14.  Defendants are each a “person” as the term is defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39).   15.  At no point has Plaintiff Batista sought out or solicited information regarding  either Defendant’s products or services.   16.  Plaintiff Batista’s telephone number, XXX-XXX-9165, is registered to a cellular  telephone service.    18.  During all three calls, the Plaintiff answered the same series of prerecorded  questions before being transferred to a live agent promoting medical alert devices.    19.  During the December 3 and 4 calls, the Plaintiff requested to be added to Crisp  Marketing’s internal do not call list.   20.  During the December 8 call, the Plaintiff feigned further interest until the live  agent identified MobileHelp as the seller of the products being promoted during the calls.   21.  The calls were not necessitated by an emergency.   22.  Plaintiff and all members of the Class, defined below, have been harmed by the  acts of Defendants because their privacy has been violated, they were annoyed and harassed,  and, in some instances, they were charged for incoming calls.  Plaintiff and the Class Members  were also harmed by use of their cell phone battery and the intrusion on their cellular telephone  that occupied it from receiving legitimate communications.  MobileHelp’s Liability for Crisp Marketing’s Conduct   24.  More specifically, the May 2013 FCC Ruling held that, even in the absence of  evidence of a formal contractual relationship between the seller and the telemarketer, a seller is  liable for telemarketing calls if the telemarketer “has apparent (if not actual) authority” to make  the calls.  28 FCC Rcd at 6586 (¶ 34).     25.  The May 2013 FCC Ruling further clarifies the circumstances under which a  telemarketer has apparent authority:   [A]pparent authority may be supported by evidence that the seller allows  the outside sales entity access to information and systems that normally  would be within the seller’s exclusive control, including: access to detailed  information regarding the nature and pricing of the seller’s products and  services or to the seller’s customer information. The ability by the outside  sales entity to enter consumer information into the seller’s sales or customer  systems, as well as the authority to use the seller’s trade name, trademark  and service mark may also be relevant. It may also be persuasive that the  seller approved, wrote or reviewed the outside entity’s telemarketing  scripts.  Finally, a seller would be responsible under the TCPA for the  unauthorized conduct of a third-party telemarketer that is otherwise  authorized to market on the seller’s behalf if the seller knew (or reasonably  should have known) that the telemarketer was violating the TCPA on the  seller’s behalf and the seller failed to take effective steps within its power  to force the telemarketer to cease that conduct.  28 CC Rcd at 6592 (¶ 46).   26.  The FCC has explained for over 25 years that its “rules generally establish that the  party on whose behalf a solicitation is made bears ultimate responsibility for any violations.”   See In re Rules & Regulations Implementing the TCPA, CC Docket No. 92-90, Memorandum  Opinion and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 12391, 12397 (¶ 13) (1995).   26.  MobileHelp is legally responsible for ensuring that Crisp Marketing complied  with the TCPA, even if MobileHelp did not itself make the calls.   28.  Furthermore, MobileHelp accepted the business from illegal calls from Crisp  Marketing, even while Crisp Marketing was being sued in another TCPA lawsuit for its calling  conduct.   29.  Moreover, MobileHelp maintained interim control over Consumer Crisp  Marketing’s actions by dictating the parameters of the types of customers that they would accept.     30.  Finally, the May 2013 FCC Ruling states that called parties may obtain “evidence  of these kinds of relationships . . . through discovery, if they are not independently privy to such  information.”  Id. at 6592-593 (¶ 46).  Moreover, evidence of circumstances pointing to apparent  authority on behalf of the telemarketer “should be sufficient to place upon the seller the burden  of demonstrating that a reasonable consumer would not sensibly assume that the telemarketer  was acting as the seller’s authorized agent.”  Id. at 6593 (¶ 46).  31.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and the following classes (the  “Class”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.   32.  Plaintiff proposes the following Class definition, subject to amendment as  appropriate:   Pre-Record Call Class: All persons in the United States who, within four years  prior to the commencement of this litigation until the class is certified, received one  or more pre-recorded calls on their cellular telephone from or on behalf of Crisp  Marketing concerning MobileHelp’s products or services.   34.  Excluded from the Class are counsel, the Defendants, and any entities in which  either Defendant has a controlling interest, the Defendants’ agents and employees, any judge to  whom this action is assigned, and any member of such judge’s staff and immediate family.   35.  Plaintiff and all members of the Class have been harmed by the acts of the  Defendants, including, but not limited to, the invasion of their privacy, annoyance, waste of time,  the use of their cell phone battery, and the intrusion on their cellular telephone that occupied it  from receiving legitimate communications.   36.  This Class Action Complaint seeks injunctive relief and money damages.   37.  The Class as defined above is identifiable through the Crisp Marketing’s dialer  records, other phone records, and phone number databases.     38.  Plaintiff does not know the exact number of members in the Class, but Plaintiff  reasonably believes Class members number, at minimum, in the hundreds.     39.  The joinder of all Class members is impracticable due to the size and relatively  modest value of each individual claim.   40.  Additionally, the disposition of the claims in a class action will provide substantial  benefit to the parties and the Court in avoiding a multiplicity of identical suits.   41.  There are well defined, nearly identical, questions of law and fact affecting all  parties. The questions of law and fact, referred to above, involving the class claims predominate  over questions which may affect individual Class members.    43.  Further, Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of  the Classes.  Plaintiff has no interests which are antagonistic to any member of the Classes.   44.  Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting complex  litigation and class actions, and especially TCPA class actions.  Plaintiff and her counsel are  committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the other members of the Classes,  and have the financial resources to do so.   45.  Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions affecting only  individual class members, and a class action is the superior method for fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy.  The only individual question concerns identification of class  members, which will be ascertainable from records maintained by Defendant and/or its agents.   46.  The likelihood that individual members of the Classes will prosecute separate  actions is remote due to the time and expense necessary to prosecute an individual case.    47.  Plaintiff is not aware of any litigation concerning this controversy already  commenced by others who meet the criteria for class membership described above.    49.  Defendants violated the TCPA by sending, or causing to be sent via an agent,  artificial or prerecorded voice messages to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and members of the  Prerecorded Call Class without their prior express written consent.   50.  The Plaintiff and Prerecorded Call Class Members are entitled to an award of  $500 in statutory damages per telephone call.   51.  The Plaintiff and Prerecorded Call Class Members are entitled to an award of  treble damages if the Defendants’ actions are found to have been knowing or willful.     52.  Plaintiff and Prerecorded Call Class members are also entitled to and do seek  injunctive relief prohibiting the Defendant from advertising their goods or services, except for  emergency purposes, using an artificial or pre-recorded voice in the future.  Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 227, et seq.) on behalf of  Prerecorded Call Class  