18.  Plaintiffs have never ordered AUQI-Q from nor done business with Defendants.   19.  The text message provides promotional content for Defendants’ products or  services and was sent with the goal of enticing Plaintiffs to utilize its products and services and to  contact Defendants to learn more about them.   20.  The Text is impersonal in nature and the message utilizes boilerplate language.   Thus, on information and belief, the Text was sent to recipients en masse.   21.  Additionally, the Text was sent using a short code telephone number.  Plaintiffs are  informed and believe, and upon such information and belief aver, that short code telephone  numbers are used by companies, such as Defendants, to message consumers en masse.  The use of  short code is indicative of non-human messaging because people do not have cellular phones with  short codes.   22.  Based on the foregoing, no human directed the text message to Michelle’s cellular  number; rather, Michelle’s number was called using a random or sequential number generator with  the capacity to store or produce those numbers. In other words, on information and belief,  Defendants sent or transmitted, or had sent or transmitted on its behalf, the Text to Michelle’s  cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system as defined by 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(A) and the FCC.     23.  Plaintiffs never provided her cellular telephone number to Defendants.   25.  Plaintiffs never provided their prior express written consent to Defendants to send  or transmit the Text or any other advertisement or telemarketing to her cellular telephone.     26.  As a result of receiving the Text, Plaintiffs incurred expenses to their wireless  service, wasted data storage capacity, suffered the nuisance, waste of time, and aggravation that  accompanies receipt of such unauthorized advertisements, and was subjected to an intrusion upon  her seclusion and invasion of privacy.     27.  On information and belief, Defendants sent the Text, or other text messages, en  masse to a list of thousands of randomly generated cellular telephone numbers using an ATDS.     28.  On information and belief, Defendants sent the Text, or other text messages, to  Plaintiffs and the Class members using equipment that had the capacity to store or produce  telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such  numbers without human intervention.   29.  On information and belief, Plaintiffs and the Class members did not provide  Defendants with prior express written consent to receive such text messages and, as a result,  incurred expenses to their wireless services, wasted data storage capacity, suffered the aggravation  that accompanies receipt of such unauthorized advertisements, and were subjected to an intrusion  upon seclusion.    31.  Class Size (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)): Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and upon  such information and belief aver, that the number of persons and entities of the Classes is numerous  and joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such  information and belief aver, that the number of Class members is at least forty (40) based on  Defendants’ use of automated and impersonal text message content sent via a telephone number  with an automated message center.   33.  Typicality (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3)):  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of  all Class members. Plaintiffs received the same or substantially similar unsolicited text messages  as the other Class members sent by or on behalf of Defendants advertising the availability or  quality of goods and services of the Defendants during the Class Period. Plaintiffs are making the  same claims and seeking the same relief for themselves and all Class members based upon the  same federal statute. Defendants have acted in the same or in a similar manner with respect to  Plaintiffs and all the Class members by sending Plaintiffs and each member of the Class the same  or other text messages.   34.  Fair and Adequate Representation (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4)):  Plaintiffs will fairly  and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class. Plaintiffs are interested in this  matter, have no conflicts, and have retained experienced class counsel to represent the class.   36.  As stated, the TCPA prohibits the use of auto-dialers to make any call to a cellular  telephone number in the absence of an emergency or the prior express consent of the person being  called.  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). The FCC has further clarified that, except for calls made by  tax-exempt nonprofit organizations or health care messages, any telephone call using an automatic  telephone dialing system that includes or introduces an advertisement or constitutes telemarketing  must have prior express written consent as provided at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(8) to be compliant  with the TCPA. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2) (emphasis added).    37.  Michelle received at least one text from Defendants on November 5, 2020.  The  Text is an advertisement as defined by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(1) because it promotes Defendants’  property, goods, or services.    38.  The Text was an impersonal advertisement from Defendants and sent to Michelle’s  cellular telephone.   39.  Plaintiffs provided neither their prior express consent nor their prior express written  consent to receive such text.   40.  Based on the foregoing, on information and belief, Defendants sent the same or  substantially similar texts to the Class members en masse without their prior express consent or  prior express written consent.   41.  Defendants sent the Text, or had it made and sent on their behalf, using an automatic  telephone dialing system or device which has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers  to be called using a random or sequential number generator, and to dial such numbers.   43.  By sending such texts to Plaintiffs and the Class, Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(A)(iii).  