1.  A statement that the recipient is legally entitled to opt-out of receiving  future faxed advertisements – knowing that he or she has the legal right to request an opt- out gives impetus for recipients to make such a request, if desired;   12.  On information and belief, on or about January, 2015, Defendants transmitted by  telephone facsimile machine an unsolicited facsimile to Plaintiff.  A copy of the facsimile is  attached hereto as Exhibit A.   13.  Plaintiff had not invited or given permission to Defendants to send the faxes.    15.  There is no reasonable means for Plaintiff (or any other class member) to avoid  receiving unauthorized faxes.  Fax machines are left on and ready to receive the urgent  communications their owners desire to receive.    16.  Defendants’ facsimiles did not display a proper opt-out notice as required by 47  17.  In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and (b)(3), Plaintiff brings this  class action pursuant to the JFPA, on behalf of the following class of persons:  All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this  action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material  advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property,  goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, (3) which  Defendants did not have prior express permission or invitation, or  (4) which did not display a proper opt-out notice.  Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, their employees, agents and members of the  Judiciary.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the class definition upon completion of class  certification discovery.   18.  Class Size (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)):  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon  such information and belief, avers that the number of persons and entities of the Plaintiff Class is  numerous and joinder of all members is impracticable.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and  upon such information and belief avers, that the number of class members is at least forty.   21.  Fair and Adequate Representation (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (4)):  The Plaintiff will  fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class.  It is interested in this  matter, has no conflicts and has retained experienced class counsel to represent the class.   22.  Need for Consistent Standards and Practical Effect of Adjudication (Fed. R. Civ.  P. 23 (b) (1)):  Class certification is appropriate because the prosecution of individual actions by  class members would: (a) create the risk of inconsistent adjudications that could establish  incompatible standards of conduct for the Defendants, and/or (b) as a practical matter,  adjudication of the Plaintiff's claims will be dispositive of the interests of class members who are  not parties.   23.  Common Conduct (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b) (2)):  Class certification is also  appropriate because the Defendants have acted and refused to act in the same or similar manner  with respect to all class members thereby making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate.  The Plaintiff demands such relief as authorized by 47 U.S.C. §227.   25.  The JFPA makes it unlawful for any person to “use any telephone facsimile  machine, computer or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited  advertisement . . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C).   26.  The JFPA 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 prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise.” 47  U.S.C. § 227 (a) (5).   27.  Opt-Out Notice Requirements. The JFPA strengthened the prohibitions against  the sending of unsolicited advertisements by requiring, in § (b)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, that senders  of faxed advertisements place a clear and conspicuous notice on the first page of the transmission  that contains the following among other things (hereinafter collectively the “Opt-Out Notice  Requirements”):   3.  A statement advising the recipient that he or she may opt-out with respect  to all of his or her facsimile telephone numbers and not just the ones that receive a faxed  advertisement from the sender – thereby instructing a recipient on how to make a valid  opt-out request for all of his or her fax machines.  The requirement of (1) above is incorporated from § (b)(D)(ii) of the Act.  The  requirement of (2) above is incorporated from § (b)(D)(ii) of the Act and the rules and  regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (the “FCC”) in ¶ 31 of its 2006 Report  and Order (In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer  Protection Act, Junk Prevention Act of 2005, 21 F.C.C.R. 3787, 2006 WL 901720, which rules  and regulations took effect on August 1, 2006).  The requirements of (3) above are contained in  § (b)(2)(E) of the Act and incorporated into the Opt-Out Notice Requirements via § (b)(2)(D)(ii).  Compliance with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements is neither difficult nor costly.  The Opt-Out  Notice Requirements are important consumer protections bestowed by Congress upon the  owners of the telephone lines and fax machines giving them the right, and means, to stop  unwanted faxed advertisements.    30.  Defendants’ Other Violations.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such  information and belief, avers that during the period preceding four years of the filing of this  Complaint and repeatedly thereafter, Defendants have sent via facsimile transmission from  telephone facsimile machines, computers, or other devices to telephone facsimile machines of  members of the Plaintiff Class faxes that constitute advertisements under the JFPA that were  transmitted to persons or entities without their prior express permission or invitation (and/or that  Defendants are precluded from asserting any prior express permission or invitation because of  the failure to comply with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements in connection with such  transmissions).  By virtue thereof, Defendants violated the JFPA and the regulations promulgated  thereunder.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief, avers that  Defendants may be continuing to send unsolicited advertisements via facsimile transmission in  violation of the JFPA and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and absent intervention by  this Court, will do so in the future.   32.  The JFPA is a strict liability statute, so the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff  and the other class members even if their actions were only negligent.   33.  The Defendants knew or should have known that (a) the Plaintiff and the other  class members had not given express invitation or permission for the Defendants or anybody else  to fax advertisements about the Defendants’ goods or services; (b) the Plaintiff and the other  class members did not have an established business relationship; (c) Defendants transmitted  advertisements;  (d) the Fax did not contain the required Opt-Out Notice; and (e) Defendants’  transmission of advertisements that did not contain the required opt-out notice was unlawful.  