20.  For all times relevant herein, Mr. Thompson was the owner of a cellular telephone  line with the (216) prefix and ending in 3056.   21.  Mr. Thompson registered the phone number referenced above on the National Do  Not Call Registry on June 25, 2009.   22.  Mr. Thompson received a text message from Defendants on December 7, 2019,  from the number identified on his caller ID as 657-360-4652. The unsolicited robotext stated:  “Congrats Brian! Your code 7SR-K9M2 printed on your last receipt is among 7 we randomly  picked for $1,000 Walmart gift card promotion c6rzc.info/lg6RF72BTV87.”   23.  Mr. Thompson replied “Stop.”   24.  Defendants sent the unsolicited robotext to Mr. Thompson’s cellular telephone for  the purpose of sending Mr. Thompson spam advertisements and promotional offers, via text  messages, like those described above.   25.  For all relevant times herein, Mr. Thompson never consented to receive phone calls  or text messages from Defendants.   26.  For all relevant times herein, Mr. Thompson never provided his telephone number  to Defendants.   27.  For all relevant times herein, Mr. Thompson never did business with Defendants.  29.  Ms. Thompson registered the phone number referenced above on the National Do  Not Call Registry on June 16, 2012.   30.  On December 24, 2019, at 9:09 a.m., Ms. Thompson received an unsolicited  robotext message from Defendants from the number identified on her caller ID as 951-391-2478.  This unsolicited message stated: “Congrats WAYNE L! Your code R5Z-M9T8 printed on your  last receipt is among 7 we randomly picked for $1,000 Walmart gift card promotion  n1xrn.info/A9lcOJ4mtGyC.”   31.  Since December 24, 2019 until the present, Defendants have continued to send Ms.  Thompson spam advertisements and promotional offers, via unsolicited text messages.   32.  Ms. Thompson received an unsolicited robotext from Defendants purporting to be  from Amazon, stating: “FINAL NOTICE: WAYNE L, please review your address details for  shipment ID: 7S86J3 HERE: l8cr.xyz/M5GpXbsJCe Sender: AMAZON.”   33.  For all relevant times herein, Ms. Thompson never consented to receive phone calls  or text messages from Defendants.   34.  For all relevant times herein, Ms. Thompson never provided her telephone number  to Defendants.   35.  For all relevant times herein, Ms. Thompson never did business with Defendants.  36.  Plaintiffs’ telephone numbers that Defendants texted were assigned to a cellular  telephone service.   38.  Each of Defendants’ text messages to Plaintiffs constitutes a violation or multiple  violations of the TCPA, including 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)’s prohibition against the use of an ATDS.   39.  Based on reviewing the text messages sent to each of the Plaintiffs, it is reasonable  to infer that the messages had been sent automatically rather than manually typed by a human for  the following reasons:  a.  None of the messages were in response to any action either Plaintiff had  taken;  b.  All of the messages came from caller IDs that neither Plaintiff recognized;  c.  None of the messages identified the sender of the message;  d.  With the exception of the December 7, 2019 message to Mr. Thompson,  none of the messages to either Plaintiff was accurately personalized;  e.  All of the messages contained unusual punctuation or other grammatical  errors that would allow it to evade certain programs that block spam calls,  such as a missing “e” in “Rply”;  f.  One message purported to provide opt-out instructions.   84.  Do Not Call Class: Ms. Thompson also brings this action on behalf of a nationwide  class of similarly situated individuals and entities (the “DNC Class”), defined as follows:  All person(s) who received more than one unsolicited text message within  a twelve month period from Defendants and/or a third party acting on  Defendants’ behalf where the text message (1) was sent to a telephone  number registered with the National Do Not Call Registry prior to the text  message being sent, (2) contained a message marketing a product or service  of Defendants or their agents, and (3) was sent on or after March 31, 2016  Excluded from the DNC Class are: (1) Defendants, Defendants’ agents,  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which  Defendants or its parents have a controlling interest, and those entities’  current and former employees, officers, and directors; (2) the Judge to  whom this case is assigned and the Judge’s immediate family; (3) any  person who executes and files a timely request for exclusion from the DNC  Class; (4) any persons who have had their claims in this matter finally  adjudicated and/or otherwise released; and (5) the legal representatives,  successors and assigns of any such excluded person.   85.  Numerosity: Upon information and belief, the Classes are comprised of tens of  thousands of Class members.  Thus, the Classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable.  Class members can easily be identified through Defendants’ records, or by other  means.    87.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of members of the Classes.   All claims are based on the same legal and factual issues. Plaintiffs received multiple text messages  from the Defendants to their cellular phones within a twelve-month period.   88.  Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the members of the Classes and have retained counsel competent and  experienced in complex class actions. Plaintiffs have no interest antagonistic to those of members  of the Classes and Defendants have no defenses unique to Plaintiffs.  The questions of law and fact  common to the proposed Classes predominate over any questions affecting only individual  members of the Classes.   90.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-89 of this Complaint as though  fully stated herein.   91.  Based on the allegations above herein, Defendants or their agents violated the  TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1), by placing non-emergency calls (including text messages) to the  cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiffs and members of the ATDS Class using an ATDS and/or  artificial or prerecorded voice without obtaining prior express written consent.    92.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants constitute numerous and multiple  negligent violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of the above- cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.   93.  As a result of Defendants’ negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., Plaintiffs  and the ATDS Class are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages for each violation of  the TCPA, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   94.  Plaintiffs and the ATDS Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief  prohibiting such conduct in the future.  95.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-89 of this Complaint as though  fully stated herein.   97.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants constitute numerous and multiple  knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of  the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.   98.  As a result of Defendants’ knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et  seq., Plaintiffs and the ATDS Class are entitled to an award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages for  each violation of the TCPA, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).  Knowing and Willful Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act  47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.  (On behalf of the Plaintiffs and the ATDS Class)   Knowing and Willful Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act  47 U.S.C. § 227(c)  (On Behalf of the Plaintiffs and the DNC Class)  103.  Ms. Thompson (“Plaintiff” for purposes of this Count Four) incorporates by  reference paragraphs 1-89 of this Complaint as though fully stated herein.  104.  Based on the allegations herein, Defendants knowingly and/or willfully violated the  TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2), by placing unsolicited telemarketing calls  (including text messages) to the telephone numbers of Plaintiff and members of the DNC Class  even though those numbers were listed on the National Do Not Call Registry.   105.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants constitute numerous and multiple  knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each and every one of  the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.  106.  Plaintiff and members of the DNC Class are entitled to and seek an award of up to  $1,500 in damages for each such violation. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).   Negligent Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act  47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.  (On behalf of the Plaintiffs and the ATDS Class)   Negligent Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act  47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.  (On Behalf of Ms. Thompson and the DNC Class)  