17.  Plaintiff Harris is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as  defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39).     19.  Beginning at least as early as December 2015, American Express  repeatedly called Harris’s cellular telephone.  Harris received repeated, harassing calls at all  hours of the day.   20.  The majority of the calls were prerecorded.  As a result, Harris could not  request that the calls end or to voice her complaints to a real person, despite attempts to do so.  The prerecorded voice offered to lower Harris’s interest rate, even though she did not have any  account with American Express, interest-bearing or otherwise.   21.  A few calls involved a live person on the other end.  During a call on July  14, 19, or 21, Harris told the live caller she had the wrong number and not to call again.   22.  During a call on November 1, 2016, at 2:28 PM, Harris told a live caller  that she had the wrong number (and that the information had previously been conveyed to  American Express) and not to call again.  The caller told Harris that a “Mary Harris” had applied  for an American Express credit card.   23.  Despite these attempts, the automated calls continued.   24.  The calls continued through November 2016.   25.  Harris received phone calls to her cellular telephone on numerous  occasions, including on the following dates and times from telephone number 801-945-5000, as  identified by Harris’s identification system:  a.  July 14, 2016, 12:20 PM  b.  July 19, 3:39 PM  c.  July 19, 3:45 PM  d.  July 21, 11:15 AM  e.  October 31, 2016, 11:30 AM  f.  November 1, 2016, 2:28 PM   27.  On January 25, 2017, a paralegal in Plaintiff’s counsel’s office called 801- 945-5000.  A prerecorded voice stated “Thank you for calling the American Express Service  Center in Salt Lake City.”   28.  A Google search for the number 801-845-5000 confirms that the number  is registered to American Express.   29.  Harris was unable to definitively determine the purpose behind American  Express’s automated calls, but they appear to constitute an attempt to market lower interest rates.   30.  During the relevant period and until September 7, 2016, Harris subscribed  to a cellular phone plan that provided for limited minutes (250 daytimes, 1,000 night and  weekend).  The unwanted, automated calls before September 7, 2016 reduced the cell phone  minutes available to her.   31.  American Express is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a “person”, as  defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39).     32.  Many or all of the calls by American Express to Harris on her cellular  telephone occurred via an “automatic telephone dialing system,” as defined by 47 U.S.C. §  227(a)(1), and/or used “an artificial or prerecorded voice” as described in 47 U.S.C.  § 227(b)(1)(A).     33.  The telephone number that American Express used to contact Harris,  with an “artificial or prerecorded voice” and/or made by an “automatic telephone dialing  system,” was assigned to a cellular telephone service as specified in 47 U.S.C.  §  227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   34.  Harris did not provide “prior express consent” allowing American Express  to place telephone calls to her cellular phone utilizing an “artificial or prerecorded voice” or  placed by an “automatic telephone dialing system,” within the meaning of 47 U.S.C.  § 227(b)(1)(A).   36.  American Express’s telephone calls to Harris’s cellular phone utilizing an  “artificial or prerecorded voice” or placed by an “automatic telephone dialing system” for non- emergency purposes and in the absence of Plaintiff’s prior express consent violated 47 U.S.C.  § 227(b)(1)(A).   37.  The burden is on American Express to demonstrate that Harris provided  prior express written consent within the meaning of the statute.6  38.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other  persons similarly situated (hereinafter referred to as “the Class”).   40.  Plaintiff does not know the exact number of members in the Classes, but  based upon the representations of Defendant as to its market share, Plaintiff reasonably believes  that Class members number at minimum in the tens of thousands.   41.  Plaintiff and all members of the Classes have been harmed by the acts of  Defendant, because their privacy has been violated, they were subject to annoying and harassing  calls that constitute a nuisance, and they were charged for incoming calls.     42.  This Class Action Complaint seeks injunctive relief and money damages.     43.  The joinder of all Class members is impracticable due to the size and  relatively modest value of each individual claim.  The disposition of the claims in a class action  will provide substantial benefit to the parties and the Court in avoiding a multiplicity of identical  suits.  The Classes can be identified easily through records maintained by American Express.    45.  As a person who received numerous and repeated telephone calls using an  automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice, without her prior  express written consent within the meaning of the TCPA and Rules, Plaintiff asserts claims that  are typical of each Telemarketing Class member.  As a person who received numerous and  repeated telephone calls after she informed American Express that it had a wrong number,  Plaintiff asserts claims that are typical of each Do-Not-Call Class member.  Plaintiff will fairly  and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class, and has no interests which are  antagonistic to any member of the Class.   46.  Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims  involving violations of federal and state consumer protection statutes, including claims under  the TCPA.     47.  A class action is the superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication  of this controversy.  Class wide relief is essential to compel Defendant to comply with the  TCPA.  The interest of Class members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate  claims against Defendant is small because the statutory damages in an individual action for  violation of the TCPA are relatively small.  Management of these claims is likely to present  substantially fewer difficulties than are presented in many class claims because the calls at issue  are all automated and the Class members, by definition, did not provide the prior express consent  required under the statute to authorize calls to their cellular telephones.     49.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this  Complaint as if fully stated herein.   50.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and  multiple knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each of the  above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.   51.  As a result of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47  U.S.C. §  227 et seq. and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, Plaintiff and each member of the Telemarketing  Class are entitled to treble damages of $1,500.00 for each and every violation of the statute,  pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).   52.  As a result of Defendant’s knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C.  §  227 et seq. and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, Plaintiff and each member of the Do-Not-Call Class are  entitled to treble damages of up to $1,500.00 for each and every violation of the statute, pursuant  to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).   53.  Plaintiff and all Class members are also entitled to and do seek injunctive  relief prohibiting such conduct violating the TCPA by Defendant in the future.  Plaintiff and  Class members are also entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.  55.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and  multiple violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each of the above cited provisions  of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.   56.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. and  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, Plaintiff and Telemarketing Class members are entitled to an award of  $500.00 in statutory damages for each and every violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(3)(B).     57.  As a result of Defendant’s violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. and  47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, Plaintiff and Do-Not-Call Class members are entitled to an award of up to  $500.00 in statutory damages for each and every violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(c)(5).   58.  Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to and do seek injunctive  relief prohibiting Defendant’s violation of the TCPA in the future.   59.  Plaintiff and Class members are also entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees  and costs.   KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE  CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200   STATUTORY VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT  47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200  