46.  At all times relevant, Plaintiff was a citizen of the State of Florida. Plaintiff is, and  at all times mentioned herein was, a “person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153 (39).    48.  The text message received by Plaintiff originated from telephone number 267-613- 9146, which is owned and/or controlled by Defendant.  Further, this is a “spoofed” number in that  it is not active and states that it is disconnected if a call is attempted to the number.     49.  The text message received by Plaintiff is identical to the generic messages received  by thousands of other individuals as outlined above.  This fact establishes that Defendant used an  ATDS in transmitting the above text message to Plaintiff.     50.  The link (http://app.ever.pics/Uldk/He9qv6ygwx) provided in the text message  received by Plaintiff is a link to Defendant’s website (www.ever.com), where Plaintiff was  encouraged to download the Ever App.  Therefore, Defendant’s text message constitutes  telemarketing because it encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or  services – i.e. Defendant’s mobile application.     51.  Plaintiff received the subject text within this judicial district and, therefore,  Defendant’s violation of the TCPA occurred within this district.  Upon information and belief,  Defendant caused other text messages to be sent to individuals residing within this judicial district.   52.  Plaintiff has never used Defendant’s application or services, has never downloaded  the Ever App on her mobile device, and has never had any type of relationship with Defendant.    53.  Plaintiff has never provided Defendant her telephone number, or provided any type  of consent to receive automated text messages from Defendant.    54.  Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 5368 Number, and is financially  responsible for phone service to the 5368 Number.    56.  Defendant’s text message also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused a disruption to  her life as a result of Defendant’s deceptive statement suggesting that photographs of Plaintiff were  being displayed on Defendant’s platform without her permission (“…just recommended you check  out your photos on Ever.”).    57.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf  of herself and all others similarly situated.    58.  Plaintiff represents, and is a member of the following classes:   All persons residing within the United States who received  telephone calls and/or text messages from Defendant to their  cellular telephone within the four years prior to the filing of the  Complaint in this action, for the purpose of selling or attempting  to sell Defendant’s goods and/or services using an automatic  telephone dialing system, and who did not provide prior express  consent for such call(s).  Numerosity   59.  Upon information and belief, based on the widespread Internet complaints about  Defendant’s telemarketing text messages, the members of the class are believed to number in the  thousands or millions such that joinder of all members is impracticable.   61.  There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class which  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class. Among the  questions of law and fact common to the Class are:  a. Whether Defendant sent non-emergency text messages to Plaintiff’s and Class  members’ cellular telephones using an autodialer and/or prerecorded message;  b. Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing that it obtained prior express  consent to make such calls;  c. Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and willful;  d. Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and  e. Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.    62.  The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers.   Defendant routinely places automated calls to telephone numbers assigned to cellular telephone  thus, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of being efficiently  adjudicated and administered in this case.  Typicality   63.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members, as they are all  based on the same factual and legal theories.  Protecting the Interests of the Class Members   65.  A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this lawsuit, because individual litigation of the claims of all members of the  Classes are economically unfeasible and procedurally impracticable.  While the aggregate  damages sustained by the Classes are in the millions of dollars, the individual damages incurred  by each member of the Class resulting from Defendant’s wrongful conduct are too small to warrant  the expense of individual lawsuits. The likelihood of individual Class members prosecuting their  own separate claims is remote, and, even if every member of the Class could afford individual  litigation, the court system would be unduly burdened by individual litigation of such cases.   66.  The prosecution of separate actions by members of the Class would create a risk   of establishing inconsistent rulings and/or incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant.  For  example, one court might enjoin Defendant from performing the challenged acts, whereas another  may not.  Additionally, individual actions may be dispositive of the interests of the Class, although  certain class members are not parties to such actions.   67.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   68.  Defendant violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited text messages to Plaintiff and  the Class members on their cellular phones without first obtaining their prior express consent and  using equipment which constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system for the express purpose  of marketing Defendant’s goods and/or services.   70.  As a result of the aforementioned violations of the TCPA, Plaintiff and the Class  are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages for each call in negligent violation of the  TCPA, or up to $1,500 in statutory damages for each call in willful violation of the TCPA, pursuant  to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   VIOLATION OF THE TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  