11.  Millennium is a for-profit provider of prescription and illegal drug  testing and monitoring products and services, including pharmacogenetic, urine,  and oral fluid test kits and cloud based predictive analytics and software.   12.  Defendant sent advertisements by facsimile to Plaintiff and a class of  similarly-situated persons. Whether Defendant did so directly or with the  assistance of a third party (yet unknown to PlaintifD, Defendant is directly liable for  violating the TCP A.   14.  Exhibit A is a one-page document Defendant sent by fax promoting  Defendant's medication monitoring webinar.   15.  One of the topics of Defendant's webinar is the "role of medication  monitoring as a valuable tool that provides objective, actionable information during  the care" of the patient. Exhibit A.   16.  The speaker for Defendant's webinar is Millennium employee, Maria  Chianta. Ms. Chianta's duties for Defendant include developing "tools and services  supporting appropriate utilization of Millennium Health's offerings." Exhibit A.   17.  In order to register for Defendant's webinar advertised in Exhibit A,  one must provide a full name, email address, practice name, practice address, work  telephone, and National Provider Identifier ("NPI"), a unique 10-digit identification  number issued to health care providers by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid  Services ("CMS"). Exhibit B.   18.  Defendant's webinar 1s a pretext to advertise Defendant's drug  monitoring products and services, either during the webinar or by additional  contact using the required registration contact information after the webinar.   20.  Defendant  sells  urine  drug  testing  for  profit.  See  http://www.millenniumhealth.com/services/urine-drug-testing/   21.  Defendant's website  explains the "advanced"  technology that  Defendant uses for urine drug testing and then invites those who are "Ready to get  started"  to  "contact  their  sales  support."  See  http://www.millenniumhealth.com/services/test-offerings/   22.  Exhibit A contains Millennium Health's name and logo.   23.  Exhibit A does not include the opt-out notice required by the TCPA.  See 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (2) (D) & (E) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a) (4) (iii) & (v).   24.  On information and belief, Defendant sent advertisements by facsimile  to Plaintiff and more than 39 other persons in violation of the TCPA.   25.  Plaintiff and the other class members owe no obligation to protect their  fax machines from Defendant. Their fax machines are ready to send and receive  their urgent communications, or private communications about patients' medical  needs, not to receive Defendant's unlawful advertisements.  27.  Excluded from the class are Defendant, Defendant's officers, directors,  legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns, any entity in which Defendant  has a controlling interest, any parent, subsidiary or affiliated company of  Defendant, and any Judge assigned to this action, including his or her immediate  family.   28.  In this action, Plaintiff intends to discover, include, and resolve the  merits of claims about all advertisements Defendant sent by fax. Exhibit C, a  Demand for Preservation of All Tangible Documents Including Electronically Stored  Information.   29.  This action is brought and may properly be maintained as a class  action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. This action satisfies Rule 23 (a)'s numerosity,  commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements. Furthermore, the questions of  law or fact that are common in this action predominate over any individual  questions of law or fact making class representation the superior method to  adjudicate this controversy under Rule 23 (b) (3).   3.  Private right of action. A person may, if  otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of court of a  state, bring in an appropriate court of that state:  (A)  An action based on a violation of this  subsection or the regulations prescribed under this  subsection to enjoin such violation,  (B)  An action to recover for  actual  monetary loss from such a violation, or to receive  $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever  is greater, or  (C)  Both such actions.  47 u.s.c. § 227 (b) (3).   32.  Typicality of claims. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the  other class members, because Plaintiff and all class members were injured by the  same wrongful practices. Plaintiff and the members of the class were sent  Defendant's advertisements by facsimile and those advertisements did not contain  the opt-out notice required by the TCPA. Under the facts of this case, because the  focus is upon Defendant's conduct, if Plaintiff prevails on its claims, then the other  putative class members will prevail as well.   33.  Adeguacy of representation. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of  the class because its interests do not conflict with the interests of the class it seeks  to represent. Plaintiff has retained undersigned counsel, who are competent and  experienced in complex class action litigation, and in TCPA litigation in particular,  and Plaintiff intends to vigorously prosecute this action. Plaintiff and its counsel  will fairly and adequately protect the interest of members of the class.   35.  A class action is the superior method of adjudicating the common  questions of law or fact that predominate over individual questions. A class action is  superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  lawsuit, because individual litigation of the claims of all class members is  economically unfeasible and procedurally impracticable. The likelihood of individual  class members prosecuting separate claims is remote, and even if every class  member could afford individual litigation, the court system would be unduly  burdened by individual litigation of such cases. Plaintiff knows of no difficulty to be  encountered in the management of this action that would preclude its maintenance  as a class action. Relief concerning Plaintiffs rights under the laws herein alleged  and with respect to the class would be proper. Plaintiff envisions no difficulty in the  management of this action as a class action.  36.  Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.   37.  Plaintiff brings Count I on behalf of itself and a class of similarly  situated persons against Defendant.   39.  The TCPA defines "unsolicited advertisement" as "any material  advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services  which is transmitted to any person without that person's express invitation or  permission." 47 U.S.C. § 227 (a) (4).   40.  The TCPA provides a private right of action as follows:   41.  The Court, in its discretion, may treble the statutory damages if it  determines that a violation was knowing or willful. 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (3).   42.  The TCP A requires that every advertisement sent by facsimile must  include an opt-out notice clearly and conspicuously displayed on the bottom of its  first page. 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (2) (D) and (E); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a) (4).   44.  Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (2) (D) and (E) and 47 C.F.R. §   45.  Facsimile advertising imposes burdens on recipients that are distinct  from the burdens imposed by other types of advertising. The required opt·out notice  provides recipients the necessary information to opt·out of future fax transmissions,  including a notice that the sender's failure to comply with the opt·out request will  be unlawful. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200 (a) (4) (iii).   46.  Exhibit A does not state that Defendant's failure to comply with an  opt·out request within 30 days is unlawful.   47.  Exhibit A does not inform the recipient that he/she/it has a legal right  to request that Defendant not send any future fax.   48.  Exhibit A does not inform the recipient that the opt·out request will be  valid only unless and until the person making the request subsequently provides  express invitation or permission to the sender, in writing or otherwise, to send such  advertisement to such person at such telephone facsimile machine.   49.  The TCPA is a strict liability statute and Defendant 1s liable to  Plaintiff and the other class members even if Defendant's actions were negligent. 47  U.S.C. § 227 (b) (3).   51.  If Defendant's actions were knowing or willful, then the Court has the  discretion to increase the statutory damages up to 3 times the amount. 47 U.S.C. §  227 (b) (3).   52.  Defendant is liable for the fax advertisements at issue because it sent  the faxes, caused the faxes to be sent, participated in the activity giving rise to or  constituting the violation, or the faxes were sent on their behalf.   54.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though  fully set forth herein.   55.  Plaintiff brings Count II on behalf of itself and a class of similarly  situated persons and against Defendant.   56.  By sending advertisements to their fax machines, Defendant  improperly and unlawfully converted the class's fax machines to Defendant's own  use. Where printed (as in Plaintiffs case), Defendant also improperly and  unlawfully converted the class members' paper and toner to Defendant's own use.  Defendant also converted Plaintiffs time to Defendant's own use, as it did with the  valuable time of the other class members.   58.  By  sending  them  unsolicited  faxes,  Defendant  permanently  misappropriated the class members' fax machines, toner, paper, and employee time  to their own use. Such misappropriation was wrongful and without authorization.   59.  Defendant knew or should have known that their misappropriation of  paper, toner, and employee time was wrongful and without authorization.   60.  Plaintiff and the other class members were deprived of the use of the  fax machines, paper, toner, and employee time, which could no longer be used for  any other purpose. Plaintiff and each class member thereby suffered damages as a  result of their receipt of unsolicited fax advertisements from Defendant.   64.1200 (a) (4) (iii) & (v) by failing to include a compliant opt·out notice. Exhibit A.   CONVERSION   TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. § 227  