11.  Defendant Aegis is a financial brokerage firm. Upon information and belief,  Defendant purchases lists of consumers to call without receiving their prior express consent.   12.  In recent years, financial firms such as Aegis have turned to unsolicited  telemarketing as a way to increase their customer bases as they seek to expand their reach.  Widespread telemarketing is a primary method by which Defendant recruits new customers.   13.  A recent article in an industry publication describes the process in detail:  Armed only with the names of business owners on index cards, trainees call leads,  using scripts that haven’t been updated in years. “Let’s not kid each other, I didn’t  just pick up the phone book and dial your number,” one script obtained from an  ex-Meyers broker reads. “Opportunities like this do not come along every day.”  When a person answers and doesn’t hang up, the trainees tout their Wall Street  addresses and say their boss will call back with one good stock tip. The boss then  calls to recommend a well-known stock. A few months later they’ll pressure  investors to sell and switch into other shares, charging commissions of about 3  percent on each trade. 1     14.  The article specifically mentions Aegis as engaging in this practice.    15.  Upon information and belief, in its telemarketing calls Aegis is attempting to  create the illusion of a prior relationship with the consumer by claiming to be “returning a call,”  when it is, in fact, cold calling.     17.  Defendant and/or its agent places repeated and unwanted calls to consumers whose  phone numbers are registered with the DNCR. Consumers register their phone numbers on the  DNCR for the express purpose of avoiding unwanted telemarketing calls like those alleged here.  Defendant does not check its numbers against the DNCR, and does not remove from its  telemarketing lists the numbers of consumers who are on the DNCR. Furthermore, Defendant  and/or its agents are not processing users’ demands to not be called once they have been called.   19.  Defendant knowingly made (and continues to make) unsolicited telemarketing  calls without the prior express consent of the call recipients and knowingly continued to call them  after requests to stop. In so doing, Defendant not only invaded the personal privacy of Plaintiff  and members of the putative Class, but also intentionally and repeatedly violated the TCPA.   20.  Plaintiff is a natural person residing in Hewitt, Wisconsin.   21.  On July 1, 2003 Plaintiff registered his landline phone number on the DNCR  specifically to avoid telemarketing calls.    22.  Starting in or about September 2015, Plaintiff began receiving multiple calls on his  landline telephone from various Aegis Capital phone numbers, including (516) 221-6600.   23.  When he answered their calls initially, the person on the line would identify  themselves as from Aegis Capital Corp.   24.  Most disturbingly, the caller would claim that they had spoken with the Plaintiff  previously.   25.  When he initially answered Aegis’ call, he told the caller that he was not  interested, that he never requested for them to call him, that he was registered on the DNCR, and  never to call him again.    26.  Still, the calls continued. Plaintiff received approximately two to four calls every  month for a period of at least nine months.   27.  The calls were annoying and harassing.    29.  Plaintiff does not have a relationship with Defendant, has never provided his  landline telephone number directly to Defendant, or ever requested that Defendant place calls to  him or offer him its services. Simply put, Plaintiff has never provided his prior express consent to  Defendant to place calls to him and has no business relationship with Defendant.    30.  As a result of Defendant’s repeated intrusive and unwanted telemarketing calls  within a 12-month period, Plaintiff suffered actual harm in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and  invasion of privacy. In addition, the calls disturbed Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of his phone.    31.  At the time it called Plaintiff on May 3, 2016 from (516) 221-6600, Defendant was  aware that the above-described telephone calls were and are being made to consumers like  Plaintiff who had not consented to receive them and whose telephone numbers were registered  with the DNCR.    32.  Each time it called Plaintiff after the first call in September 2015, Defendant was  also aware that it had placed more than one telemarketing call to Plaintiff’s number within a 12- month period.  34.  Numerosity: The exact sizes of the Classes are unknown and not available to  Plaintiff at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and  belief, Defendant made telephone calls to thousands of consumers who fall into the definition of  the Classes. Members of the Classes can be easily identified through Defendant’s records.   36.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Classes and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class  actions. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Classes, and Defendant has no  defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this  action on behalf of the members of the Classes and have the financial resources to do so. Neither  Plaintiff nor his counsel has any interest adverse to the Classes.   38.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing factual allegations as if fully set forth herein.   39.  47 U.S.C. §227(c) provides that any “person who has received more than one  telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the  regulations prescribed under this subsection may” bring a private action based on a violation of  said regulations, which were promulgated to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid  receiving telephone solicitations to which they object.   40.  The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that “[n]o  person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential telephone subscriber  who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons  who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government.”   42.  Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) by initiating, or causing to be initiated,  telephone solicitations to residential telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the No Consent- DNC Class members who registered their respective telephone numbers on the DNCR. These  consumers requested to not receive calls from Defendant as set forth in 47 C.F.R. §   44.  Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) by initiating calls for telemarketing  purposes to residential telephone subscribers, such as Plaintiff and the No Consent-DNC Class,  without instituting procedures that comply with the regulatory minimum standards for  maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing calls from them, by not  maintaining a written policy, available on demand, for maintaining a do not call list, and by not  informing and training its personnel engaged in any aspect of telemarketing in the existence and  use of its internal do-not-call list.   45.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the Class suffered actual  damages and, under section 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), Plaintiff and each member of the No Consent Do  Not Call Class are each entitled to receive up to $500 in damages for each violation of 47 C.F.R.  § 64.1200.  46.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them herein by reference.   48.  As a result of Defendant’s and unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the Stop Do Not  Call Class suffered actual damages and, under section 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), Plaintiff and each  member of the Class is each entitled to receive up to $500 in damages for each violation of 47  49.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them herein by reference.   50.  Defendant knowingly and/or willfully initiated, or caused to be initiated, telephone  solicitations to residential telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the No Consent-DNC Class  members who registered their respective telephone numbers on the DNCR and who received  more than one call within a 12-month period.   51.  Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a knowing and/or  willful violation of the TCPA.   53.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges the above paragraphs of this Complaint and  incorporates them herein by reference.   54.  Defendant knowingly and/or willfully initiated, or caused to be initiated, telephone  solicitations to residential telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Stop Do Not Call Class  members who registered their respective telephone numbers on the DNCR and who received  more than one call within a 12-month period from Defendant after informing Defendant to stop  calling them.    55.  Each of the aforementioned calls by Defendant constitutes a knowing and/or  willful violation of the TCPA.   56.  As a result of Defendant's knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, Plaintiff  and the Stop Do Not Call Class are entitled to an award of treble damages up to $1,500.00 for  each call in violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).   64.1200(d)(3).    Knowing and/or Willful Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Stop Do Not Call Class)   Knowing and/or Willful Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the No Consent-DNC Class)   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Stop Do Not Call Class)   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the No Consent-DNC Class)  