(Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.)   27.  In 2019, United and its affiliated carriers operated more than 1.7 million  flights carrying more than 162 million customers.1   28.  While operating its business, United actively chose to communicate  with its customers through SMS text messages, which are sent to consumers’ cellular  telephones through the use of an ATDS.   1 https://ir.united.com/company-information/company-overview  9 of 19   29.  An “SMS message” is a text message call directed to a wireless  device through the use of the telephone number assigned to said device.   30.  The impersonal, repetitive, and generic nature of United’s text  messages, combined with the large number of text messages sent by United,  demonstrates that United utilizes an ATDS in transmitting its text messages to  consumers.   31.  The FCC has stated that companies must provide an opt-out  mechanism in their text messages. See In re Rules and Regulations Implementing  the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Declaratory Ruling as to  Petition of Soundbite Communications, Inc. CG Docket No. 20-278 (November  29, 2012).   32.  At all times relevant, United represented that replying to their text  message communications with the word “STOP” would prevent consumers from  receiving further text messages.   33.  Upon information and good belief, no emergency purpose exists that  would justify a statutory exemption for United’s text messages sent to Plaintiff  after Plaintiff requested that the text messages cease. See St. Clair v. CVS Pharm.,  Inc., 222 F. Sup. 3d 779 (N.D. CA 2016) (holding that when a customer (or former  customer) has explicitly told a company that he/she does not want or need calls, the  continued calls can hardly be described as “necessary,” much less involving a  10 of 19  “situation” affecting the customer’s health and safety.); see also Dorfman v.  Albertsons, LLC, 2018 WL 9988655 (D. Idaho, Oct. 18, 2018) (“Thus, even in cases  where the statutory exception may apply to the calls at the outset, it no longer applies  once the recipient of the calls notifies the caller to stop.”).   34.  Further, United is not sheltered from liability under the Healthcare  Treatment Purposes Exemption because United has not complied with the  exemption’s enumerated requirements. See Coleman v. Rite Aid of Ga., Inc., 284 F.  Supp. 3d 1343 (N.D. Ga. January, 10, 2018) (stating that a defendant could not  utilize the Healthcare Treatment Purposes Exemption as a defense because it failed  to satisfy the prerequisites to the exception’s operation.)     35.  Upon information and good belief, United has a pattern and practice  consisting of sending consumers across the United States text messages after they  opt-out of United’s text message campaigns.2   36.  At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user  of the Verizon wireless plan for the cellular telephone number ***-***-7905.   37.  Beginning on or about October 15, 2020, Plaintiff received an  automated text message from short code 26266 stating: “You’ll now receive SMS  2 https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-airlines-mileageplus/2028902-how-do- you-stop-sms-messages-ua.html  11 of 19  flight updates from United when traveling. Reply HELP for help, STOP to opt out.  Standard message and data rates may apply. United.com/texts”.   38.  Upon information and good belief, the short code 26266 is owned  and operated either by United or its agents acting on behalf of United.   39.  Immediately upon receiving the aforementioned text message from  United, Plaintiff texted the word “STOP” to short code 26266.   40.  Plaintiff then received a confirmatory text from United stating:  “You’ll no longer receive SMS flight updates from United. Standard message and  data rates may apply. United.com/texts”    41.  Despite the requested opt-out by Plaintiff and receipt of a  confirmatory text from United, Plaintiff continued to receive text messages from  United.   42.  Frustrated by the situation, Plaintiff continued to send text messages  to United at short code 26266 requesting that the text messages cease.   43.  Specifically, Plaintiff requested that United stop texting him on  October 22, 2020; October 26, 2020; and October 27, 2020; however, United  continued to send Plaintiff text messages.   44.  United never honored any of Plaintiff’s opt-out requests, nor did  Plaintiff request that the text message campaign be reinstated in any way.  12 of 19   45.  United’s automated text messages sent to Plaintiff after he requested  them to stop caused Plaintiff actual and tangible harm, including without  limitation, an invasion of his privacy, the tying up of his cellular telephone line,  depletion of his cellular telephone’s battery life, aggravation at receiving further  text messages after requesting that they stop, annoyance, intrusion on his  seclusion, trespass, and conversion.    46.  Further, Plaintiff suffered loss of time as a result of reviewing the  text messages and responding back to the text messages in attempts to have the  text messages stop.    47.  United’s text messages also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused  disruption to his daily personal and/or work life.    48.  For example, Plaintiff received some of United’s text messages while  engaged in important activities, including without limitation, filming content for  his business and editing the film content.    49.  Plaintiff was disrupted by the text messages sent by United and had  to stop what he was doing, and take time to view and respond to them.   50.  United’s violations of the TCPA were knowing and willful, as United  was aware of the issues concerning the text messages, which resulted in numerous  automated text messages being sent to Plaintiff and the putative class after requests  for them to cease, but failed to take any corrective action.  13 of 19   51.  Moreover, United is fully aware of the TCPA and its requirements  because United was previously issued a citation by the FCC for violations of the  statute. (See FCC Citation No.: EB-08-TC-6836; December 9, 2008).  52.  As authorized by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all other persons or entities similarly situated  throughout the United States.   53.  Plaintiff proposes to represent a class and sub-class of persons affected  by United’s actions, described as follows:  (i) All persons within the United States (ii) to whom  United, directly or through a third-party, (iii) sent a text  message to their cellular telephone (iv) using any  automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or  prerecorded voice, (v) after said individual opted-out of  receiving further text messages, (vi) within the four years  preceding the filing of this Complaint, through the date of  class certification.   54.  Excluded from the class is United, any entities in which United has a  controlling interest, United’s agents and employees, any Judge to whom this action  is assigned, any member of the Judge’s staff and immediate family, and Plaintiff’s  attorneys and any member of their staff and immediate family.   55.  The proposed class members are identifiable through United’s records  and databases, third-party telephone records, and third-party telephone number  databases.  14 of 19   56.  The potential class members number in the thousands, at least.  Therefore, individual joinder of these persons is impracticable.   57.  Plaintiff is a member of the class and/or any subclass.   58.  There are questions of law and fact common to Plaintiff and to the  proposed class, including but not limited to, the following:  a.  Whether United used any automatic telephone dialing system or an  artificial or prerecorded voice to make the subject text messages;  b.  Whether United placed non-emergency calls without obtaining the  recipients’ valid prior express consent or, where applicable, prior  express written consent;  c.  Whether United failed to honor individuals opt-out requests;  d.  Whether United’s violations of the TCPA were willful or knowing;  and  e.  Whether the Plaintiff and the class members are entitled to statutory  damages as a result of United’s actions.   59.  Plaintiff’s claims are based on the same facts and legal theories, and  therefore are typical of the claims of class members.   60.  Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the class because his interests  do not conflict with the interests of the classes, he will fairly and adequately protect  15 of 19  the interests of the classes, and he is represented by counsel skilled and experienced  in class actions, including TCPA class actions.   61.  The actions by United complained of herein are generally applicable to  the class as a whole and to Plaintiff.   62.  Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions  affecting only individual class members, and a class action is the superior method  for fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The only individual question  concerns identification of class members, which will be ascertainable from records  maintained by United and/or its agents.   63.  The likelihood that individual class members will prosecute separate  actions is remote due to the time and expense necessary to prosecute an individual  case, and given the small recoveries available through individual actions.   64.  Plaintiff is not aware of any litigation concerning this controversy  already commenced by others who meet the criteria for class membership described  above.  65.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if set forth herein.   66.  It is a violation of the 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) to make “any call  (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express  consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an  16 of 19  artificial or prerecorded voice…to any telephone number assigned to a cellular  telephone service…” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   67.  At all times relevant, United sent text messages to Plaintiff’s and  members of the putative class’ cellular telephones.   68.  At all times relevant, United utilized an ATDS when sending the  aforementioned text messages to Plaintiff’s and members of the putative class’  cellular telephones.   69.  At all times relevant, United received opt-out requests from Plaintiff  and other members of the putative class, but failed to honor said requests in  violation of the TCPA.   70.  At all times relevant, no emergency purpose exists that would justify  a statutory exemption for United’s text messages sent to consumers after the  consumer requests that the text messages cease.   71.  After Plaintiff opted-out of receiving text messages from United, any  statutory “emergency purpose” exemption that may have existed was no longer  applicable. See St. Clair, 222 F. Sup. 3d 779, 780 (N.D. CA 2016).   72.  At all times relevant, United’s text messages failed to comply with  the requirements of the Healthcare Treatment Purposes Exemption.  17 of 19   73.  Accordingly, United cannot seek shelter under the Healthcare  Treatment Purposes Exemption. See Coleman, 284 F. Supp. 3d 1333, 1344 (N.D.  Ga. January, 10, 2018)   74.  United’s violations of the TCPA resulted in, among other things, an  invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy, loss of time addressing the unwanted text  messages, and infringement on the right to enjoy the full utility of his cellular  device.   75.  At all times relevant, United is and was directly and/or vicariously  liable for the violations of the TCPA described above.   76.  As such, United’s text messages were willful or, at a minimum,  negligent. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).    77.  Should the Court determine that United’s misconduct was willful and  knowing, the Court may, pursuant to section 227(b)(3), treble the amount of  statutory damages recoverable by Plaintiff and the proposed class.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Riordan Pringle, respectfully requests the  following relief:  a. A declaration that United’s practices described herein violate 47  U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii);  b. An award of statutory damages, including treble damages, in the  maximum amount allowed by law;  18 of 19  c. An award of costs associated with this litigation;  d. An injunction requiring United to cease all text communications in  violation of the TCPA as described herein; and  e. Such further and other relief the Court deems reasonable and just. 