23.  On or about April 2016, Plaintiff booked a round trip charter to Key West through  Defendant’s on-line booking platform.     24.  At the time of booking the charter, Plaintiff completed the following on-line form:    25.  In completing the above form, Plaintiff understood that she was providing her  cellular telephone number for the sole purpose of receiving notifications and information about the  charter she had booked, and only for that purpose.    27.  Despite promising that it would not use Plaintiff’s telephone number “for any other  purpose,” Defendant, on February 6, 2017, May 1, 2017, and August 7, 2017, sent the following  telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in 8197 (the “8197  Number”):   28.  Defendant’s text messages were transmitted to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone, and  within the time frame relevant to this action.     29.  Defendant’s text messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the  future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., Defendant’s charter services.      31.  The links (http://usc.am/iPhone and http://usc.am/Android) contained in the text  messages are links to download Defendant’s mobile application, which was developed and is operated  by Defendant.    32.  Plaintiff received the subject texts within this judicial district and, therefore,  Defendant’s violation of the TCPA occurred within this district.  Upon information and belief,  Defendant caused other text messages to be sent to individuals residing within this judicial district.     32.  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).    33.  “Automatic telephone dialing system” refers to any equipment that has the  “capacity to dial numbers without human intervention.”  See, e.g., Hicks v. Client Servs., Inc., No.  07-61822, 2009 WL 2365637, at *4 (S.D. Fla. June 9, 2009) (citing FCC, In re: Rules and  Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991: Request of ACA  International for Clarification and Declaratory Ruling, 07–232, ¶ 12, n.23 (2007)).    33.  At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with her express written consent  to be contacted using an ATDS.     34.  Plaintiff is the subscriber and sole user of the 8197 Number, and is financially  responsible for phone service to the 8197 Number.    34.  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.    35.  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.    36.  Defendant has, therefore, violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using an  automatic telephone dialing system to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cell phones of  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class without their prior express written consent.    36.  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 current capacity or present ability to generate or store random or sequential numbers  or to dial sequentially or randomly at the time the call is made, and to dial such numbers, en masse, in  an automated fashion without human intervention.   37.  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.    38.  Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf  of herself and all others similarly situated.   38.  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.    39.  Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of a Class defined as follows:  All persons within the United States who were sent a text  message promoting Defendant’s services, made through  the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or an  artificial or prerecorded voice, from Defendant or anyone  on Defendant’s behalf, to said person’s cellular telephone  number, without emergency purpose and without the  recipient’s prior express written consent, from March 10,  2016 to the date of filing of this Complaint.    39.  Because Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the other  members of the putative Class had not given prior express consent to receive its autodialed calls  to their cellular telephones 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.   WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jessica Dipuglia, on behalf of herself and the other members of  the Class, pray for the following relief:   a. A declaration that Defendant’s practices described herein violate the Telephone  Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227;   b. An injunction prohibiting Defendant from using an automatic telephone dialing  system to text message telephone numbers assigned to cellular telephones without  the prior express permission of the called party;   c.  An award of actual and statutory damages; and   d.  Such further and other relief the Court deems reasonable and just.  40.  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.  40.  Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.   42.  Defendant knew that it did not have prior express consent to send these text  messages, and knew or should have known that its conduct was a violation of the TCPA.   43.  There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class which  predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class.  Among the questions  of law and fact common to the Class are:  (1) Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff’s and Class  members’ cellular telephones using an ATDS;  (2) Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing that it obtained prior  express written consent to make such calls;  (3) Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and willful;  (4) Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and  (5) Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.   43.  Because Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs and the other members of the putative Class  pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA.   44.  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.  44.  As a result of Defendant’s violations, Plaintiffs and the Class Members are entitled  to an award of $1,500.00 in statutory damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C.  § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jessica Dipuglia, on behalf of herself and the other members of  the Class, pray for the following relief:   a. A declaration that Defendant’s practices described herein violate the Telephone  Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227;   b. An injunction prohibiting Defendant from using an automatic telephone dialing  system to call and text message telephone numbers assigned to cellular telephones  without the prior express permission of the called party;   c. An award of actual and statutory damages; and   d. Such further and other relief the Court deems reasonable and just.  Knowing and/or Willful Violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Class)   PROPOSED CLASS   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  