(Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. – Telephone Consumer Protection Act)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   16.  Given the relatively low cost associated with sending bulk text messages, many  businesses have turned to disseminating advertising calls or promotions through mass text  message campaigns.   17.  Seeking to market “knock-off” skin care products, nutritional supplements,  cosmetic products, and health care products to consumers and, in turn, grow the customer base  of their clients, Defendant engaged in this especially invasive form of advertising.   18.  Defendant made unauthorized text message advertising calls to the phones of  thousands of consumers nationwide. Specifically, Defendant initiated or took steps necessary to  place such text message advertising calls using an automated telephone dialing system and/or  were so involved in placing the texts as to be deemed to have initiated them.   19.  The nature of the text message calls sent by Defendant indicates that it used an  automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS”). Specifically, the hardware and/or software used  by Defendant has the capacity to store, produce, and dial random and sequential numbers,  and/or receive and store lists of telephone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse, in an  automated fashion without human intervention. Defendant’s automated dialing equipment  includes features substantially similar to a predictive dialer, inasmuch as it is capable of making  numerous text message calls simultaneously (all without human intervention).   20.  The text message advertising calls alleged herein were exclusively made by  Defendant. Defendant made, or had made on their behalf, the same (or substantially the same)  text message calls en masse to thousands of cellular telephone numbers nationwide.   22.  Upon information and belief, Defendant made such calls without obtaining any  form of consent from recipients, or, alternatively, such calls were made outside the scope of  consent Defendant may have obtained.    23.  Defendant violated the TCPA by failing to provide the clearly stated legal name of  the business responsible for initiating the text message advertising calls at issue    24.  Defendant violated the TCPA by failing to provide in every text message call sent an  automated opt-out mechanism for the called person to make a do-not-call request.    26.  Moreover, Plaintiff and members of the Class suffered injuries in the form of  invasion of privacy and violations of their statutory rights, the monies paid to receive  Defendant’s unsolicited text messages, the diminished value and utility of their telephone  equipment and telephone subscription service (i.e. the value of such equipment and services is  higher when unencumbered by repeated and harassing text messages), the amount of time lost  answering and fielding unwanted telemarketing text messages, the wear and tear on their  telephone equipment, the loss of battery (which becomes diminished with each incoming phone  call), the loss of battery life (which has a finite number of charging cycles), and electricity costs  required to recharge their cellular phones.  27.  Defendant sent a text message call from an SMS-enabled phone number, 201- 701-8452, to Plaintiff’s telephone number, XXX-XXX-8049, on or about May 28th, 2017  containing the following:   “167 available to   Emily   worthexpress.com”   28.  The link “worthexpress.com” took Plaintiff to an online survey that, upon  completion, provided a list of links for various unnamed nutritional supplements and anti-aging  skin products for the recipient to claim as a “reward” for completing the survey.    30.  The SMS-enabled phone number 201-701-8452 was and/or is utilized by  Defendant to send text message advertising calls to consumers like Plaintiff.    31.  Defendant is behind the advertising, promotion, sale, and/or offers for sale of  “Instantly Ageless” skin product among countless other product brands they push to consumers  nationwide.3   32.  As such, the text message call received by Plaintiff did not include the legal name  of the business responsible for initiating such calls.    33.  Plaintiff has received similar text messages calls from Defendant in the past.    34.  The software and/or hardware products or services used by Defendant to send the  text message call also provided Defendant with the capacity to store, produce, and dial random  and sequential numbers, and/or receive and store lists of telephone numbers, and to dial such  numbers, en masse, in an automated fashion without human intervention.    35.  Defendant created and/or controlled the content of the text message advertising  call, initiated the call, took steps necessary to physically place the call and/or were so involved  in placing the call at issue that they could be considered to have initiated it.    36.  The call was an advertisement because its sole purpose was to promote and/or  encourage the purchase of commercial skin care product “Instantly Ageless” among other  products offered by Defendant.    38.  Plaintiff did not provide prior express written consent to receive any text  message calls from Defendant as there was no written agreement between Plaintiff and  Defendant that included any or all of the following:  a. Plaintiff’s legally recognized signature;   b.  Clear and conspicuous authorization for Defendant to deliver advertising  messages via autodialed calls;  c. Language indicating that signing such agreement is not a condition for  purchasing skin care products; and  d. Plaintiff’s telephone number to which she authorized advertisements or  advertising messages to be delivered.    39.  In fact, Plaintiff did not provide any form of consent to receive text messages  from Defendant or text message advertisements for their products.    40.  Defendant's intrusive text message adversely affected Plaintiff’s right to privacy.   41.  Defendant was and is aware that the same or similar above-described text  message calls were being made on a widespread basis, and that such text message calls were  and are being made to consumers who have not provided prior express written consent to  receive them.  43.  Numerosity: The exact number of Class members is unknown and not available  to Plaintiff at this time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. Upon information  and belief, Defendant have sent text message advertising calls to thousands of consumers  nationwide who fall into the definition of the Class. Class members can be identified through  Defendant's records.   45.  Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the  Class in that Plaintiff and the Class members sustained damages arising out of Defendant's  uniform wrongful conduct and unsolicited text message calls.   46.  Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Class, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in  complex litigation and class actions. Plaintiff’s claims are representative of the claims of the  other members of the Class. That is, Plaintiff and the Class members sustained damages as a  result of Defendant’ conduct and received substantially the same text messages. Plaintiff also  has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendant have no defenses unique to  Plaintiff. Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf  of the members of the Class, and have the financial resources to do so. Neither Plaintiff nor his  counsel has any interest adverse to the Class.   48.  Plaintiff reserves the right to revise the foregoing "Class Allegations" and "Class  Definition" based on facts learned through additional investigation and in discovery.  49.  Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.   50.  In an effort to obtain more customers, Defendant made unsolicited and unwanted  text message advertising calls to Plaintiff and the Class' cellular telephones without their prior  written express consent.   52.  Defendant utilized equipment that sent the text message advertisements to  Plaintiff and other members of the putative Class simultaneously and without human  intervention.   53.  By sending the text message advertising to Plaintiff and members of the Class's  cellular telephones without prior express written consent, and by utilizing an ATDS, Defendant  violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(I)(A)(iii).   54.  By failing to clearly state the legal name of the business responsible for initiating  such calls and by failing to, Defendant also violated 47 U.S.C. § 64.1200(b)(1)   55.  Moreover, by failing to provide in every text message call sent an automated opt-out  mechanism for the called person to make a do-not-call request, Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. §   56.  As a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff and the members of the  putative Class suffered actual damages and also have had their rights to privacy adversely  impacted. Plaintiff and the Class are therefore entitled to, among other things, a minimum of  $500 in statutory damages for each such violation under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).   57.  Because Defendant's misconduct was willful and knowing, the Court should,  pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), treble the amount of statutory damages recoverable by the  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class.    64.1200(b)(3).   