20.  In 1991, Congress enacted the TCPA in response to a growing number of  consumer complaints regarding certain telemarketing practices.   21.  Among other things, the TCPA prohibits “initiat[ing] any telephone call to any  residential telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the  prior express consent of the called party. . . .”  In addition, the TCPA prohibits making “any call”  using “an artificial or prerecorded voice” to a wireless number.  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).   23.  The FCC has issued rulings clarifying that in order to obtain an individual’s  consent, a clear, unambiguous, and conspicuous written disclosure must be provided by the  individual.  2012 FCC Order, 27 FCC Rcd. at 1839 (“[R]equiring prior written consent will  better protect consumer privacy because such consent requires conspicuous action by the  consumer—providing permission in writing—to authorize autodialed or prerecorded  telemarketing calls. . . .”).  B.  Defendants’ Robocalls to Plaintiffs and Class Members   24.  Prior to the calls at issue in this action, Plaintiffs had never had any contact with  Defendants.  Plaintiffs never consented in writing, or otherwise, to receive telephone calls from  Defendants.  Plaintiffs have never provided Defendants with their telephone numbers.   25.  Defendants called Plaintiffs dozens of times using an autodialer and/or an  artificial or prerecorded voice without their prior express written consent.  Further, both  Plaintiffs specifically told Defendants on numerous occasions to stop calling.   27.  Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly  situated.     28.  Plaintiffs Clarke and Maki propose the following Robocall Class definition,  subject to amendment as appropriate:  All persons within the United States who (a) received a non- emergency telephone call; (b) on his or her cellular telephone or  residential telephone line; (c) made by or on behalf of Defendants;  (d) for whom Defendants had no record of prior express written  consent; (e) and such phone call was made with the use of an  artificial or prerecorded voice; (f) at any time in the period from  July 23, 2015 to the date that class notice is disseminated.    29.  Collectively, all these persons will be referred to as the “Robocall Class.”   Plaintiffs represent, and are members of, this proposed class.  Excluded from the Robocall Class  are Defendants and any entities in which Defendants have a controlling interest, Defendants’  agents and employees, any Judge and/or Magistrate Judge to whom this action is assigned and  any member of such Judges’ staffs and immediate families.    31.  Collectively, all these persons will be referred to as the “Autodialer Class.”   Plaintiffs represent, and are members of, this proposed class.  Excluded from the Autodialer  Class are Defendants and any entities in which Defendant has a controlling interest, Defendants’  agents and employees, any Judge and/or Magistrate Judge to whom this action is assigned and  any member of such Judges’ staffs and immediate families.   32.  Plaintiff Clarke also proposes the following Internal Do-Not-Call List (“IDNCL”)  Class definition, subject to amendment as appropriate:  All persons within the United States who (a) after notifying any of  the Defendants that they no longer wished to receive calls from or  on behalf of any of the Defendants; (b) received one or more calls  from or on behalf of Defendants; (c) using either an artificial or  prerecorded voice or an automatic telephone dialing system as  defined under the TCPA; (d) at any time in the period from July  23, 2015 to the date that class notice is disseminated.   33.  Collectively, all these persons will be referred to as the “IDNCL Class.”  Plaintiff  Clarke represents, and is a member of, this proposed class.  Excluded from the IDNCL Class are  Defendants and any entities in which Defendant has a controlling interest, Defendants’ agents  and employees, any Judge and/or Magistrate Judge to whom this action is assigned and any  member of such Judges’ staffs and immediate families.   34.  Plaintiffs do not know the exact number of members in each class, but reasonably  believe based on the scale of Defendants’ business, and the number of online complaints, that the  Classes are so numerous that individual joinder would be impracticable.   36.  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.  The proposed Classes can  be identified easily through records maintained by Defendants.   37.  There are well defined, nearly identical, questions of law and fact affecting all  parties.  The questions of law and fact involving the Classes’ claims predominate over questions  which may affect individual members of the proposed Classes.  Those common question of law  and fact include, but are not limited to, the following:  a. Whether Defendants made telephone calls to class members using an autodialer  without their prior express written consent;  b. Whether Defendants made telephone calls to class members using an artificial or  prerecorded voice without their prior express written consent;  c. Whether Defendants made telephone calls to class members who asked not to be  contacted;  d. Whether Defendants’ conduct was knowing and/or willful;  e. Whether Defendants are liable for damages, and the amount of such damages, and  f. Whether Defendants should be enjoined from engaging in such conduct in the  future.   38.  As persons who received numerous and repeated calls on their telephones using  an artificial or prerecorded voice, without their prior express written consent, Plaintiffs assert  claims that are typical of each member of the Classes.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately  represent and protect the interests of the proposed Classes, and have no interests which are  antagonistic to any member of the proposed Classes.   39.  Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims  involving violations of federal and state consumer protection statutes.   41.  Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the proposed Classes,  thereby making final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the  proposed class as a whole appropriate.  Moreover, on information and belief, Plaintiffs allege  that the TCPA violations complained of herein are substantially likely to continue in the future if  an injunction is not entered.  42.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as  if fully stated herein.   43.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants constitute numerous and multiple  knowing and/or willful violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each of the above- cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.   44.  As a result of Defendants’ knowing and/or willful violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et  seq., Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Classes are entitled to treble damages of up to  $1,500.00 for each and every call in violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(3)(C).   45.  Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Classes are also entitled to and do seek  injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct violating the TCPA by Defendants in the future.   47.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as  if fully stated herein.   48.  The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants constitute numerous and multiple  violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each of the above-cited provisions of 47  U.S.C. § 227 et seq.   49.  As a result of Defendants’ violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., Plaintiffs and  members of the Classes are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages for each and  every call in violation of the statute, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   50.  Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Classes are also entitled to and do seek  injunctive relief prohibiting such conduct violating the TCPA by Defendants in the future.   51.  Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Classes are also entitled to an award of  attorneys’ fees and costs.  A.  The Telephone Consumer Protection Act Of 1991   KNOWING AND/OR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER  PROTECTION ACT,  47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,   47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.  