14.  Pisa Group is a nationwide telemarketing company that exclusively conducts  newspaper subscription sales and retention telemarketing. Pisa Group has more than 100  newspaper partners throughout the United States—including Plain Dealer and the John Doe  Defendants—for which it conducts telemarketing campaigns.1   15.  As a substantial part of its business, Pisa Group offers these clients outbound  “cold calling and telemarketing services” that will purportedly allow them to reach “new  customers and increase newspaper subscriptions.”2   16.  Pisa Group places a substantial emphasis on the effectiveness and success of its  cold calling campaigns in reaching new customers and utilizing untapped sales potential.3 As a  primary feature, Pisa Group touts that its cold calling campaigns provide “maximum control”  over the campaigns to the client.    17.  However, Pisa Group’s representations fail to address the unfortunate drawback  of cold calling campaigns: that neither Pisa Group, nor the clients on whose behalf it makes calls  (such as Plain Dealer and the John Doe Defendants), has any prior relationship with the  recipients of those calls. Indeed, Pisa Group readily admits that its cold calling campaigns are a  1   See About Us, The Pisa Group, Inc., www.thepisagroup.com/about.html (last visited  April 3, 2017).   2   See Outbound Telemarketing, The Pisa Group, Inc., http://www.thepisagroup.com/cold- calling.html (last visited April 3, 2017).  3   See id.   5  method for its clients to reach a “new market” with “new customers.”4    18.  In other words, Pisa Group explicitly acknowledges that it places calls to  consumers who have not given any prior consent to be contacted by any means, and with which  Pisa Group and/or its clients have no pre-existing business relationship.   19.  Even when consumers answer and attempt to opt out of future calls, Pisa Group  ignores these demands and continues to call.   20.  On information and belief, these calls were made at the direction of Plain Dealer  and the John Doe Defendants, on their behalf, and for their benefit.    21.  Plain Dealer is an Ohio based publishing company known for its eponymous  newspaper publication. Plain Dealer’s newspaper is the major news periodical for the Cleveland  area, and boasts the largest circulation of any Ohio newspaper.    22.  Plain Dealer contracted with Pisa Group to secure its telemarketing services— including its cold calling expertise—in order to generate new subscribers and customers for its  major newspaper publication “The Plain Dealer.”   23.  The John Doe Defendants consist of various local and national publication  companies that contracted with Pisa Group to secure its telemarketing services—including its  cold calling expertise—in order to generate new subscribers and customers.    24.  Pisa Group made the calls at issue by utilizing an automatic telephone dialing  system (“ATDS”). Specifically, the hardware and software used by Pisa Group has the capacity  to generate and store random numbers, and/or receive and store lists of telephone numbers, and  to dial such numbers, en masse, in an automated fashion without human intervention. Pisa  Group’s automated dialing equipment also is, or includes features substantially similar to, a  4   See Outbound Telemarketing, The Pisa Group, Inc., http://www.thepisagroup.com/cold- calling.html (last visited April 3, 2017).  6  predictive dialer, meaning that it is capable of making numerous phone calls simultaneously and  automatically connecting answered calls to then available callers and disconnecting the rest (all  without human intervention). In fact, Pisa Group advertises this ability in the Yellow Pages,5 as  well as on its own website.6    25.  These autodialed telephone calls to consumers’ cellular telephone numbers  constituted commercial advertising and telemarketing as contemplated by the TCPA. Namely,  the calls at issue promoted the sale of periodical subscriptions to numerous consumers.   26.  Unfortunately, neither Pisa Group nor its clients—such as Plain Dealer and the  John Doe Defendants—acquired the requisite prior express written consent of consumers before  bombarding their cellular telephones with autodialed telemarketing calls.    27.  Defendants knowingly made, or directed to be made, these autodialed  telemarketing calls to cellular telephones without the prior express written consent of the call  recipients. As such, Defendants not only invaded the personal privacy of Plaintiff and other  members of the putative Class, but also intentionally and repeatedly violated the TCPA.  28.  Beginning in or around December 2016, Plaintiff VanDrunen began to receive  autodialed telemarketing calls from Pisa Group on his cellular telephone. Pisa Group placed  these calls using telephone number (440) 533-1044.   29.  Plaintiff VanDrunen answered several of the telemarketing calls, whereupon one  of Pisa Group’s telemarketers would market subscriptions to periodicals offered by Plain Dealer  5   See www.yellowpages.com/saint-charles-mo/mip/pisa-group-8705799. There, under  “General Info,” Defendant Pisa notes, “[i]ts call centers are equipped with predictive dialers that  develop and execute multiple calling campaigns.”  6   See Why Choose Us, The Pisa Group, Inc., http://www.thepisagroup.com/why-choose- us.html (last visited April 3, 2017).   7  or the John Doe Defendants. In other instances, when Plaintiff answered Pisa Group’s  telemarketing calls, the predictive dialing system used to place the call would immediately  terminate the call.   30.  In December 2016, Plaintiff answered one of the telemarketing calls and  instructed Pisa Group to stop calling. Nonetheless, Plaintiff still continued to receive additional  calls from Pisa Group on his cellular telephone.    31.  Plaintiff never consented in writing—or otherwise—to receive autodialed  telephone calls on his cellular telephone from Pisa Group, Plain Dealer, or any of the John Doe  Defendants.   32.  Plaintiff does not have a relationship with Pisa Group, Plain Dealer, or the John  Doe Defendants, and has never requested that Pisa Group, Plain Dealer, or the John Doe  Defendants place autodialed calls of any type to him, let alone to his cellular telephone.    33.  Defendants’ intrusive telemarketing calls adversely affected Plaintiff’s right to  privacy. Defendants were, and are, aware that the above-described autodialed telemarketing calls  were being made on a widespread basis, and that the autodialed telemarketing calls were being  made to consumers who had not provided their prior express written consent to receive them.   34.  Class Definitions: Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) on behalf of himself, a class, and a subclass defined as  follows:   Class: All individuals in the United States who (1) received a telephone call; (2) on his or  her cellular telephone; (3) from an agent or representative of Defendant Pisa Group; (4)  that was placed using an automatic telephone dialing system; (5) for the purpose of  marketing periodical subscriptions; (6) where Pisa Group did not have a record of prior  express written consent to place such a call at the time it was made.  8  Plain Dealer Subclass: All members of the Class who (1) received a telephone call; (2)  on his or her cellular telephone; (3) from an agent or representative of Defendant Pisa  Group; (4) that was placed using an automatic telephone dialing system; (5) for the  purpose of marketing periodical subscriptions to Plain Dealer’s periodicals; (6) where  neither Pisa Group nor Plain Dealer had a record of prior express written consent to place  such a call at the time it was made.  The following people are excluded from the Class and Plain Dealer Subclass (the  “Classes”): (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 their current or former  employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for  exclusion from the Classes; (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.    35.  Numerosity: The exact number of the Classes’ members is unknown and not  available to Plaintiff, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and  belief, Defendants have placed telephone calls to thousands of consumers who fall into the  definitions of the Classes. Members of the Classes can be identified through Defendants’  records.   36.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the  Classes, in that Plaintiff and the members of the Classes sustained damages arising out  of Defendants’ uniform wrongful conduct and unsolicited telephone calls.   37.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Classes, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in  complex class actions. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Classes, and  Defendants have no defenses unique to Plaintiff.  9   38.  Policies Generally Applicable to the Classes: This class action is appropriate for  certification because Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to  the Classes as wholes, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure  compatible standards of conduct toward the Classes’ members, and making final injunctive relief  appropriate with respect to the Classes as wholes. Defendants’ practices challenged herein apply  to and affect the Classes’ members uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinges  on Defendants’ conduct with respect to the Classes as wholes, not on facts or law applicable only  to Plaintiff.   39.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff and the Classes, and those questions predominate over any  questions that may affect individual members of the Classes. Common questions for the Classes  include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:  Class:  (a)  Whether Defendants’ conduct violated the TCPA;   (b)  Whether Pisa Group systematically placed autodialed telemarketing calls  to individuals who did not provide Defendants and/or their agents with  their prior express consent to receive them;   (c)  Whether Pisa Group made the calls with the use of an ATDS;  (d)  Whether Pisa Group made the calls at the direction and for the benefit of  the Plain Dealer and/or the John Doe Defendants;  (e)   Whether members of the Class are entitled to treble damages based on the  willfulness of Defendants’ conduct; and  10  (f)   Whether Pisa Group systematically made telephone calls to consumers  after they expressly asked not to be called from Pisa Group.  Plain Dealer Subclass:  (a)  Whether Plain Dealer’s conduct violated the TCPA;   (b)  Whether Plain Dealer had autodialed telemarketing calls placed to  individuals who did not provide Plain Dealer or Pisa Group and/or their  agents with their prior express consent to receive them;   (c)  Whether Plain Dealer had the calls made with the use of an ATDS;  (d)  Whether Pisa Group made the calls at the direction and for the benefit of  Plain Dealer;  (e)   Whether members of the Plain Dealer Subclass are entitled to treble  damages based on the willfulness of Plain Dealer’s conduct.   40.  Superiority: This case is also appropriate for class certification because class  proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of  this controversy given that joinder of all parties is impracticable. The damages suffered by the  individual members of the Classes will likely be relatively small, especially given the burden and  expense of individual prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendants’ actions.  Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the individual members of the Classes to obtain  effective relief from Defendants’ misconduct. Even if members of the Classes could sustain such  individual litigation, it would still not be preferable to a class action, because individual litigation  would increase the delay and expense to all parties due to the complex legal and factual  controversies presented in this Complaint. By contrast, a class action presents far fewer  management difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and  11  comprehensive supervision by a single court. Economies of time, effort and expense will be  fostered and uniformity of decisions ensured.   41.  Plaintiff reserves the right to modify the foregoing class definition.   42.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   43.  Pisa Group made autodialed telephone calls to Plaintiff’s and the Class members’  cellular telephones, without having their prior express written consent to do so.   44.  Pisa Group's calls were made at the direction of, and on behalf of, the John Doe  Defendants for the purpose of marketing subscriptions to newspapers and/or magazines  belonging to the John Doe Defendants. The John Doe Defendants directed these calls to be made  in order to increase their subscription numbers and, ultimately, their sales revenues.   45.  Pisa Group made the telephone calls using equipment that had the capacity to  store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator,  and/or receive and store lists of phone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse. Pisa Group  utilized equipment that made the telephone calls to Plaintiff and other members of the Class  simultaneously and without human intervention. The John Doe Defendants were, and are, aware  that these telephone calls are being made at their direction, and on their behalf, using such  equipment.   46.  By making and/or directing that the autodialed telemarketing calls be made to  Plaintiff’s and the Class members’ cellular telephones without prior express consent, Defendants  violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   47.  As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the Class suffered  12  invasions of their privacy and their statutory rights. As such, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C),  Plaintiff and each Class member are entitled to, inter alia, a minimum of $500 in statutory  damages (which may be trebled upon a showing of willfulness) for each such violation of  the TCPA, as well as an injunction to ensure that Defendants’ violations of the TCPA do not  continue into the future.  48.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   49.  Pisa Group made autodialed telephone calls to Plaintiff’s and the Plain Dealer  Subclass members’ cellular telephones, without having their prior express written consent to do  so.   50.  Pisa Group's calls were made at the direction of, and on behalf of, Plain Dealer for  the purpose of marketing subscriptions to its print newspaper, “The Plain Dealer.” Plain Dealer  directed these calls to be made in order to increase its subscription numbers and, ultimately, its  sales revenues.   51.  Pisa Group made the telephone calls using equipment that had the capacity to  store or produce telephone numbers to be called using a random or sequential number generator,  and/or receive and store lists of phone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse. Pisa Group  utilized equipment that made the telephone calls to Plaintiff and other members of the Plain  Dealer Subclass simultaneously and without human intervention. Plain Dealer was, and is, aware  that these telephone calls are being made at their direction, and on their behalf, using such  equipment.   52.  By directing that the autodialed telemarketing calls be made to Plaintiff’s and the  13  Plain Dealer Subclass members’ cellular telephones without prior express consent, Defendant  Plain Dealer violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   53.  As a result of Plain Dealer’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the Plain Dealer  Subclass suffered invasions of their privacy and their statutory rights. As such, under 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(3)(C), Plaintiff and each Plain Dealer Subclass member are entitled to, inter alia, a  minimum of $500 in statutory damages (which may be trebled upon a showing of  willfulness) for each such violation of the TCPA, as well as an injunction to ensure that Plain  Dealer’s violations of the TCPA do not continue into the future.  Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class as against Pisa Group and John Doe Defendants)   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Plain Dealer Subclass as against Plain Dealer)  