29. During the Federal Robocall Class Period, Spark initiated, to residential telephones lines and to telephone numbers assigned to a cellular telephone service, thousands of telephone calls using a prerecorded voice to deliver a message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of energy-discount services provided by Spark.  30. During the Federal Do-Not-Call Class Period, Spark, thousands of times during a 12-month period, initiated multiple telephone calls to residential telephones lines for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of energy-discount services provided by Spark.  31. During the New York Class Period, Spark made, to telephone numbers with an area code of 212, 315, 332, 347, 516, 518, 585, 607, 631, 646, 680, 716, 718, 845, 914, 917, 929, or 934 (“New York Telephone Numbers”), thousands of telephone calls that disseminated a prerecorded message for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of energy-discount services provided by Spark (the “New York Telephone Calls”).  32. The persons on whose behalf this Complaint asserts claims in connection with the telephone calls described in paragraph “29” are the members of the Federal Robocall Class.  33. The persons on whose behalf this Complaint asserts claims in connection with the telephone calls described in paragraph “30” are the members of the Federal Do-Not-Call Class.  34. The persons on whose behalf this Complaint asserts claims in connection with the telephone calls described in paragraph “31” are the members of the New York Class.  35. The telephone calls described in paragraph “29” were not preceded by the written consent of anyone who had the legal authority to provide such consent.  36. The New York Telephone Calls were made with equipment that was capable of storing telephone numbers to be called and that was used, either alone or in conjunction with 5 other equipment, to disseminate a prerecorded message to the telephone numbers that were called without the use of an operator.  37. The Prerecorded Material of the New York Telephone Calls (the “New York Prerecorded Material”) did not state the name of the person on whose behalf the New York Telephone Calls were placed.  38. The New York Prerecorded Material did not state the address of the person on whose behalf the New York Telephone Calls were placed.  39. The New York Prerecorded Material did not state the telephone number of the person on whose behalf the New York Telephone Calls were placed.  40. On July 22, 2019, Bank, while located in the Eastern District of New York, received, on his residential telephone line, a New York Telephone Call.  41. On July 23, 2019, Bank, while located in the Eastern District of New York, received, on his residential telephone line, a New York Telephone Call.  42. On August 1, 2019, Bank, while located in the Eastern District of New York, received, on his residential telephone line, a New York Telephone Call.  43. On August 2, 2019, Bank, while located in the Eastern District of New York, received, on his residential telephone line, a New York Telephone Call. 44. Bank repeats and re-alleges, and incorporates herein, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs “1” through “43” inclusive of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.  45.  Spark violated 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1) with respect to Bank and the other members of the Federal Robocall Class.  46.  Bank and the other members of the Federal Robocall Class are entitled to an Order, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3)(A), enjoining Spark from violating 47 U.S.C. 6 Section 227(b)(1).  47.  Bank and the other members of the Federal Robocall Class are entitled to statutory damages of $500 per violation pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3)(B).  48. In the event that Spark willfully or knowingly violated 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1), Bank and the other members of the Federal Robocall Class are entitled to up an additional $1,000 per violation pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(3)(C). 49. Bank repeats and re-alleges, and incorporates herein, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs “1” through “43” inclusive of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.  50.  Spark violated 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c)(2) with respect to Bank and the other members of the Federal Robocall Class.  51. Bank and the other Members of the Federal Do-Not-Call Class are entitled to an Order, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5)(A), enjoining Spark from violating 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c)(2).  52.  Bank and the other Members of the Federal Do-Not-Call Class are entitled to statutory damages of $500 per violation pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5).  53. In the event that Spark willfully or knowingly violated 47 C.F.R. Section  54. Bank repeats and re-alleges, and incorporates herein, each and every allegation contained in paragraphs “1” through “43” inclusive of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.  55.  Spark violated GBL Section 399-p(3)(a) with respect to Bank and the other members of the Federal Robocall Class. 7  56. Bank and the other members of the New York Class are entitled to an Order, pursuant to GBL Section 399-p(9), enjoining Spark from violating GBL Section 399-p(3)(a).  57.  Bank and the other members of the New York Class are entitled to statutory damages of $50 pursuant to GBL Section 399-p(9).  58. Bank and the other members of the New York Class are entitled to reasonable legal fees pursuant to GBL Section 399-p(9). 59. Bank, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, brings this action as a Class Action on behalf of: (i) the other Members of the Federal Robocall Class; (ii) the other Members of the Federal Do-Not-Call Class; and (iii) the other Members of the New York Class.  60. Bank, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, brings this action individually, and as a Class Action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of: (i) the other Members of the Federal Robocall Class; (ii) the other Members of the Federal Do-Not-Call Class; and (iii) the other Members of the New York Class.  61.  Bank believes, with respect to the Federal Robocall Class, Federal Do-Not-Call Class, and New York Class (the “Classes”), that there are thousands of persons whose claims are similar to Bank’s individual claims, and, furthermore, that Bank’s individual claims are typical of the claims of the other Class members.  62.  Bank would fairly and adequately protect the interests of each Class. Bank has no interests that are antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the members of the Classes. Indeed, Bank’s interests are, for purposes of this litigation, coincident with the interests of the other Class members. 8  63.  A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. Because the membership of each of the Classes is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, and because the damages suffered by most of the individual members of the Classes are too small to render prosecution of the claims asserted herein economically feasible on an individual basis, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it impracticable for members of the Classes to adequately address the wrongs complained of herein. Bank knows of no impediments to the effective management of this action as a class action.  64.1200(c)(2), Bank and the other Members of the Federal Do-Not-Call Class are entitled to up an additional $1,000 per violation pursuant to 47 U.S.C. Section 227(c)(5). 64.  Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions that affect only individual members of the Federal Robocall Class. Among these questions are:  (i) whether Spark violated Section 227(b)(1) of the TCPA; (ii) whether Spark willfully or knowingly violated Section 227(b)(1) of the TCPA; (iii) whether the members of the Federal Robocall Class are entitled to injunctive relief as a result of Spark’s violations of Section 227(b)(1) of the TCPA; and (iv) whether the members of the Federal Robocall Class are entitled to damages as a result of Spark’s violations of Section 227(b)(1) of the TCPA, and, if so, how much.  65.  Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions that affect only individual Federal Do-Not-Call Class Members. Among these questions are: (i) whether Spark violated 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c)(2); (ii) whether Spark willfully or knowingly violated 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c)(2); (iii) whether the members of the Federal Do-Not-Call Class are entitled to injunctive relief as a result of Spark’s violations of 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c)(2); and (iv) whether the members of the Federal Do-Not-Call Class are entitled to damages as a result of Spark’s violations of 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c)(2), and, if so, how much.  66.  Common questions of law and fact predominate over questions that affect only 9 individual members of the New York Class. Among these questions are:  (i) whether Spark violated GBL Section 399-p(3)(a); (ii) whether the members of the New York Class are entitled to injunctive relief as a result of Spark’s violations of GBL Section 399-p(3)(a); (iii) whether the members of the New York Class are entitled to damages as a result of Spark’s violations of GBL Section 399-p(3)(a); and (iv) whether the members of the New York Class are entitled to reasonable legal fees as a result of Spark’s violations of GBL Section 399-p(3)(a).