10.  Defendant United HealthCare is a leading health insurer that offers a variety of  insurance plans and services to group and individual consumers nationwide.     11.  As part of an overall marketing plan to advertise its programs and services, United  HealthCare sends unsolicited faxes to doctors and their organizations.  A copy of the fax  advertisement received by Plaintiff is attached as Exhibit A.   12.  The unsolicited faxes advertise the commercial availability and quality of United  HealthCare’s “Online self service [tools] for providers,” including: (a) “Link,” United  HealthCare’s “most powerful” tool that allows doctors to “transact[]” online with United  HealthCare to “Save Time and Increase Productivity,” maintain “Superior Documentation,” and  “Save on Paper Costs”; and (b) United HealthCare’s training webinars.   14.  The fax advertisements, however, fail to provide recipients with proper opt-out  notice information required by the TCPA and implementing regulations. Specifically, the faxes  fail to provide notice identifying a fax number and domestic contact telephone number for fax  recipients to transmit their opt-out requests.   15.  Defendant United HealthCare sends these fax advertisements to consumers with  which it has no existing business relationship, and without express invitation or permission, in  violation of the TCPA.   16.  United HealthCare uses a fax machine, computer, or other device to send the fax  advertisements at issue.  17.  On May 5, 2018 at approximately 9:57 am, United HealthCare used a fax  machine to send an unsolicited fax advertisement to Plaintiff.  A copy of the fax advertisement is  attached as Exhibit A.   18.  The fax advertisement promoted the commercial availability and quality of United  HealthCare’s goods and services, which doctors and their organizations are among the  consumers of.    19.  The fax advertisement failed to contain the required opt-out notice identifying a  fax number and telephone number for fax recipients to transmit their opt-out requests.   21.  Class Definitions: Plaintiff Broward Psychology brings this action pursuant to  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) individually and on behalf of a Class of  similarly situated individuals defined as follows:  All persons and entities who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of the initial  complaint in this action, (2) received a telephone fax advertisement, (3) sent from  or on behalf of United HealthCare, (4) and from whom United HealthCare (a) did  not have a record of prior express consent to send the fax advertisements or (b)  claims to have obtained consent in the same manner as it claims to have obtained  consent from plaintiff.  The following individuals are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or Magistrate  presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, its 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 Class; (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.   22.  Numerosity: The exact size of the Class is unknown and unavailable to Plaintiff  at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and belief,  Defendant faxed unsolicited advertisements to thousands of individuals and entities who fall into  the definition of the Class. Class membership can be easily determined from Defendant’s  records.    24.  Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff and the Class, and those questions predominate over any  questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common questions for the Class  include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:   a)  How Defendant gathered, compiled, or obtained the fax numbers of  Plaintiff and the Class;  b)  Whether Defendant’s faxes advertised the commercial availability or  quality of property, goods, or services;  c)  Whether Defendant sent the fax advertisements without first obtaining  Plaintiff and the Class’s prior express permission or invitation to do so;  and   d)  Whether Defendant’s conduct was willful such that Plaintiff and the Class  are entitled to treble damages.   25.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Class and has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex  class actions. Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendant has no  defenses unique to Plaintiff.    27.  Superiority: This case is also appropriate for class certification because class  proceedings are superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of  this controversy given that joinder of all parties is impracticable. The damages suffered by the  individual members of the Class will likely be relatively small, especially given the burden and  expense of individual prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by Defendant’s actions.  Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the individual members of the Class to obtain effective  relief from Defendant’s misconduct. Even if members of the Class could sustain such individual  litigation, it would still not be preferable to a class action, because individual litigation would  increase the delay and expense to all parties due to the complex legal and factual controversies  presented in this case. By contrast, a class action presents far fewer management difficulties and  provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision  by a single court. Economies of time, effort, and expense will be fostered and uniformity of  decisions ensured.  28.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.    29.  The TCPA makes it unlawful for any person to “use any telephone facsimile  machine, computer or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited  advertisement. . . .” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C).    31.  The faxes sent by Defendant advertised the commercial availability and quality of  its goods and services and were therefore commercial in nature, constituting advertisements  under the TCPA.    32.  Defendant sent the fax advertisements at issue to Plaintiff and other members of  the Class without their prior express invitation or consent, and despite the lack of an existing  business relationship between it and members of the Class.    33.   By sending the unsolicited fax advertisements to Plaintiff and other members of  the Class without their prior express invitation or permission, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(C).    34.  As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the  Class suffered actual damages, including the conversion or loss of paper and toner consumed in  the printing of the faxes, the loss of use of the recipients’ fax machines during the time required  to receive, review and route the unauthorized faxes, as well as increased labor expenses.    35.  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class are therefore entitled to a minimum  of $500 in damages for each violation under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B). To the extent Defendant’s  misconduct is determined to be willful, the Court should treble the amount of statutory damages  under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).    Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  