(Knowing and/or Willful Violation of the  Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.)   (Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq.)   (Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., on behalf of  the Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class)   10.  To address these harms, the TCP A makes it illegal to send autodialed, artificial, or  prerecorded messages without prior express consent. 47 U.S.C. §227 et seq.  11 .  The TCPA prohibits the use of an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to  call any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service, absent an emergency purpose  or absent Defendant obtaining the prior express consent of the called party.   12.  SunPro may not make unsolicited telemarketing calls to cell phone numbers  without the user's prior express written consent. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2).   13.  The FCC has defined telemarketing as "the initiation of a telephone call or message  for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or  services, which is transmitted to any person." 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(12).   14.  The FCC has stated that telemarketing occurs when the context of a call indicates  that it was initiated and transmitted to a person for the purpose of promoting property, goods, or  services. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2)(iii); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(12); 18 FCC Red. 14014,14098  ,Tl 41 (FCC 2003).   15.  The TCPA established the National Do-Not-Call List ("DNC") and prohibits a  company from calling individuals who have registered their residential telephone number on the  DNC list. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) more than once during a 12 month period. Any company, or  someone on the company's behalf, that calls a person with a number registered to the DNC has  TCPA liability.   16.  SunPro sells solar panels.   18.  Defendant's automated promotional calls include the use of an artificial or pre- recorded voice.   19.  Upon information or belief, those calls did and do not require human intervention  to dial the phone number or communicate the message.   20.  Plaintiff and the putative Class members did not consent to receive SunPro's calls.   21.  SunPro's calls present the precise harm and infringe the same privacy interests  Congress sought to protect in enacting the TCP A.   22.  SunPro's calls invaded Plaintiffs privacy, and that of the class members.   23.  When Plaintiff and members of the putative class received a call from Defendant,  they are alerted to call by a ring, vibration, or other indication on their telephone.   24.  If Defendant's promotional telephone call goes unanswered, Defendant leaves a  promotional message with a pre-recorded or artificial voice.   25.  Cell phone plans have limited voicemail capacity. This means that each unwanted  pre-recorded voice message from SunPro consumes voicemail capacity, creating the risk that these  voicemails will exclude messages from or prevent delivery of messages to a consumer's voicemail  box that the consumer wants and needs.   26.  Plaintiff and the putative class members' paid for the voicemail capacity consumed  by SunPro's pre-recorded voice messages through their cell phone plans.   27.  SunPro subjected Plaintiff and the putative class members to the aggravation,  nuisance, and loss of time involved with receiving SunPro's calls.   28.  SunPro, through its calls, has violated Plaintiffs and putative class members'  statutory and privacy rights.   30.  Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease making all improper  calls, and an award of statutory damages to himself and class members for all calls that violated  their statutory rights, as well as costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.  46.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein all previous paragraphs of this  Complaint.   47.  Defendant and its agents have made, and continue to make, unsolicited calls to cell  phone numbers, including to Plaintiffs and the other members of the class, using an automatic  telephone dialing system and prerecorded or artificial voice messages.   48.  SunPro made these calls without obtaining prior express consent from Plaintiff or  the class members.   50.  Each of the proposed classes numbers over forty (40) persons and are so numerous  that joinder of all members is impracticable, and it is further impracticable to bring all such persons  before this Court.  51 .  The injuries and damages to these class members present questions of law and fact  that are common to each class member, and that are common to the entire class as a whole. Those  common questions include, and are not limited to:  a. Whether the subject calls used prerecorded or artificial voices;  b. Whether the subject calls are covered by the TCP A;  c. Whether the subject calls violate the TCP A; and  d. Whether the class members are entitled to relief under the TCP A.   52.  Defendant has engaged in the same conduct regarding the other members of the  class asserted in this suit.   53.  The claims, defenses, and injuries of the representative Plaintiff are typical of the  claims, defenses and injuries of the entire class, and the claims, defenses and injuries of each class  member are typical of those of the entire class.   54.  Representative Plaintiff will fully and adequately protect and represent the entire  class, and all its putative members.   55.  The identity of all members of this class cannot be determined at this time, but will  be determined upon obtaining discovery from Defendant and others.   57.  The prosecution of separate actions would also create a substantial risk of  adjudication with respect to individual class members which, as a practical matter, would be  dispositive of the interest of other members not parties to the adjudication, thereby substantially  impairing and impeding their ability to protect these interests. Further, the maintenance of this suit  as a class action is the superior means of disposing of the common questions which predominate  herein.  58.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein all previous paragraphs of this  Complaint.   59.  Plaintiff did not expressly consent to receive calls from Defendant.   6.  The TCP A exists to prevent communications like those described within this  complaint. "Voluminous consumer complaints about abuses of telephone technology - for  example, computerized calls dispatched to private homes -prompted Congress to pass the TCP A."  Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 132 S. Ct. 740, 744 (2012).   60.  Defendant used an artificial or pre-recorded voice to call Plaintiffs cell phone.   61.  After receiving the call from Defendant, Plaintiff listened to the pre-recorded voice  that was recorded by his voicemail.   62.  SunPro violated 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(l)(A)(iii) with its call to Plaintiffs cell phone.   63.  Defendant has acted in the same way toward all class members by placing  unsolicited telephone calls to their cell phones or their residential land lines.   64.  Defendant's conduct caused Plaintiff and the class members the exact harm  Congress sought to prevent in enacting the TCP A.   65.  Plaintiff and the class members were harmed and incurred damages as identified  above.   67.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein all previous paragraphs of this  Complaint.   68.  Upon information and belief, Defendant placed the unlawful calls to Plaintiff and  the class members in knowing violation of the TCP A, thereby willfully violating federal law.   69.  Defendant has acted in the same way toward all members of the class.   7.  Congress also found that "the evidence presented to the Congress indicates that  automated or prerecorded calls are a nuisance ... " Id. at §§12-13.   70.  As a result of these calls, Plaintiff and the class are entitled to relief, recovery, and  treble damages for a willful violation of the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).  71.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein all previous paragraphs of this  Complaint.   72.  4 7 C.F .R. §64.1200( c) - a regulation that implements the TCP A - states that "[ n ]o  person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation" to "[a] residential telephone subscriber  who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons who  do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government."   73.  Under 47 C.F.R. §64.1200(e), subsection (c) is "applicable to any person or entity  making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone numbers[.]"   75.  47 U.S.C. 227(c)(5), 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 cause of action for a violation of  the regulations that were promulgated to protect consumers pursuant to the TCP A.   76.  SunPro violated 47 U.S.C. §227(c)(5) because Plaintiff and the DNC Class received  more than one telephone call in a 12-month period made by or on behalf of SunPro in violation of  47 C.F.R. §64.1200(c).   77.  As a result of these calls, Plaintiff and the DNC Class are entitled to relief, recovery,  and damages for a violation of the TCP A.  8.  "When Congress enacted the TCP A, it did so in part to protect consumers from the  'nuisance, invasion of privacy, cost, and inconvenience that autodialed and prerecorded calls  generate." Meredith v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., 2018 WL 1782854, at *3 (N.D. Ohio 2018)  (quoting Caudill v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 2016 WL 3820195 (E.D. Ky. 2016)).  