(Knowing and/or Willful Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1))  On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class   (Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1))  On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class   14. Robocalls Outlawed: Enacted in 1991, the TCPA makes it unlawful “to make any call  (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the  called party) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice . . .  to any telephone number assigned to a . . . cellular telephone service.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1).  Calls made by an ATDS or with a prerecorded or artificial voice are referred to as “robocalls” by  the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and herein. Encouraging people to hold  robocallers accountable on behalf on their fellow Americans, the TCPA provides a private cause  of action to persons who receive such calls. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).   15. Rationale: In enacting the TCPA, Congress found: “Evidence compiled by the  Congress indicates that residential telephone subscribers consider automated or prerecorded  telephone calls, regardless of the content or the initiator of the message, to be a nuisance and an  invasion of privacy.” Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-243, 105  Stat. 2394 § 2(10). Congress continued: “Banning such automated or prerecorded telephone calls  to the home, except when the receiving party consents to receiving the call or when such calls are  necessary in an emergency situation affecting the health and safety of the consumer, is the only  effective means of protecting telephone consumers from this nuisance and privacy invasion.” Id.  § 2(12).   16. The TCPA’s sponsor described unwanted robocalls as “the scourge of modern  civilization. They wake us up in the morning; they interrupt our dinner at night; they force the  sick and elderly out of bed; they hound us until we want to rip the telephone out of the wall.” 137  Cong. Rec. 30,821 (1991) (statement of Sen. Hollings).   64. Class Definition: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and (b)(3),  Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of a class defined as follows: All persons in the United States  to whom:  a.  Defendant and/or a third party acting on its behalf made a call or sent a  text message;  b.  to a cellular telephone number;   c.  using an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice;  d.  between the date four years before the filing of the original complaint in  this case and the first day of trial.   65. Plaintiff is a member and proposed representative of the class.   80. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in  the preceding paragraphs.   81. Defendant knowingly and/or willfully violated the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1), by  placing non-emergency calls to the cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and members of the  class using an ATDS and/or artificial or prerecorded voice without prior express written consent.   82. Plaintiff and class members are entitled to an award of up to $1,500 in damages for  each such knowing and/or willful violation. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).  A.  The Enactment of the TCPA and the FCC’s Regulations Thereunder  