(Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. – Telephone Consumer Protection Act)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   11.  During late August of 2017, Plaintiff Fidencio Lainez provided his cellullar  telephone number ending in -8376 (“-8376 number”) in connection with the purchase of an IDT  calling product.   12.  On August 30, 2017 at approximately 11:32 a.m. CST, Lainez received a text  message at his -8376 number from IDT’s short message service (SMS) code “63729”. The message  informed Lainez that he could make calls using toll-free telephone, “716-271-7171”, or through  IDT’s mobile app.    13.  One minute later, Lainez received the following text from IDT’s SMS code  “55350” (55350 text) at his -8376 #:  BOSS Revolution: Clic   bossrevapp.us para  descargar la aplicacion   de Boss Rev en Android o  iPhone. Nuevos clients del   app reciben $1 para llamar   1-800-676-8312   14.  Translated to English, the 55350 text reads as follows:   BOSS Revolution: Click   bossrevapp.us to download the Boss Rev application on Android or   iPhone. New clients of the   app receive $ 1 to call.  1-800-676-8312   16.  The above-described text messages were not addressed to Plaintiff by name and  were written in an impersonal manner.    17.  Defendant sent the same (or substantially the same) generic telemarketing and/or  advertising text messages at random through an automatic telephone dialing system to Plaintiff  and Class.    18.  Prior to sending these text messages, Defendant never informed Plaintiff and Class  clearly, conspicuously, and in writing that they would receive recurring automated telemarketing  and/or advertising text messages on their cellular phone.    19.  As such, Defendant never received the requisite consent to send the text messages  at issue.   20.  The text message calls alleged herein were exclusively made by Defendant or on  their behalf.    21.  Through their conduct, Defendant caused Class Members actual harm by sending  the unauthorized text message calls at issue. Plaintiff and members of the Class were not only  subjected to the aggravation that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unauthorized text  messages, but also costs paid to their cell phone service providers for the receipt of such  unauthorized text messages.    23.  Defendant was and is aware that the above-described text messages were being sent  on a widespread basis, and that the text messages were being sent to consumers who had not  provided prior express written consent to receive them.  24.  Class Definition: Plaintiff Fidencio Lainez brings this action on behalf of himself  and a class defined as follows:  Class: All individuals in the United States whose wireless telephone  number Defendant, or someone on Defendant’s behalf, called using an  automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice in  connection with Defendant’s marketing promotions.  Excluded from the Class are: (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 the Defendant or their parents have a controlling interest and  their current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and  file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have  been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel and  Defendant’s counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such  excluded persons.   26.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff and the putative Class, and those questions predominate over  any questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common questions for the Class  include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:  (a)  Whether Defendant’s conduct violated the TCPA;  (b)  Whether Defendant sent text messages to Class Members using an  automated telephone dialing system (“ATDS”), as contemplated by the  32.  In an effort to solicit consumers, Defendant sent unauthorized and unwanted  telemarketing and/or advertising text message calls to Plaintiff and the Class' cellular telephones  without their prior express written consent.   33.  Defendant sent the telemarketing and/or advertising text messages to Plaintiff and  the Class' cellular telephone numbers using equipment that had the capacity to store or produce  telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator, and/or receive and  store lists of phone numbers, and to dial such numbers en masse.   34.  Defendant utilized equipment that sent the telemarketing and/or advertising text  messages to Plaintiff and other members of the putative Class simultaneously and without human  intervention.   35.  Defendant took steps to physically place such text message calls and/or was so  involved in placing the calls as to be deemed to have initiated them.    36.  By sending telemarketing and/or advertising text messages to Plaintiffs and  members of the Class's cellular telephones without prior express written consent, as defined  pursuant 47 U.S.C. § 64.1200(f)(8), and by utilizing an ATDS, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(I)(A)(iii).   37.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the  putative Class suffered actual damages and have also had their rights to privacy adversely  impacted. Plaintiff and the Class are therefore entitled to, among other things, a minimum of $500  in statutory damages for each such violation under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   39.  Additionally, as a result of Defendant unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the other  members of the Class are entitled to an injunction under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A) to ensure that  Defendant’s violations of the TCPA do not continue into the future. 