11.  Upon information and belief, eFinancial develops marketing campaigns using a  combination of sales channels, with an emphasis on outbound telemarketing.   12.  Upon information and belief, eFinancial utilizes third party vendors to market its  insurance products.   14.  Upon information and belief, eFinancial's ability to increase revenue depends  significantly on their access to high-quality vendors.    15.  eFinancial is subject to liability under the TCPA for actions of its third party  vendors who engage in outbound telemarketing efforts on its behalf.   16.  eFinancial’s third party vendors identify themselves as representatives of  “eFinancial.”     17.  Upon information and belief, eFinancial’s outbound telemarketing efforts include  the use of telephone dialing systems (“ATDS”) to solicit consumers nationwide.   18.  The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) has held that a basic function of an ATDS  is the ability to dial thousands of numbers in a short time period.   19.  The technology employed by eFinancial to place mass calls to consumers  nationwide has the capacity – (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a  random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.   20.  An ATDS allows its telemarketing agents to only communicate with consumers  who answer eFinancial’s phone calls.   21.  Consequently, eFinancial shifts the burden of wasted time to consumers with  unsolicited calls and messages.  22.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff was the sole operator, possessor, and subscriber of  the number ending in 9760.   24.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff was financially responsible for his cellular telephone  equipment and services.   25.  In October 2020, Plaintiff requested insurance quotes from an online insurance  broker (not eFinancial).    26.  Immediately thereafter, Plaintiff started to receive phone calls from eFinancial.   27.  Upon answering eFinancial’s phone calls, Plaintiff was met with a lengthy period  of dead and was required to say “Hello” numerous times prior to being connected to eFinancial’s  representative.   28.  Uninterested in eFinancial’s sales pitch, Plaintiff demanded that eFinancial cease  its telemarketing calls.    29.  On November 3, 2020, Plaintiff received another telemarketing call from  eFinancial.    30.  Plaintiff answered the call and again requested that the calls cease, this time  requesting that eFinancial place him on the “Do Not Call” list.   31.  Despite Plaintiff’s multiple requests that the calls cease, eFinancial continued to  bombard Plaintiff with telemarketing calls.   32.  In early November 2020, Plaintiff visited eFinancial’s website and sent eFinancial  a written request to cease its calls through the website’s “Contact Us” feature.    34.  In the calls that Plaintiff did not answer, eFinancial left prerecorded messages on  Plaintiff’s cellular phone stating that “Chris Marshall” is responding to Plaintiff’s request for life  insurance coverage.   35.  In total, eFinancial has placed no less than forty (40) phone calls to Plaintiff’s  cellular phone number, from October 2020 through the present, utilizing a prerecorded voice and  an ATDS without Plaintiff’s consent.    36.  Plaintiff never provided his cellular phone number to eFinancial or otherwise  provided eFinancial with consent to place calls to his cellular phone.    40.  Paragraphs 10 through 39 of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated  herein as though fully set forth herein.   41.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3)  individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated (“Putative Classes”) defined as follows:   ATDS Class  All persons in the United States (1) to whom eFinancial placed, or caused to be  placed, a phone call; (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone  service; (3) using an automatic telephone dialing system; (4) without the prior  express written consent of the called party; (5) within four years preceding the date  of this compliant through the date of class certification.  Prerecorded Message Class  All persons in the United States (1) to whom eFinancial placed, or caused to be  placed, a phone call; (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone  service; (3) using an artificial or prerecorded voice; (4) without the prior express  written consent of the called party; (5) within the four years preceding the date of  this complaint through the date of class certification.   43.  Upon information and belief, the members of the Putative Classes are so numerous  that joinder of them is impracticable.   44.  The exact number of the members of the Putative Classes is unknown to Plaintiff  at this time, and can only be determined through targeted discovery.   45.  The members of the Putative Classes are ascertainable because the Classes are  defined by reference to objective criteria.   46.  The members of the Putative Classes are identifiable in that their names, addresses,  and telephone numbers can be identified in business records maintained by eFinancial.  B.  Commonality and Predominance   47.  There are many questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiff and the  claims of the members of the Putative Classes.    48.  Those questions predominate over any questions that may affect individual  members of the Putative Classes.    C.  Typicality   49.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of members of the Putative Classes because Plaintiff  and members of the Putative Classes are entitled to damages as a result of eFinancial’s conduct.  D.  Superiority and Manageability   50.  This case is also appropriate for class certification as class proceedings are superior  to all other available methods for the efficient and fair adjudication of this controversy.     52.  By contrast, a class action provides the benefits of single adjudication, economies  of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.     53.  Economies of effort, expense, and time will be fostered and uniformity of decisions  ensured.  E.  Adequate Representation   54.  Plaintiff will adequately and fairly represent and protect the interests of the Putative  Classes.   55.  Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the members of the Putative  Classes and eFinancial has no defenses unique to Plaintiff.   56.  Plaintiff has retained competent and experienced counsel in consumer class action  litigation.  57.  Paragraphs 10 through 56 of this Complaint are expressly adopted and incorporated  herein as though fully set forth herein.   58.  Among other things, the TCPA prohibits certain calls to wireless and residential  numbers unless the caller has the prior express consent of the called party.  47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(A).   60.  “Prior express written consent” is required for (a) all telemarketing/promotional  calls/texts made using an ATDS placed to wireless numbers, and (b) all artificial or prerecorded  telemarketing/promotional voice calls to wireless and residential numbers.1   61.  The TCPA consent rules define “prior express written consent” as “an agreement,  in writing, bearing the signature of the person called that clearly authorizes the seller to deliver or  cause to be delivered to the person called advertisements or telemarketing messages using an  ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice, and the telephone number to which the signatory  authorizes such advertisements or telemarketing messages to be delivered.”   62.  eFinancial placed or caused to be placed no less than forty (40) non-emergency  solicitation/telemarketing calls, from October 2020 through the present, to Plaintiff’s cellular  telephone number ending in 9760 utilizing an ATDS, without Plaintiff’s prior express written  consent in violation of 47 U.S.C. §227 (b)(1)(A)(iii).   63.  In the alternative, in the event eFinancial had Plaintiff’s express written consent,  that consent was revoked orally and in writing.     64.  Upon information and belief, based on the lengthy period of dead air that greeted  Plaintiff upon answering eFinancial’s calls, eFinancial employed an ATDS to place calls to  Plaintiff’s cellular telephone.     66.  Upon information and belief, the system employed by eFinancial to place the calls  to Plaintiff’s cellular phone produced Plaintiff’s telephone number using a random or sequential  number generator as Plaintiff never provided his cellular phone number to eFinancial.   67.  Upon information and belief, the system employed by eFinancial to place phone  calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone has the capacity – (A) to store or produce telephone numbers  to be called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.    68.  Moreover, eFinancial violated § 227 (b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by placing or  causing to be placed non-emergency calls, from October 2020 through the present, to Plaintiff’s  cellular telephone utilizing an artificial or prerecorded voice without Plaintiff’s prior express  written consent.    69.  As pled above, eFinancial used an artificial or prerecorded voice that automatically  played upon the call reaching Plaintiff’s voicemail.   70.  Upon information and belief, it is a systemic practice of eFinancial to call  consumers without their prior express written consent; a practice designed to maximize profits at  the expense of consumers.    71.  Upon information and belief, eFinancial does not maintain adequate procedures   that effectively document consumers’ requests that the calls cease, thus resulting in consumers  receiving solicitation calls after they have requested that the solicitation calls cease.    73.  As a result of eFinancial’s knowing and willful violations of the TCPA, Plaintiff  and the members of the Putative Classes are entitled to receive up to $1,500.00 in treble damages  for each such violation.   WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the members of the Putative Classes,   requests the following relief:  A.  an order granting certification of the proposed classes, including the designation of  Plaintiff as the named representative, and the appointment of the undersigned as  Class Counsel;  B.  an order finding that Defendant violated the TCPA;  C.  an order enjoining Defendant from placing or causing to place further violating  calls to consumers;   D.  an award  of $500.00 in damages to Plaintiff and the members of the Putative  Classes for each such violation;  E.  an award of treble damages up to $1,500.00 to Plaintiff and the members of the  Putative Classes for each such violation; and  F.  an award of such other relief as this Court deems just and proper  Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227 et. seq.)  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Members of TCPA Class)  