(Willful and Knowing Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. – Telephone Consumer  Protection Act)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   15.   In the fall of 2017, HIPNation retained AA Group to provide text message  marketing services.   16.  HIPNation and AA Group retained the now-defunct company DigDatDirect, LLC  to supervise a HIPNation text campaign designed to reach individuals who might be interested in  an alternative to individual health insurance.    17.  AA Group purchased lists of consumer telephone numbers from consumer  reporting agency Experian and data aggregator Nationwide Marketing. One of the lists included  Mr. Acosta’s cellular telephone number ending in “-0467”.    18.  On or about December 7, 2017 at approximately 7:20 p.m. CST, Plaintiff received  the following text message at his “-0467” number from “(678) 707-8249”.  Lose ur Healthcare? Many  in Atlanta Have. Don’t Settle!  Get Better Healthcare 4 Less.   Call 678-796-6937 or visit   hipnation.com or reply stop to  cancel.    20.  Prior to receiving the above-described text messages, Plaintiff was not informed  orally or in writing that he would receive a telemarketing and/or advertising text message on his  cellular phone from Defendants using an ATDS. Consequently, Defendants never obtained the  requisite consent to send Plaintiff text messages.   21.  Defendants used an ATDS to send the exact same (or substantially similar) text  messages to all other members of the putative Class.   22.  Defendants did not obtain prior express written consent from Class members to  send the above-described text messages to their cellular telephones.    23.  Plaintiff and Class members suffered injuries in the form of invasion of privacy and  nuisance.    24.  The text messages alleged herein were exclusively made by, or on behalf of  Defendants.    25.  Defendants were and are aware that they were sending the above-described text  message on a widespread basis to consumers located nationwide, including Louisiana, who had  not provided prior express written consent to receive them.  27.  Numerosity: The exact number of Class members is unknown and not available to  Plaintiff at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and  belief, Defendants have sent text messages to thousands of consumers who fall into the definition  of the Class. Class members can be identified through Defendants’ records.   29.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the  Class in that Plaintiff and the Class members sustained damages arising out of Defendants’  uniform wrongful conduct and unsolicited text message calls.   30.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Class, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex  litigation and class actions. Plaintiff’s claims are representative of the claims of the other members  of the Class. That is, Plaintiff and the Class members sustained damages as a result of Defendants’  conduct and received substantially the same text messages. Plaintiff also has no interests  antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendants have no defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff  and his counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the members of  the Class, and have the financial resources to do so. Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel has any  interest adverse to the Class.   32.  Plaintiff reserves the right to revise the foregoing "Class Allegations" and "Class  Definition" based on facts learned through additional investigation and in discovery.  33.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   34.  Defendants made unwanted, unsolicited text message calls to Plaintiff and the Class  members’ cellular telephones without their prior express written consent.   35.  Defendants sent these text messages to Plaintiff and the Class' cellular telephone  numbers using equipment with the ability to store or produce cellular telephone numbers to be  called using a random or sequential number generator and to dial such numbers without human  intervention.    36.  The equipment used by Defendants to send text messages to Plaintiff and Class’  cellular telephone numbers qualifies as an ATDS as defined by 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(2) and 47  U.S.C. § 227(a)(1).    38.  As a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the  putative Class suffered have had their rights to privacy adversely impacted. Plaintiff and the Class  are therefore entitled to, among other things, a minimum of $500 in statutory damages for each  such violation under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and § 227(c)(5)(B).   39.  Because Defendants’ misconduct was willful and knowing, the Court should,  pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) and/or § 227(c)(5), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by the Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class.    40.  Alternatively, because Defendants’ misconduct was negligent, the Court should,  pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) and/or § 227(c)(5), award statutory damages recoverable by  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class.    41.  Additionally, as a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the other  members of the Class are entitled to an injunction under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A) and §  227(c)(5)(A) to ensure that Defendants’ violations of the TCPA do not continue into the future. 