(Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. – Telephone Consumer Protection Act)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   11.  In an effort to solicit consumers, Defendant sent (or directed to be sent on its  behalf) unsolicited text messages, without consent, to cellular telephones while using automatic  telephone dialing equipment having the capacity to store and dial telephone numbers, en masse.  As a result, Defendant has repeatedly violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.  § 227 (the “TCPA”).    12.  Given the relatively low cost associated with sending bulk text messages, many  marketers have turned to disseminating advertisements or promotions through mass text message  campaigns.   13.  Seeking to encourage customers to renew their insurance contracts, and, in turn,  pay GoAuto money, Defendants engaged in this especially invasive form of advertising.   14.  Defendants sent unauthorized text messages to the phones of thousands of  consumers.    16.  In fact, the promotional text message calls alleged herein were exclusively made  by Defendant and not by any consumer. Defendant made, or had made on its behalf, the same (or  substantially the same) text message calls en masse to thousands of cellular telephone numbers.   17.  While Defendant sent these unauthorized text messages to consumers to market  its services, it never obtained recipients' express consent to do so.   18.  Through its conduct, Defendant caused consumers actual harm by sending  unauthorized text message calls at issue. Plaintiff and members of the Class were not only  subjected to the aggravation that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unauthorized text  messages, but also because consumers frequently have to pay their cell phone service providers  for the receipt of such unauthorized text messages.   20.  Class Definition: Plaintiff Oscar Medina brings this action on behalf of himself  and a class defined as follows:  Class: All individuals in the United States whose wireless telephone  number Defendant, or someone on Defendant’s behalf, called in connection  with Defendant’s text message advertising campaign.  Excluded from the Class are: (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 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.   22.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff and the putative 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 necessarily limited to the following:  (a)  Whether Defendant’s conduct violated the TCPA;  (b)  Whether Defendant sent text messages to Class Members using an ATDS,  as contemplated by the TCPA;  (c)  Whether Defendant systematically sent text message advertising calls to  Class Members who did not previously provide it with prior express  written consent to receive such text message calls;   (d)  Whether Defendant sent text message advertising calls to Class Members  where those messages did not include opt-out instructions;  (e)  Whether Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to treble damages based  on the willfulness of Defendant’s conduct.    23.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the  Class in that Plaintiff and the Class members sustained damages arising out of Defendant’s  uniform wrongful conduct and unsolicited text message calls.   25.  Appropriateness: This class action is also appropriate for certification because  Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class as a whole,  thereby requiring the Court's imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of  conduct toward the members of the Class and making final class-wide injunctive relief appropriate.  Defendant’s practices applies to and affect the members of the Class uniformly, and Plaintiff's  challenge of those practices hinges on Defendant’s conduct with respect to the Class as a whole,  not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff. Additionally, the damages suffered by individual  members of the Class will likely be small relative to the burden and expense of individual  prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendant’s actions. Thus, it would be  virtually impossible for the members of the Class to obtain effective relief from Defendant’s  misconduct on an individual basis. A class action provides the benefits of single adjudication,  economies 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.   27.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   28.  In an effort to solicit consumers and to increase its profits, Defendant sent  unauthorized and unwanted text message advertising calls to Plaintiff and the class's cellular  telephones without their prior express written consent.   29.  Defendant sent the text message advertisements to Plaintiff and the class's cellular  telephone numbers 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.   30.  Defendant utilized equipment that sent the text message advertisements to Plaintiff  and other members of the putative class simultaneously and without human intervention.   31.  Defendant took steps to physically place such text message calls and/or was so  involved in placing the calls as to be deemed to have initiated them.    32.  By sending the text message advertisements to Plaintiff and members of the class's  cellular telephones without prior express written consent and by utilizing an ATDS, Defendant  violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(I)(A)(iii).   34.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the  putative class suffered actual damages and have also had their rights to privacy adversely impacted.  Plaintiff and the class are therefore entitled to, among other things, a minimum of $500 in statutory  damages for each such violation under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   35.  Because Defendant’s misconduct was willful and knowing, the Court should,  pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by the  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative class.    36.  Additionally, as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the other  members of the class are entitled to an injunction under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A) to ensure that  Defendant’s violations of the TCPA do not continue into the future. 