24.  Defendant’s text message was transmitted to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, and within  the time frame relevant to this action.     25.  Defendant’s text message constitutes telemarketing because they encouraged the future  purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., selling Plaintiff anti-aging services.        26.  The information contained in the text message advertises that Defendant is  “…increasing prices this Monday.  Call 561-935-9233 to secure our lowest price.” This message is  intended to promote Defendant’s business.      28.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with her express written consent to  be contacted using an ATDS.     29.  Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 1212 Number, and is financially  responsible for phone service to the 1212 Number.    31.  The text messages originated from telephone number 713-636-5285, a number which  upon information and belief is owned and operated by Defendant.   32.  The number used by Defendant (713-636-5285) is known as a “long code,” a standard  10-digit phone number that enabled Defendant to send SMS text messages en masse, while deceiving  recipients into believing that the message was personalized and sent from a telephone number operated  by an individual.     33.  Long codes work as follows:  Private companies known as SMS gateway providers  have contractual arrangements with mobile carriers to transmit two-way SMS traffic.  These SMS  gateway providers send and receive SMS traffic to and from the mobile phone networks' SMS centers,  which are responsible for relaying those messages to the intended mobile phone. This allows for the  transmission of a large number of SMS messages to and from a long code.    34.  Specifically, upon information and belief, Defendant utilized a combination of hardware  and software systems to send the text messages at issue in this case.  The systems utilized by Defendant  have the capacity to store telephone numbers using a random or sequential generator, and to dial such  numbers, and to dial numbers from a list without human intervention.   35.  Defendant’s unsolicited text messages caused Plaintiff actual harm, including invasion  of her privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.  Defendant’s  text messages also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to her daily life.    36.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of  himself and all others similarly situated.   37.  Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of a Class defined as follows:  All persons within the United States who, within the four  years prior to the filing of this Complaint, were sent a text  message, from Defendant or anyone on Defendant’s  behalf, to said person’s cellular telephone number,  advertising Defendant’s services, without the recipients’  prior express written consent.     38.  Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. Plaintiff does not  know the number of members in the Class, but believes the Class members number in the several  thousands, if not more.  42.  The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If Plaintiff’s  claim that Defendant routinely transmits text messages to telephone numbers assigned to cellular  telephone services is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of  being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.  47.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.    48.  It is a violation of the TCPA to make “any call (other than a call made for  emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any  automatic telephone dialing system … to any telephone number assigned to a … cellular telephone  service ….” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).    49.  Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant – used equipment having the  capacity to dial numbers without human intervention to make non-emergency telephone calls to  the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class defined below.    50.  These calls were made without regard to whether or not Defendant had first  obtained express permission from the called party to make such calls. In fact, Defendant did not  have prior express consent to call the cell phones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative  Class when its calls were made.    52.  Defendant knew that it did not have prior express consent to make these calls, and  knew or should have known that it was using equipment that at constituted an automatic telephone  dialing system. The violations were therefore willful or knowing.    53.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA,  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled to a  minimum of $500.00 in damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to an  injunction against future calls. Id.   54.  Plaintiff re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1-46 as if fully set forth herein.   55.  At all times relevant, Defendant knew or should have known that its conduct as  alleged herein violated the TCPA.   56.  Defendant knew that it did not have prior express consent to make these calls, and  knew or should have known that its conduct was a violation of the TCPA.   57.  Because Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff and Class Members  had not given prior express consent to receive its autodialed calls, the Court should treble the  amount of statutory damages available to Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class  pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA.   Knowing and/or Willful Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  