15.  On June 1, 2015, Plaintiff received an unsolicited fax advertisement.  Exhibit A, copy of the subject fax advertisement. The fax advertisement attached as  Exhibit A was sent, or caused to be sent, by Defendants.   16.  The subject fax advertises Defendants’ goods, products or services. Id.  Exhibit A is a one-page fax that attempts to promote Defendants’ marketing service  for chiropractors. Id. Exhibit A contains information about the methods Defendants  use to attract patients for chiropractors. Id. Exhibit A also encourages Plaintiff to  contact Defendants immediately to engage their marketing service. Id. Defendants  sent, or caused this unsolicited fax advertisement to be sent to Plaintiff and a class  of similarly-situated persons.   17.  Plaintiff did not invite or give permission to anyone to send Exhibit A  to him.   18.  Exhibit A does not contain a clear and conspicuous opt-out notice.  Instead, Defendants included an opt-out notice in small font near the bottom of the  page. Id. The opt-out notice did not include a domestic toll-free fax number. Id. It is  not clear whether the telephone number listed on Defendants’ opt-out notice was  available to Plaintiff to make an opt out request 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, as  required by the TCPA. Id.   20.  There is no reasonable means for Plaintiff (or any other putative class  member) to avoid receiving illegal faxes. Fax machines are left on and ready to  receive the urgent communications their owners desire to receive.   21.  Plaintiff brings this action as a class action on behalf of himself and all  others similarly situated as members of the Class, initially defined as follows:  All persons who were sent one or more telephone facsimile messages  on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, that advertised  the commercial availability of property, goods, or services offered by  defendants, that did not contain an opt-out notice that complied with  federal law.   22.  Excluded from the Class are Defendants, any entity in which  Defendants have a controlling interest, any officers or directors of Defendants, the  legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns of Defendants, and any Judge  assigned to this action, and his or her family.   24.  Numerosity/Impracticality of Joinder:  On information and belief, the  Class consists of more than thirty-nine people and, thus, is so numerous that  joinder of all members is impracticable. The precise number of Class members and  their addresses are unknown to Plaintiff, but can be obtained from Defendants’  records or the records of third parties.   26.  Typicality of claims:  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the  Class because Plaintiff and all Class members were injured by the same wrongful  practices. Plaintiff and the members of the Class are all individuals who received  unsolicited fax advertisements from Defendants that also did not contain an opt-out  notice pursuant to the TCPA. Under the facts of this case, because the focus is upon  Defendants’ conduct, if Plaintiff prevails on his claims, then the putative Class  members must necessarily prevail as well.   28.  Prosecution of Separate Claims Would Yield Inconsistent Results:   Even though the questions of fact and law in this action are predominately common  to Plaintiff and the putative Class members, separate adjudication of each Class  member’s claims would yield inconsistent and varying results. Such inconsistent  rulings would create incompatible standards for Defendants to operate under  if/when Class members bring additional lawsuits concerning the same unsolicited  fax advertisements or if Defendants choose to advertise by fax again in the future.   30.  Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.   31.  Plaintiff brings Count I on behalf of himself and a class of similarly  situated persons.   32.  The TCPA prohibits the “use of any telephone facsimile machine,  computer or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone  facsimile machine….” 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (1).   33.  The TCPA defines “unsolicited advertisement,” as “any material  advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services  which is transmitted to any person without that person’s express invitation or  permission.”  47 U.S.C. § 227 (a) (4).   34.  The TCPA provides:   35.  In relevant part, the TCPA states that “[t]he Commission shall  prescribe regulations to implement the requirements of this subsection . . . in  implementing the requirements of this subsection, the Commission shall provide  that a notice contained in an unsolicited advertisement complies with the  requirements under this subparagraph only if . . . (i) the notice is clear and  conspicuous . . .”  47. U.S.C. § 227 (b) (2) (D) (i).   36.  Additionally, “a notice contained in an unsolicited advertisement  complies with the requirements under this subparagraph only if . . . (ii) the notice  states that the recipient may make a request to the sender of the unsolicited  advertisement not to send any future unsolicited advertisements to a telephone  facsimile machine or machines and that failure to comply, within the shortest  reasonable time, as determined by the Commission, with such a request meeting  the requirements under subparagraph (E) is unlawful . . .”  47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (2)  (D) (ii).  The shortest reasonable time has been determined to be thirty days.  47  C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a) (4) (iii) (B).   37.  The opt-out notice must also include “a domestic contact telephone and  facsimile number for the recipient to transmit such a request to the sender” as well  as a “cost-free mechanism for a recipient to transmit a request pursuant to such  notice . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (2) (D) (iv).   39.  The Court, in its discretion, can treble the statutory damages if the  violation was knowing.  47 U.S.C. § 227.   40.  Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. by sending advertisements  by fax (such as Exhibit A) to Plaintiff and the other Class members without first  obtaining their prior express invitation or permission.   41.  Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. by not providing a clear  and conspicuous opt-out notice.  The notice that Defendants did include was in  small font at the very bottom of the page. Exhibit A.   42.  Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. by not including a domestic  toll-free fax number for the recipients to make an opt-out request. Id. It is not clear  whether the telephone number Defendants provided allowed Plaintiff and the Class  members to make an opt-out request at any time on any day of the week.   43.  Facsimile advertising imposes burdens on unwilling recipients that are  distinct from those imposed by other types of advertising. The content of the  required opt-out notice is designed to ensure that the recipients have the necessary  contact information to opt-out of future fax transmissions. If senders do not clearly  and conspicuously provide the opt-out content to the recipients, then the recipients  are unable to stop the burdens imposed by this form of advertisement.    45.  Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and the other Class members under  the TCPA for not including a proper opt-out notice even if Defendants ultimately  prove that they obtained prior express permission to send the advertisements by fax  or prove that they had an established business relationship with Plaintiff and the  other Class members.   46.  Each Defendant is liable because, respectively, it sent the faxes, caused  the faxes to be sent, participated in the activity giving rise to or constituting the  violation, the faxes were sent on its behalf, or under general principles of vicarious  liability applicable under the TCPA, including actual authority, apparent authority  and ratification.   47.  Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other  Class members had not given express invitation or permission for Defendants or  anybody else to fax advertisements about Defendants’ goods, products, or services,  that Plaintiff and the other Class members did not have an established business  relationship with Defendants, that Exhibit A is an advertisement, and that Exhibit  A did not display the proper opt-out notice required by the TCPA.   49.  Defendants knew that their actions violated the TCPA because they  have been sued for TCPA violations before. See Rosen Family Chiropractic, S.C. v.  Patient Builders, Inc., No. 10-cv-2826 (N.D. Ill.) Because their actions were willful  and knowing, the Court should award trebled damages.   51.  Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 29 as though fully set  forth herein.   52.  Plaintiff brings Count II on behalf of himself and a class of similarly  situated persons.   53.  By sending Plaintiff and the other Class members unsolicited faxes,  Defendants improperly and unlawfully converted their fax machines, toner and  paper to Defendants’ own use.  Defendants also converted Plaintiff’s employees’  time to their own use.    54.  Immediately prior to the sending of the unsolicited faxes, Plaintiff and  the other Class members owned an unqualified and immediate right to possession  of their fax machines, paper, toner, and employee time.   55.  By sending the unsolicited faxes, Defendants permanently  misappropriated the Class members’ fax machines, toner, paper, and employee time  to their own use. Such misappropriation was wrongful and without authorization.     56.  Defendants knew or should have known that their misappropriation of  paper, toner, and employee time was wrongful and without authorization.   59.  Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 29 as though fully set  forth herein.    60.  Plaintiff brings Count III on behalf of himself and a class of similarly  situated persons.   61.  Defendants’ unsolicited fax practice is an unfair practice, because it  violates public policy, and because it forced Plaintiff and the other Class members  to incur expense without any consideration in return. Defendants’ practice  effectively forced Plaintiff and the other Class members to pay for Defendants’  advertising campaign.   62.  Defendants violated the unfairness predicate of the Act by engaging in  an unscrupulous business practice and by violating Illinois statutory public policy,  which public policy violations in the aggregate caused substantial injury to  hundreds of persons.     63.  Defendants’ misconduct caused damages to Plaintiff and the other  members of the Class, including the loss of paper, toner, ink, use of their facsimile  machines, and use of their employees’ time.   CONVERSION   ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT  815 CS 505/2   TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. § 227  