Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   PROPOSED CLASS   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  