11.  Nationwide profited from and received the benefits of marketing of its products  and services by fax and is a responsible party under the JFPA.   12.  Defendant created or caused to be made Exhibit A hereto, which Defendant knew  or should have known advertises Defendant’s goods or products, and Defendant intended to and  did in fact distribute Exhibit A to Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes.   13.  Exhibit A is a fact advertisement that is part of Defendant’s work or operations,  including its marketing of its products, which is performed by Defendant and/or on behalf of  Defendant. Therefore, Exhibit A constitutes material furnished in connection with Defendant’s  work or operations.   14.  Plaintiff never consented or invited Defendant to send the faxes, nor has Plaintiff  ever given permission to Defendant to send the Fax and had no prior relationship with  Defendant.   15.  On information and belief, Defendant faxed the same unsolicited facsimile to  Plaintiff and more than 40 other recipients without first receiving the recipients’ express  permission or invitation to send such faxes.   16.  There is no reasonable means for Plaintiff (or any other class member) to avoid  receiving unauthorized faxes. Fax machines are left on and ready to receive the communications  their owners actually desire and consent to receive.   17.  Defendant’s facsimile did not display a proper opt-out notice as required by 47  C.F.R. 64.1200. Among other things, it did not apprise recipients of their legal right to opt out.  19.  The following individuals are excluded from the Classes: (1) any Judge or  Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, Defendant’s  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or their  parents have a controlling interest and their current or former employees, officers and directors;  (3) Plaintiff’s attorneys; (4) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion  from the Classes; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded  persons; and (6) persons whose claims against Defendant have been fully and finally adjudicated  and/or released. Plaintiff anticipates the need to amend the class definitions following  appropriate discovery.   20.  Numerosity: The exact number of members within the Classes is unknown and  not available to Plaintiff at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On  information and belief, Defendant has sent facsimile advertisements to hundreds or thousands of  consumers who fall into the definition of the Classes. However, the exact number of members of  the Classes can only be identified through Defendant’s records.   22.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Classes. It is interested in this matter, has no conflicts, and has  retained experienced class counsel to represent the Classes.   24.  Conduct Similar to the Class as a Whole: Class certification is appropriate  because Defendant has acted and refused to act in the same or similar manner with respect to all  class members thereby making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate. Plaintiff demands  such relief as authorized by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), et seq.   26.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set  forth herein.   27.  The JFPA makes unlawful for any person to “use any telephone facsimile  machine, computer or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited  advertisement …” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C).   29.  The faxes sent by Defendant advertised its financial products, were commercial in  nature, and are advertisements under the TCPA.   30.  Plaintiff and the other class members never gave prior express consent, invitation  or permission to receive the faxes.   31.  The Faxes. Defendant sent the April 18, 2018 fax via facsimile transmission from  telephone facsimile machines, computers, or other devices to the telephone facsimile machines  of Plaintiff and members of the No Consent Class. The Fax constituted an advertisement under  the Act. The Faxes were transmitted to persons or entities without their prior express permission  or invitation and/or Defendant is precluded from asserting any prior express permission or  invitation because of the failure to comply with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements as explained  below. Defendant violated the JFPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder by sending the  Faxes via facsimile transmission to Plaintiff and members of the No Consent Class.   33.  The JFPA provides a private right of action to bring this action on behalf of  Plaintiff and the No Consent Class to redress Defendant’s violations of the Act, and provides for  statutory damages. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). The Act also provides that injunctive relief is  appropriate. Id.   34.  The JFPA is a strict liability statute. The Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff and  the other members of the No Consent Class even if it did not intend to send the faxes or to send  them without first obtaining prior express invitation or permission.   35.  The Defendant knew or should have known that (a) the Plaintiff and the other  members of the No Consent Class had not given express invitation or permission for the  Defendant or anybody else to fax advertisements about the Defendant’s goods or services; (b) the  faxes constituted an advertisement; and (c) the Fax did not apprise recipients of their legal right  to opt-out.   37.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the No  Consent Class are each entitled to, under section 227(b)(3)(B), a minimum of $500.00 in  damages for each violation of such act.   38.  Furthermore, in the event the Court finds that Defendant’s conduct was willful  and knowing, the Court should, under section 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory  damages recoverable by Plaintiff and the other members of the No Consent Class.  39.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   41.  The Faxes. Defendant sent Exhibit A via facsimile transmission from telephone  facsimile machines, computers, or other devices to the telephone facsimile machines of Plaintiff  and members of the Insufficient Opt-Out Notice Class. The Faxes constituted an advertisement  under the Act. Defendant failed to comply with the Opt-Out Requirements in connection with the  Faxes. The faxes failed to apprise recipients of their legal right to opt-out, or indeed provide any  information regarding opting out or a means to opt-out. The Faxes were transmitted to persons or  entities without their prior express permission or invitation and/or Defendant is precluded from  asserting any prior express permission or invitation because of the failure to comply with the  Opt-Out Notice Requirements. Defendant violated the JFPA and the regulations promulgated  thereunder by sending the Faxes via facsimile transmission to Plaintiff and members of the  Insufficient Opt-Out Notice Class.   43.  The JFPA provides a private right of action to bring this action on behalf of  Plaintiff and the Insufficient Opt-Out Notice Class to redress Defendant’s violations of the Act,  and provides for statutory damages. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). The Act also provides that injunctive  relief is appropriate. Id.   44.  The JFPA is a strict liability statute. The Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff and  the other class members even if it did not intend to send the faxes or to send them without first  obtaining prior express invitation or permission.   45.  The Defendant knew or should have known that (a) Plaintiff and the other  members of the Insufficient Opt-Out Notice Class had not given express invitation or permission  for the Defendant or anybody else to fax advertisements about the Defendant’s goods or services;  (b) the faxes constituted an advertisement; and (c) the Faxes did not provide a cost free means  for recipients of to opt-out.   47.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the  Insufficient Opt-Out Notice Class are each entitled to, under section 227(b)(3)(B), a minimum of  $500.00 in damages for each violation of such act.   48.  Furthermore, in the event the Court finds that Defendant’s conduct was willful  and knowing, the Court should, under section 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory  damages recoverable by Plaintiff and the other members of the Insufficient Opt-Out Notice  Class.  5.  This case challenges Defendant’s practice of sending unsolicited fax  advertisements.   7.  Unsolicited faxes cause damage to their recipients. A junk fax recipient loses the  use of its fax machine, paper, and ink toner. An unsolicited fax wastes the recipient’s time that  would have been spent on something else. A junk fax also invades the recipient’s privacy.  Unsolicited faxes prevent fax machines from receiving authorized faxes, prevent their use for  authorized outgoing faxes, cause undue wear and tear on the recipients’ fax machines, and  require additional labor to attempt to discern the source and purpose of the unsolicited message.   8.  On behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff brings this case as a  class action asserting claims against Defendant under the JFPA.   9.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on such information and belief states, that  this action is based on a common nucleus of operative fact because the facsimile transmissions at  issue were and are being performed in the same or similar manner. This action is based on the  same legal theory, namely liability under the JFPA stemming from the same faxes being sent  from the same equipment. This action seeks relief expressly authorized by the JFPA: (i)  injunctive relief enjoining Defendant, its employees, agents, representatives, contractors,  affiliates, and all persons and entities acting in concert with them, from sending unsolicited  advertisements in violation of the JFPA, and (ii) an award of statutory damages in the minimum  amount of $500 for each violation of the JFPA, and to have such damages trebled, as provided  by § 227(b)(3) of the Act.  Claim for Relief for Violation of the JFPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the No Consent Class)   Claim for Relief for Violation of the JFPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Insufficient Opt-Out Notice Class)  