14.  Defendant Express Scripts is a pharmacy benefits manager. It acts as a third-party  intermediary in the healthcare market, administering prescription claims on behalf of large health  plans and corporate clients. It also owns and operates certain mail-order pharmacies.   6   15.  Defendant Medco is also a pharmacy benefits manager. It was fully acquired by  Express Scripts in 2012, acts at the direction of Express Scripts, and is under Express Scripts’  full control. Visits to “www.medco.com” automatically redirect to “www.express-scripts.com.”  Medco identifies itself as “Express Scripts” during outgoing telephone calls.   16.  Defendant Accredo is a specialty mail-order pharmacy fully owned and operated  by Express Scripts. It acts at the direction of Express Scripts and is under Express Scripts’ full  control. Accredo identifies itself as “Accredo, an Express Scripts company” during outgoing  telephone calls.    17.  Together, Defendants employ various “adherence” tools and other programs to  encourage people to purchase drugs from Accredo and other Express Scripts pharmacies. These  tools include, among other things, certain robocalling algorithms associated with a program  called “ScreenRx.”   18.  One of the patents associated with ScreenRx, entitled “Methods and systems for  member messaging,” describes an “embodiment” that “utilizes an automated telephone calling  system that communicates with a member using computer generated scripting and a voice  recognition engine.”6 Similarly, another description of a ScreenRx embodiment states that “a  member may be contacted with a fully automated electronic computer-to-human communication  system, a highly sophisticated Interactive Voice Response (IVR) systems, utilizing a  sophisticated computer generated automated attendant voice and voice/speech recognition and/or  touch tone recognition, Dual-Tone Multi-Frequency (DTMF) signaling technology to  communicate with the member . . . . [R]ather than utilizing a live attendant or consultant with a  6   Google Patents, ScreenRx, http://www.google.com/patents/US8799204 (last accessed  September 1, 2015).    7  consultant user interface that prompts the consultant/attendant, the system may be fully  automated with a fully automated attendant where the intelligence of the automated attendants  questions and the responses, hints, or suggestions all stem from the logic tree.” Id.   19.  Defendants recently completed a “multi-year pilot program that applied ScreenRx  technology to assist more than 600,000 members.”7 Among other things, this application of  “ScreenRx technology,” along with Defendants’ various other programs, involved sending  robocalls to hundreds of thousands of individuals.   20.  Unfortunately for consumers, Defendants’ robocalling systems frequently autodial  wrong numbers, many of which are cellphone numbers.    21.  Due to the multitude of complaints, Defendants have been aware of this  continuing “wrong number” problem, yet they refuse to address it.    22.  Consequently, Defendants, while using artificial or prerecorded voices, have  knowingly and willfully robocalled the “wrong number” cellphones of untold thousands of  individuals who never gave them consent to make such calls.   23.  Consumer complaints against Defendants for robocalling wrong numbers are  legion:8   “Robo call, and they got the wrong number besides.”   “I got a call during school and I listened to the message afterward, but I  couldn't tell what they said. I'm 14 and I don't give my number to anyone  but friends. Do you know how they might have gotten it?”  7   PR Newswire, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/express-scripts-launches- screenrxsm-industrys-first-solution-combining-early-detection-and-tailored-interventions-to- address-nations-317-billion-problem-of-medication-nonadherence-147554655.html (last  accessed September 1, 2015).  8   See, e.g., 800notes.com, supra note 1 (querying 1-800-633-2662, 1-800-496-4910, 1-800- 803-2523, 1-800-282-2881, 978-236-7572, 978-775-6393, 901-381-7555, and 412-515-1241).   8    “Have gotten calls from this number for the past three days. I've called  them once and talked to a very nice lady there. She looked up my name  and birthday and found nothing for me in their system. We agreed it was  an error and that the numbers were probably transposed by someone who  had submitted an order. Problem is they still call.”   “They've been calling me once in a while asking for a person that isn't me.  The one time I've picked up to tell them that I'm not who they want,  nothing happened.”   “Keep getting automated calls and voicemails for Deborah something. The  message says to call back at 1-800-705-2126 but when I finally called  back (to tell them to stop calling me, they have the wrong number!) the  automated system tells me to call the number 1-800-705-2126. [??] This  IS the number I'm calling into, to get this message!”   “Receiving robo calls from this company. Have NEVER done business  with them. This is illegal.”   “They call me-- I answer, they hang up. They are not my pharmacy, I have  asked them to stop calling and they continue to call.”   “'I’ve been receiving calls from this number twice a day, every day for the  past two weeks . . . I do not have an account. . . and would never have  anything to do with a company that has harassed so many of us for so  long.”   “I have absolutely no connection with Medco. . . . My employer doesn't  use them nor do I have a personal health plan that uses them. I certainly  won't ever use them because they won't stop calling no matter how many  times I tell them to stop calling.”   “No one at this number has ever done business with this company.”   “Recorded message states that caller is Express Scripts -- never heard of  them.”   “No matter how many times you explain to [Defendant] that you have  never done business with them, they refuse to take me off their calling  list.”   24.  Defendants know they send robocalls to wrong numbers, yet willfully persists in  making such calls anyways, even after, and often long after, being told to stop.   9  25.  Plaintiff Jennifer Roberts owns a personal cellphone.   26.  Like thousands of others, Plaintiff Jennifer Roberts is not and has never been a  customer of any of Defendants and has never given any of Defendants permission to call her at  any telephone number, much less her private cellphone number.   27.  Nonetheless, after 8:00 PM on March 23, 2015, Defendant Accredo, acting both  on its own and on behalf of Express Scripts, made an autodialed robocall to Plaintiff Jennifer’s  private cellphone number, announcing itself as “Accredo, an Express Scripts company,” and  requesting to speak with a “William.”    28.  Plaintiff Jennifer is not and has never been known as “William,” a fact she  explained to Accredo several times during its first call to her.    29.  Specifically, after navigating through Accredo’s automated menus to reach a  human representative, Plaintiff clearly and expressly explained that she is Jennifer, that  “Jennifer” is not “William,” that she does not know “William,” that she cannot take any  messages for some “William” whom she does not know, that the number Accredo called was her  personal cellphone number (not “William’s”), that even if some unknown “William” had her  number at some point in the past he did not have it anymore, that Accredo had the wrong  number, and that she was officially instructing Accredo to place her number on its internal do- not-call list. This call went on for minutes.     30.  Nonetheless, Accredo has inundated Plaintiff’s private cellphone number with at  least 50 additional robocalls since being told it had the wrong number and being asked to stop.  See, e.g., Figure 1, below (showing, 49 robocalls over 25 days from an “ACCREDO RX” to  Plaintiff’s private cellphone number).   10  Figure 1 (depicting dozens of “ACCREDO RX” robocalls.)   31.  These Accredo calls always show up on Plaintiff’s caller ID as “ACCREDO RX,”  always start with the message “This is Accredo, an Express Scripts Company,” and always  request that someone named “William” call “about an order” “since it is important to place this  order soon." These robocalls come from the number 1-844-665-7345, offer a callback number,  and do not present any opportunity to opt-out from receiving future calls.   32.  Similarly, Medco, acting on behalf of Express Scripts, also sends wrong-number  robocalls to Plaintiff’s private cellphone number. These calls show up as “MEDCO” on   11  Plaintiff’s caller ID, start with the message “This is Express Scripts,” and leave a message for  someone named “Scotty.” As with Accredo’s “William” calls, Plaintiff Jennifer Roberts is not  “Scotty” and has never been known as “Scotty.” The first such “MEDCO” robocall occurred on  June 11, 2015. These robocalls come from the number 1-800-987-4902, do not offer any  callback number, and do not present any opportunity to opt-out from receiving future calls.    33.  Express Scripts owns, operates, and controls the conduct of both Accredo and  Medco. Accredo and Medco both place robocalls at Express Scripts’ direction and for Express  Scripts’ benefit, using Express Scripts’ ScreenRx program or otherwise following calling  policies and practices established and imposed by Express Scripts. Both Accredo and Medco  placed the robocalls at issue in this Complaint on behalf of Express Scripts while having actual  or apparent authority to act on Express Scripts’ behalf.   34.  Express Scripts, Accredo, and Medco are closely related companies, and both  Accredo and Medco represent in their robocalls that they are calling either as “Express Scripts”  or as “an Express Scripts company.” Due to this, call recipients (like Plaintiff Jennifer Roberts)  reasonably expect that any wrong-number complaints and do-not-call requests made to either  Accredo or Medco will be applied to Express Scripts itself as well as any affiliated Express  Scripts-owned companies.   35.  Judging by the volume of online complaints, Plaintiff’s experience is not isolated  or even unusual. Rather, as they have done to thousands of others, each of the Defendants— Express Scripts, Medco, Accredo—have persistently and knowingly caused robocalls to be  placed to Plaintiff’s private cellphone number, often several times per day, despite Plaintiff’s  clear wrong-number complaint and do-not-call instructions.    12  36.  Class Definition: Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)  and (b)(3) on behalf of herself and a Class of similarly situated individuals, defined as follows:  All persons in the United States who: (1) received more than one telephone call  placed by or on behalf of Express Scripts, Accredo, or Medco; (2) on their cellular  telephone; (3) placed using an artificial or prerecorded voice; and (4) that stated  the call was being placed to a person different from the person who is the  subscriber or customary user of the cellular telephone number that received the  call.    The following people are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over  this action and members of their families; (2) Defendants, Defendants’ subsidiaries, parents,  successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendants or their parents have a  controlling interest and its current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who  properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims  in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s  counsel and Defendants’ counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of  any such excluded persons.   37.  Numerosity: The exact number of members of the Class is unknown and is not  available to Plaintiff at this time, but individual joinder in this case is impracticable. The Class  likely consists of thousands of individuals. Class members can be easily identified through cross- referencing Defendants’ records with telephone databases.   38.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, and those questions  predominate over any questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common  questions for the Class include but are not limited to the following:  a)  whether the calls placed by Defendants used artificial or prerecorded   13  voices;   b)  whether Defendants’ calls were made, without consent, to wrong numbers;  c)  whether Defendants’ conduct violated the TCPA; and  d)  whether members of the Class are entitled to treble damages based on the  willfulness of Defendants’ conduct.   39.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the  Class. Plaintiff and the Class sustained damages as a result of Defendants’ uniform wrongful  conduct towards Plaintiff and the Class.   40.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Class and has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex  litigation and class actions. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class, and  Defendants have no defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and her counsel are committed to  vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the members of the Class and have the financial  resources to do so. Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel has any interest adverse to those of the other  members of the Class.   41.  Superiority:  This case is appropriate for certification because class proceedings  are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy. The injuries suffered by the individual members of the Class are likely to have been  relatively small compared to the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the litigation  necessitated by Defendants’ actions. Absent a class action, it would be difficult, if not  impossible, for the individual members of the Class to obtain effective relief from Defendants.  Even if members of the Class themselves could sustain such individual litigation, it would not be  preferable to a class action because individual litigation would increase the delay and expense to   14  all parties and the Court and require duplicative consideration of the legal and factual issues  presented herein. By contrast, a class action presents far fewer management difficulties and  provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision  by a single Court. Economies of time, effort, and expense will be fostered, and uniformity of  decisions will be ensured.   42.  Plaintiff reserves the right to revise the foregoing “Class Allegations” and “Class  Definition” based on facts learned through additional investigation and in discovery.  43.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   44.  Defendants Accredo and Medco, without having prior express consent, made  more than one telephone call to cellphone numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members  of the Class.   45.  Defendants Accredo and Medco made these calls while using artificial or  prerecorded voices.   46.  Defendants Accredo and Medco made these calls at the direction of, for the  benefit of, and on behalf of their parent company, Express Scripts, all while acting with actual or  apparent authority as agents of Express Scripts.   47.  By making telephone calls to Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ cellular  telephones numbers while using artificial or prerecorded voices, and/or by having such calls  made on their behalf, Defendants violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   48.  As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the  Class suffered actual damages and, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), are each entitled to, inter   15  alia, a minimum of $500 in damages for each such violation.   49.  To the extent Defendants’ misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing,  the Court should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.  Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227   (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  