11.  As explained by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) in its 2012  order, the TCPA requires “prior express written consent for all … prerecorded [solicitation] calls  to wireless numbers and residential lines.” In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing  the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, CG No. 02-278, FCC 12-21, 27 FCC Rcd. 1830  ¶ 2 (Feb. 15, 2012).    12.  Yet in violation of this rule, Defendant and/or its agents fail to obtain express  written consent before making prerecorded voice sales calls to consumers such as Plaintiff.   14.  Even if eHealth is not placing the calls directly, eHealth benefits financially from  each sale it acquires through the agents that place the calls.   15.  eHealth’s prerecorded voice calls direct consumers to either press ‘2’ to speak to a  live agent or press ‘9’ to be opted-out.    16.  The prerecorded messages offer insurance from “A-rated insurers.”    18.  In early March 2019, Plaintiff Edwards began receiving prerecorded calls to his  cellular phone from Defendant.   20.  Plaintiff pressed ‘9’ multiple times, but the calls continued. When he would press  ‘9’, the line would simply go dead.   21.  Frustrated by the fact that the calls had not stopped, and because he was receiving  multiple calls daily, Plaintiff pressed ‘2’ to speak to a live agent. When he asked for the calls to  stop, the agent simply hung up.   22.  Plaintiff repeated this process at least two more times, in which he asked a live  agent to stop calling him, but the calls continued to flood in.    24.  On March 20, 2019 Plaintiff answered a call from Defendant using phone number  678-919-3485 at 3:41 PM. Plaintiff pressed ‘2’ and spoke with a live agent, going along with the  solicitation to confirm the telemarketer’s identity. After a couple of minutes, Plaintiff confirmed  that the call he received was from eHealth and was told the website address  ehealthinsurance.com.    25.  As with the majority of the calls that Plaintiff received, 678-919-3485 is a spoofed  number that cannot be called back.    26.  In total, Plaintiff received over 100 unsolicited, prerecorded calls to his cellular  phone, despite multiple opt-out attempts that included pressing ‘9’ to opt-out and at least 3  instances when Plaintiff asked a live agent to remove his number from Defendant’s call list.   27.  Plaintiff’s cellular phone is used for personal use only and is not associated with a  business.   28.  Plaintiff does not have a relationship with eHealth, or any of its affiliated  companies, nor has he ever consented to any contact from Defendant.    29.  Simply put, eHealth did not obtain Plaintiff’s prior express written consent to  place any solicitation telephone calls to him using a prerecorded voice message.    30.  Defendant’s unauthorized telephone calls harmed Plaintiff in the form of  annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, and disturbed Edwards’s use and enjoyment of his  phone, in addition to the wear and tear on the phone’s hardware (including the phone’s battery)  and the consumption of memory on the phone.    32.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)  and Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and seeks certification of  the following t Classes:  Prerecorded Class: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to  the filing of this action (1) Defendant (or agents acting on behalf of Defendant)  called, (2) using a prerecorded voice message, (3) for substantially the same reason  Defendant called Plaintiff.  Internal Do Not Call Class: All persons in the United States who from four years  prior to the filing of this action (1) Defendant (or agents acting on behalf of  Defendant) called more than one time (2) within any 12-month period (3) for  substantially the same reason Defendant called Plaintiff.   33.  The following individuals are excluded from the Classes: (1) any Judge or  Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, their  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents  have a controlling interest and their current or former employees, officers and directors; (3)  Plaintiff’s attorneys; (4) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion  from the Classes; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded  persons; and (6) persons whose claims against Defendant have been fully and finally adjudicated  and/or released. Plaintiff anticipates the need to amend the Class definitions following  appropriate discovery.   34.  Numerosity and Typicality: On information and belief, there are hundreds, if not  thousands of members of the Classes such that joinder of all members is impracticable.  Plaintiff  is a member of both Classes.   36.  Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests  of the Classes, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class actions. Plaintiff has  no interests antagonistic to those of the Classes, and Defendant has no defenses unique to  Plaintiff. Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf  of the members of the Classes, and have the financial resources to do so. Neither Plaintiff nor his  counsel have any interest adverse to the Classes.   38.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference herein.   39.  Defendant and/or its agents made unwanted solicitation telephone calls to Plaintiff  and the other members of the Prerecorded No Consent Class using a prerecorded voice message.    40.  These prerecorded voice message calls were made en masse without the consent  of the Plaintiff and the other members of the Prerecorded Class.   41.  Defendant’s conduct was negligent or wilful and knowing.   42.  Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1). As a result of  Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Prerecorded are each entitled to a  minimum of $500 in damages, and up to $1,500 in damages, for each violation.  43.  Plaintiff Edwards repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 37 of this Complaint  and incorporates them by reference.   45.  Defendant or its agent made prerecorded marketing calls to Plaintiff and members  of the Internal Do Not Call Class without implementing internal procedures for maintaining a list  of persons who request not to be called by the entity and/or by implementing procedures that do  not meet the minimum requirements to allow Defendant to initiate telemarketing calls.   46.  The TCPA provides that any “person who has received more than one telephone  call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations  prescribed under this subsection may” bring a private action based on a violation of said  regulations, which were promulgated to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid  receiving telephone solicitations to which they object. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5).   47.  Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). As a result of  Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Internal Do Not Call List Class are  each entitled to up to $1,500 per violation.  Class Treatment Is Appropriate for Plaintiff’s TCPA Claims   Telephone Consumer Protection Act   (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff Edwards and the Internal Do Not Call Class)   Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff Edwards and the Prerecorded No Consent Class)   eHealth Markets its Products by Placing Unsolicited Prerecorded Calls to Consumers    eHealth Placed Prerecorded Calls to Plaintiff Without His Consent,  Despite Requests for the Calls to Stop  