10.  The Single Phone Report search provided Plaintiff the option of making a regular  purchase, or obtaining a special offer price of $0.95 to purchase the Single Phone Report by  signing up for a Spokeo trial membership.     11.  Plaintiff selected the Single Phone Report with Spokeo trial membership, and was  then taken to another page, still on the www.spokeo.com domain, that advised Plaintiff of the  benefits of a Spokeo trial membership.  The page also advised Plaintiff that she was signing up  for a 7-day free trial with Spoeko, and that after the trial ended, her credit/debit card would be  charged $19.95 per month for a monthly membership.  The page advised Plaintiff that she could  cancel at any time.     12.  Plaintiff selected “Continue,” and was taken to another page, still on the  www.spokeo.com domain, where she was to enter her e-mail address, and credit or debit card  information in order to purchase the Single Phone Report and sign up for the Spokeo trial  membership.     13.  Plaintiff inputted her e-mail address and debit card information for her checking  account, and then selected “Purchase and See Results,” at which point she was provided with the  Single Phone Report.         14.  Plaintiff’s checking account was established primarily for personal, family, or  household purposes, and thus, is an “account” as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1693a(2).    15 U.S.C. § 1693e(a) AS TO PLAINTIFF AND THE EFTA CLASS   16.  Subsequently, Plaintiff received two emails from “Spokeo, Inc.” referencing her  monthly trial membership for Spokeo.  These emails informed Plaintiff that she would be  charged $19.95 per month, and again advised Plaintiff that she could cancel at any time.      17.  On June 27, 2013, Plaintiff contacted Spokeo, Inc., and canceled her membership.   Later that day, Plaintiff received an e-mail from Spokeo, Inc. confirming that her membership  had been canceled and that she would not be billed again.     18.  Thereafter, no further charges from Spokeo, Inc. appeared on Plaintiff’s bank  statements.    19.  However, on July 22, 2013, a debit charge was electronically transferred from  Plaintiff’s bank account and appeared on Plaintiff’s bank statement as follows:    2.  Authorization obtained by third party. The account-holding financial institution  does not violate the regulation when a third-party payee fails to obtain the  authorization in writing or fails to give a copy to the consumer; rather, it is the  third-party payee that is in violation of the regulation.   20.  The debit charge was for $14.95, from a company going by the name “PRIVPR.”   21.  Plaintiff first noticed the $14.95 charge shortly after the electronic fund transfer  from “PRIVPR” was made from her bank account.     22.  Upon noticing the $14.95 charge, Plaintiff called the phone number for the  company listed on her checking account statement as “PRIVPR.”  The individual who answered  the phone stated that Plaintiff had reached the “identity protection billing department.”     23.  Based on the conversation with the “PRIVPR” representative, Plaintiff learned  that the $14.95 charge was to recur every month indefinitely, and that it was allegedly related to  her visit to the www.spokeo.com domain.     25.  “PRIVPR” ultimately refunded Plaintiff’s money—without interest—and ceased  its regularly recurring electronic fund transfers from Plaintiff’s bank account.   Had Plaintiff not  demanded that Defendant cease making charges using her debit card, the charges would have  continued to recur on a monthly basis in the amount of $14.95.       26.  Thereafter, Plaintiff searched “PRIVPR” on the internet and found numerous  other similar complaints from consumers who claimed that “PRIVPR” was debiting $14.95 on a  monthly basis from their bank accounts and/or charging $14.95 on a monthly basis to their credit  cards even though the consumers had never heard of “PRIVPR,” and had never done any  business with the Company.     27.  Upon information and belief, Defendant is “PRIVPR.”  Spokeo, Inc. maintains a  page on its website at https://www.spokeo.com/idf that allows consumers to sign up for a 30-day  free trial of IdentityForce (a page which Plaintiff never visited prior to having money debited  from her bank account by “PRIVPR.”).  The IdentityForce program costs $14.95 per month on a  recurring basis if the trial is not canceled within 30 days.     28.  The IdentityForce “privacy policy” on the Spokeo website identifies IdentityForce  as “a service division of Bearak Reports, Inc.” and states that “all references herein to Identity  Force shall mean and include Bearak Reports, Inc.”  Further, Defendant owns and operates a  product called “Identity Force identity protection,” owns and operates the website  www.identityforce.com, and is the registered owner of the IdentityForce service mark.   30.  The proposed Classes are believed to be so numerous that joinder of all members  is impracticable.  The exact number of members of the Classes is unknown to Plaintiff at this  time and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery.  The proposed Classes are  believed to be ascertainable in that the names and addresses of all members of the Classes can be  identified in business records maintained by Defendant.      31.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Classes because  Plaintiff and all Class members’ claims originate from the same conduct, practice and procedure  on the part of Defendant and Plaintiff possesses the same interests and has suffered the same  injuries as each member of each of the Classes.     33.  A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all members is impracticable.  Furthermore, as  the damages suffered by individual members of the Classes may be relatively small, the expense  and burden of individual litigation make it impracticable for the members of the Classes to  individually redress the wrongs done to them.  There will be no difficulty in the management of  this action as a class action.   34.  Issues of law and fact common to the members of the Classes predominate over  any questions that may affect only individual members, in that Defendant has acted on grounds  generally applicable to the entire Class.  Among the issues of law and fact common to the Class  are:  a. Defendant’s violations of the EFTA as alleged herein;  b. Defendant’s violations of the ECPA as alleged herein;  c. the availability of statutory penalties; and  d. the availability of attorneys’ fees and costs.   35.  Upon information and belief, absent a class action, Defendant’s violations of the  law will be allowed to proceed without a full, fair, judicially supervised remedy.    36.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs  1-35.   38.  The Official Staff Interpretations to the EFTA, at12 C.F.R. Pt. 1005.10(b), Supp.  I, provide, in pertinent part:   39.  Defendant entered into an agreement to make fund transfers, authorized in  advance, to recur at substantially regular intervals, from Plaintiff and the other members of the  EFTA class’s accounts.     40.  Defendant did not, however, provide Plaintiff or other members of the EFTA  Class with a copy of any such authorization when such authorization was made.   41.  As such, Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. § 1693e(a) and 12 C.F.R. § 1005.10(b).   42.  Upon information and belief, Defendant engages in a uniform practice of failing  to provide consumers with the authorization it is required to obtain for preauthorized electronic  fund transfers under the EFTA.   43.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs  1-35.   44.  This count is pled in the alternative to Count I.      46.  Plaintiff’s and the other members of the ECPA Class’s submission of their debit  card, credit card, and/or bank account information to Spokeo, Inc. was an “electronic  communication” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2510(12).    47.  Defendant intentionally intercepted, endeavored to intercept, or procured another  person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, Plaintiff and the other members of the ECPA’s  Class’s electronic communications with Spokeo, Inc., including the transmission of her debit  card information to Spokeo, Inc.    48.  As such, Defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 2511.   49.  Upon information and belief, Defendant engages in a uniform practice of  intercepting, endeavoring to intercept, or procuring another person to intercept or endeavor to  intercept, electronic communications between consumers and Spokeo, Inc., including the  transmission of her debit card and/or credit card information to Spokeo, Inc.  50.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs  1-35.   52.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s inappropriate practices, Plaintiff  and members of the Classes have suffered injury, including at least temporary loss of use of the  funds.   6.  On or about June 22, 2013, Plaintiff visited the website www.spokeo.com for the  purpose of searching for information about a friend.  Spokeo is a search engine that organizes  people-related information from phone books, social networks, marketing lists, business sites,  and other public sources.   7.  Upon arriving at the www.spokeo.com homepage, Plaintiff entered a phone  number she had for the friend in the search box in the middle of the screen and then selected  “Search.”   9.  Upon reaching this page, Plaintiff selected “Get Full Results,” and was then taken  to another page, still on the www.spokeo.com domain, that offered her the opportunity to obtain  either a Single Phone Report, or a Professional Phone Search.     PRIVACY ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 AS TO PLAINTIFF AND THE ECPA CLASS  