22.  “Ringless” voicemail technology was created, and is presently being used by  unscrupulous companies, including Defendant, in an attempt to circumvent the TCPA.     24.  “Ringless” voicemail technology works by delivering prerecorded messages en masse  to the voicemail boxes of cellular subscribers.    25.  However, calls made by utilizing this technology are not actually “ringless” since  the prerecorded message that results triggers an audible notification to the consumer once the  message is received.     26.  Further, the method by which “ringless” voicemails are transmitted to cellular  telephones is essentially the same as the method for transmitting text messages to cellular phones.  This  is significant because consumers are entitled to the same consent-based protections for text messages as  they are for voice calls to wireless numbers.  See Satterfield, 569 F.3d at 952 (noting that the FCC has  determined that a text message falls within the meaning of “to make any call” in 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(A)); Toney v. Quality Res., Inc., 2014 WL 6757978, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 1, 2014) (holding  that defendant bears the burden of showing that it obtained plaintiff's prior express consent before  sending her a text message).   28.  Unlike robocalls and text messages, however, consumers are left powerless to block  “ringless” voicemails from being transmitted to their phones.  Thus, a consumer’s voicemail box could  be rendered useless by just a handful of companies using the technology to market their businesses.     29.  The purpose of a “ringless” voicemail is to communicate with or try to get into  communication with a consumer through the consumer’s cellular telephone.     39.  June 17, 2019, Defendant, transmitted the following prerecorded telemarketing call to  Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in 9941 (the “9941 Number”):  Rebates for Ford turn ins. Rebates for non Ford trades. $300 in cash for  used cars and trucks. And more offers than I can list in this call.  Genuinely the most and the best programs we’ve ever offerred. We are  lowering payments for customers and we would like to help you this  week. Please come in. See over a thousand vehicles on sale. Great deals,  great fun, and ice cream. The one and only Village Ford Tent Sale.  Don’t miss this event nine to nine every day Monday through Thursday  this week. For more information come in today or call us at (313) 263- 5190. Thank you.    41.  Defendant’s prerecorded telemarketing call constitutes telemarketing because it  encouraged the future purchase, sell, or investment in property, goods, and/or services, i.e., the sale of  vehicles to Plaintiff.    42.  The prerecorded telemarketing call originated from a telephone number owned and/or  operated by or on behalf of Defendant.     43.  Plaintiff received the subject prerecorded telemarketing call within this District and,  therefore, Defendant’s violation of the TCPA occurred within this District.  Upon information and  belief, Defendant caused other prerecorded telemarketing calls to be sent to individuals residing within  this judicial district.     44.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express consent to be  contacted using an ATDS.     45.  Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 9941 Number and is financially  responsible for phone service to the 9941 Number.    46.  Defendant’s unsolicited prerecorded message caused Plaintiff actual harm, including  invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.   Defendant’s prerecorded message also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to his daily life.   See Patriotic Veterans, Inc. v. Zoeller, No. 16-2059, 2017 WL 25482, at *2 (7th Cir. Jan. 3, 2017)  (“Every call uses some of the phone owner's time and mental energy, both of which are precious.”).    47.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of  himself and all others similarly situated.   49.  Excluded from the Class is Defendant, its officers, directors, affiliates, legal  representatives, employees, successors, subsidiaries and assigns, as well as the judge and court staff to  whom this case is assigned.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the right to amend the Class definition  if discovery of further investigation reveals that the Class should be modified.   53.  The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers.  If  Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant routinely transmits prerecorded telemarketing calls to telephone  numbers assigned to cellular telephone services is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have  identical claims capable of being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.  59.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.    60.  It is a violation of the TCPA to make “any call (other than a call made for  emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any  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)(A)(iii).    61.  Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant – transmitted calls using an  artificial or prerecorded voice to the cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and members of the  putative class.     62.  These calls were made without regard to whether Defendant had first obtained  express permission from the called party to make such calls. In fact, Defendant did not have prior  express consent to call the cell phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class  when its calls were made.    63.  Defendant has, therefore, violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using an  artificial or prerecorded voice to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cell phones of  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class without their prior express consent.    65.  Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1-58 as if fully set forth herein.   66.  At all times relevant, Defendant knew or should have known that its conduct as  alleged herein violated the TCPA.   67.  Defendant knew that it did not have prior express consent to transmit artificial or  prerecorded voice calls and knew or should have known that its conduct was a violation of the  Knowing and/or Willful Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   PROPOSED CLASS   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   “RINGLESS” VOICEMAILS ARE REGULATED BY THE TCPA  