13.  Between in or about November 2018 and the present, Defendant transmitted or caused  to be transmitted, by itself or through an intermediary or intermediaries, numerous SMS text  message advertisements to the 5236 Number without Plaintiff’s prior express written consent,  including without limitation the messages depicted in the following screenshots extracted from  Plaintiff’s cellular device:   14.  The source of the SMS text messages sent by Defendant to the 5236 Number was  “26293,” which is an SMS “short-code” telephone number leased by Defendant or Defendant’s  agent(s) or affiliate(s) and is used for operating Defendant’s text message marketing program.    16.  Because Plaintiff is alerted by her cellular device, by auditory or visual means,  whenever she receives an SMS text message sent to the 5236 Number, each unsolicited SMS text  message that Defendant transmitted to the 5236 Number invaded Plaintiff’s privacy and intruded  upon Plaintiff’s seclusion upon receipt.  Plaintiff became distracted and aggravated as a result of  receiving each of Defendant’s SMS text messages.   17.  All telephone contact by Defendant or affiliates, subsidiaries, or agents of Defendant  to Plaintiff at the 5236 Number occurred via an “automated telephone dialing system” as defined  by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).    18.  Specifically, Defendant utilized an “automated telephone dialing system” to transmit  all of its unsolicited text messages to the 5236 Number and to the numbers of the proposed class  members because such messages were sent from Defendant’s SMS short-code telephone number  used to message consumers en masse; because Defendant’s automated dialing equipment includes  features substantially similar to a predictive dialer, inasmuch as it is capable of making numerous  calls or texts simultaneously (all without human intervention); and because the hardware and  software used by Defendant to send such messages have the capacity to store, produce, and dial  random or sequential numbers, and to receive and store lists of telephone numbers and to then dial  such numbers, en masse, in an automated fashion and without human intervention.  And indeed,  Defendant transmitted the text messages at issue in this case to Plaintiff and all other putative class  members in an automated fashion and without human intervention, with hardware and software that  received and stored lists of telephone numbers and which then dialed such numbers automatically.     20.  The complained of text messages to the 5236 Number and to the numbers of the  proposed class members constituted telephone solicitations as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(4)  and/or advertisements as defined by 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(1).  This is because Defendant sent the  messages in order to advertise and market the commercial availability of its lending services to  Plaintiff and the other unnamed class members for commercial profit.   21.  Neither Plaintiff nor any of the proposed class members ever provided their “prior  express written consent” or any other form of consent to allow Defendant or any affiliate,  subsidiary, or agent of Defendant to transmit SMS text message advertisements to the 5236 Number  or to any of the proposed class members’ cellular telephone numbers by means of an “automatic  telephone dialing system,” within the meaning of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A).  22.  Class Definition. Plaintiff brings this civil class action on behalf of herself  individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons as a class action pursuant to Fed.  R. Civ. P. 23. The “Class” which Plaintiff seeks to represent is comprised of and defined as follows:   All persons within the United States who, between January 3, 2015 and  the present, received one or more text message(s) promoting the  commercial availability of goods or services from Quicken Loans Inc.  and who did not provide Quicken Loans Inc. prior express written  consent to receive such text message(s).    24.  Plaintiff reserves the right to modify the definition of the Class (or add one or more  subclasses) after further discovery.    25.  Plaintiff and all Class members have been impacted and harmed by the acts of  Defendant or its affiliates or subsidiaries.    26.  This Class Action Complaint seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.   27.  This action may properly be brought and maintained as a class action pursuant to Fed.  R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b). This class action satisfies the numerosity, typicality, adequacy,  commonality, predominance, and superiority requirements.    28.  Upon application by Plaintiff’s counsel for certification of the Class, the Court may  also be requested to utilize and certify subclasses in the interests of manageability, justice, or  judicial economy.    29.  Numerosity. The number of persons within the Class is substantial, believed to  amount to hundreds of thousands of persons dispersed throughout the United States. It is, therefore,  impractical to join each member of the Class as a named Plaintiff. Further, the size and relatively  modest value of the claims of the individual members of the Class renders joinder impractical.  Accordingly, utilization of the class action mechanism is the most economically feasible means of  determining and adjudicating the merits of this litigation.    30.  Typicality. Plaintiff received at least one SMS text message through the use of an  automatic telephone dialing system, without providing her prior express written consent to  Defendant within the meaning of the TCPA. Consequently, the claims of Plaintiff are typical of the  claims of the members of the Class, and Plaintiff’s interest is consistent with and not antagonistic  to those of the other Class members she seeks to represent. Plaintiff and all members of the Class  have been impacted by, and face continuing harm arising out of, Defendant’s violations or  misconduct as alleged herein.    32.  Competency of Class Counsel. Plaintiff has retained and is represented by  experienced, qualified, and competent counsel committed to prosecuting this action.  Counsel are  experienced in handling complex class action claims, in particular claims under the TCPA and other  data privacy and consumer protection statutes.   33.  Commonality and Predominance. There are well-defined common questions of fact  and law that exist as to all members of the Class and predominate over any questions affecting only  individual members of the Class. These common legal and factual questions, which do not vary  from Class member to Class member and may be determined without reference to the individual  circumstances of any class member, include (but are not limited to) the following:   a) Whether Defendant transmitted advertising or telemarketing text  messages to Plaintiff’s and Class members’ cellular telephones;  b) Whether such text messages were sent using an “automatic telephone  dialing system”;   c) Whether Defendant can meet its burden to show Defendant obtained prior  express written consent (as defined by 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(8)) to send  the text messages complained of, assuming such an affirmative defense  is raised;   d) Whether the complained of conduct was knowing or willful;  e) Whether Defendant should be enjoined from engaging in such conduct in  the future.    35.  Additionally, the prosecution of separate actions by individual Class members may  create a risk of multiple adjudications with respect to them that would, as a practical matter, be  dispositive of the interests of other members of the Class who are not parties to such adjudications,  thereby substantially impairing or impeding the ability of such nonparty Class members to protect  their interests. The prosecution of individual actions by Class members could further establish  inconsistent results and/or establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant.   