12.  IQVIA provides services to the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries  including aggregating data collected from doctors’ offices, performing market analyses,  marketing, providing medical sales forces.1    13.  One of IQVIA’s commercial services is Physician Insights 360, for which IQVIA  pays doctors’ offices and other medical facilities for information on what types of patients they  are seeing, their typical ailments, treatments, medications they are prescribing, and then sells that  aggregated data to pharmaceutical companies that can then target their marketing and sales  directly to those doctors and facilities.    15.  IQVIA goes on to advertise: “Find physicians with patients you want to drive  business development through our market-leading Physician Intelligence Solution.”3   16.  As part of an overall marketing plan to advertise their Physician Insight 360 and  other analytics products and services, IQVIA sends unsolicited faxes to doctors soliciting them to  enter into a commercial transaction with IQVIA and to complete surveys about their practices  and pharmaceutical recommendations for money or other forms of payment.   17.  For example, in the faxes IQVIA sent to Plaintiff, IQVIA offered monetary  compensation ($30 or $35) and other compensation in the form of “Gift Cards,” “Tickets,” and  “Merchandise” for information from Plaintiff, and declared the availability and quality of its data  collection services and products for organizations.   18.  IQVIA used a telephone facsimile machine, computer or other device to send the  fax advertisements at issue.   19.  Most of the fax advertisements at issue failed to provide recipients with the proper  opt-out notice information required by the TCPA and its implementing regulations to send faxes  to consumers with which Defendant may have had an established business relationship.   20.  Between December 22, 2016 and June 28, 2018, IQVIA sent Plaintiff four  unsolicited fax advertisements, three of which did not include a proper opt out notice.  See  Exhibit A.   22.  Class Definition: Plaintiff Thomas brings this action pursuant to Federal Rules of  Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) individually and on behalf of the class defined as follows:  All persons and entities who, on or after four years prior to the filing of the initial  complaint in this action, (1) received a fax soliciting the recipient to complete a  survey, (2) sent by or on behalf of IQVIA, and (3) from whom Defendant (a) claims  it obtained prior express consent to send fax advertisements in the same manner  Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent to send fax advertisements to  Plaintiff, or (b) does not claim to have obtained prior express consent.  The following people are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over  this action and members of their families; (2) IQVIA, IQVIA’s subsidiaries, parents, successors,  predecessors, and any entity in which the IQVIA or its parents have a controlling interest and its  current or former employees, officers and directors; (3) persons who properly execute and file a  timely request for exclusion from the Class; (4) persons whose claims in this matter have been  finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) Plaintiff’s counsel and IQVIA’s  counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons.    23.  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,  IQVIA 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.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the  Class. Plaintiff is a member of the Class, and if Defendant violated the TCPA with respect to  Plaintiff, then it violated the TCPA with respect to the other members of the Class. Plaintiff and  the Class sustained damages as a result of Defendant’s uniform wrongful conduct.   26.  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.   28.  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.  29.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.    30.  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).    32.   Defendant sent unsolicited fax advertisements many of which did not include an  appropriate opt-out notice to Plaintiff and members of the Class without their consent to do so  and without an existing business relationship with them.    33.  By sending the unsolicited advertisement faxes at issue to Plaintiff and 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 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, other costs associated with receiving the  faxes, as well as increased labor expenses.    36.  Additionally, as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the other  members of the Class are entitled to an injunction to ensure that Defendant’s violations of the  TCPA do not continue into the future.   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  