IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JENNIFER WOODBURN, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNION SQUARE MEDIA GROUP, LLC, a 

Florida limited liability company,

Defendant.

Case No.

CLASS ACTION 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Jennifer Woodburn (“Plaintiff” or “Woodburn”) brings this Class Action 

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial against Defendant Union Square Media Group, LLC, doing 

business as Otto Insurance (“Defendant” or “Otto Insurance”) to stop the Defendant from violating 

the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act 

(“FTSA”) by making telemarketing calls, including calls using pre-recorded voice messages,

without consent to consumers, including to consumers who registered their phone numbers on the 

National Do Not Call registry (“DNC”). Plaintiff also seeks injunctive and monetary relief for all 

persons injured by Defendant’s conduct. Plaintiff, for this Complaint, alleges as follows upon 

personal knowledge as to herself and her own acts and experiences, and, as to all other matters, 

upon information and belief, including investigation conducted by her attorneys. 

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Jennifer Woodburn is a resident of Las Vegas, Nevada. 

2. Defendant Union Square Media Group, LLC is a Florida limited liability 

company with its principal place of business in Miami Beach, Florida. 

Case 1:22-cv-22929-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 1 of 17
2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 

U.S.C. § 1331, as the action arises under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §227 

(“TCPA”). The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act 

by (“FTSA”) claims, as they arise out of the same telemarketing campaign as the TCPA claim.

4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant and venue is proper in this 

District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendant resides in this District, and the wrongful 

conduct giving rise to this case was directed from this District.

INTRODUCTION

5. As the Supreme Court recently explained, “Americans passionately disagree about 

many things. But they are largely united in their disdain for robocalls. The Federal Government 

receives a staggering number of complaints about robocalls—3.7 million complaints in 2019 

alone. The States likewise field a constant barrage of complaints. For nearly 30 years, the people’s 

representatives in Congress have been fighting back.” Barr v. Am. Ass'n of Political Consultants, 

No. 19-631, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 3544, at *5 (U.S. July 6, 2020).

6. The National Do Not Call Registry allows consumers to register their telephone 

numbers and thereby indicate their desire not to receive telephone solicitations at those numbers. 

See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2). 

7. A listing on the Registry “must be honored indefinitely, or until the registration is 

cancelled by the consumer or the telephone number is removed by the database administrator.” Id.

8. Industry data shows that the number of robocalls made each month increased from 

831 million in September 2015 to 4.7 billion in December 2018—a 466% increase in three years.

Case 1:22-cv-22929-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 2 of 17
3

9. According to online robocall tracking service “YouMail,” 4.5 billion robocalls were 

placed in August 2022 alone, at a rate of 144.4 million calls per day. www.robocallindex.com (last 

visited September 4, 2022).

10. The FCC also has received an increasing number of complaints about unwanted 

calls, with 150,000 complaints in 2016, 185,000 complaints in 2017, and 232,000 complaints in 

2018. FCC, Consumer Complaint Data Center, www.fcc.gov/consumer-help-center-data. 

11. “Robocalls and telemarketing calls are currently the number one source of 

consumer complaints at the FCC.” Tom Wheeler, Cutting off Robocalls (July 22, 2016), statement 

of FCC chairman.1

12. “The FTC receives more complains about unwanted calls than all other complaints 

combined.” Staff of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, In re Rules 

and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, CG Docket No. 02-278, at 2 (2016).2

COMMON ALLEGATIONS

13. Defendant Union Square Media Group, LLC is a digital advertising agency. 

Defendant generates and sells leads of potential consumers to insurance providers throughout the 

U.S.3

14. Defendant uses multiple aliases to conduct business of gathering and selling 

consumer leads, including Otto Insurance. Defendant uses the alias Otto Insurance to generate 

leads of potential consumers for auto insurance products. 

1 https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2016/07/22/cutting-robocalls

2 https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/advocacy_documents/comment-staff-ftc-bureauconsumer-protection-federal-communications-commission-rulesregulations/160616robocallscomment.pdf

3 https://www.linkedin.com/company/union-square-media-group/about/

Case 1:22-cv-22929-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 3 of 17
4

15. As part of its lead generation efforts, Defendant uses automated systems to send 

outbound telephonic sales calls, including calls using pre-recorded voice messages, to hundreds if 

not thousands of consumers across the U.S., including to consumers whose phone numbers are 

registered on the National Do Not Call list, seeking information to solicit insurance quotes to 

consumers.

16. Multiple consumers have posted complaints online about receiving unwanted 

solicitation calls from Defendant Otto Insurance, including complaint of receiving solicitation call

using the same phone number Defendant used to call Plaintiff Woodburn:

4

17. In response to these calls, Plaintiff Woodburn brings forward this case seeking 

injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to cease from violating the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act and Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, as well as an award of statutory damages 

to the members of the Classes and costs.

PLAINTIFF WOODBURN’S ALLEGATIONS

18. Plaintiff Woodburn is the subscriber and the sole user of the cell phone number 

ending with xxx-xxx-8212.

19. Plaintiff Woodburn registered her cell phone number on the National Do Not Call 

Registry on June 19, 2019.

4 https://www.bbb.org/us/co/aurora/profile/auto-insurance/Otto Insurance-1296-

90248670/customer-reviews

Case 1:22-cv-22929-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 4 of 17
5

20. In April 2022, Plaintiff Woodburn started receiving unsolicited telemarketing calls

from Defendant Otto Insurance using the phone number 512-883-2452 offering auto insurance 

quotes to her, using automated systems to place pre-recorded voice calls.

21. On April 26, 2022, Plaintiff received three calls to her cell phone from the phone 

number 512-883-2452 too early in the morning. Plaintiff did not answer the calls, and received the 

following pre-recorded voicemails to her cell phone from Defendant Otto Insurance soliciting auto 

insurance quotes to the Plaintiff:

• at 6:04 AM:

• at 6:11 AM:

Case 1:22-cv-22929-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 5 of 17
6

• and at 6:36 AM:

22. On April 28, 2022, at 9:49 AM, Plaintiff received another call from the Defendant 

using the same phone number 512-883-2452, which she did not answer. Plaintiff received a silent 

voicemail from the Defendant, indicating the use of an automated dialer device to place the call.

Case 1:22-cv-22929-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 6 of 17
7

23. On April 29, 2022, at 2:17 PM, Plaintiff received another call to her cell phone 

from Defendant Otto Insurance using the same phone number 512-883-2452. Plaintiff did not 

answer this call and received another pre-recorded voice message soliciting auto insurance options 

to the Plaintiff.

24. On April 30, 2022, at 11:02 AM, Plaintiff received another call to her cell phone 

from Defendant Otto Insurance using the same phone number 512-883-2452. Plaintiff did not 

Case 1:22-cv-22929-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 7 of 17
8

answer this call and received another pre-recorded voice message soliciting auto insurance options 

to the Plaintiff.

25. In all of the unsolicited telemarketing calls made to Plaintiff, Defendant Otto 

Insurance failed to identify the first and last names of the telephone solicitor who placed the call, 

and the name of the company on whose behalf the solicitation call was made.

26. On calling this phone number, 512-883-2452, it is answered by an automated voice 

message system which identifies as Defendant Otto Insurance. It gives options to connect with a 

live insurance agent now and to schedule a callback later. On pressing 1, the call is transferred to 

a live insurance agent from one of the insurance providers who purchase leads from Defendant.

The insurance agent seeks to gather personal information from the consumer to solicit insurance 

products to them.

27. Plaintiff never consented to be called by Otto Insurance.

28. The unauthorized telephonic sales calls that Plaintiff received from Defendant, as 

alleged herein, have harmed the Plaintiff in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of 

privacy, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of her phone, in addition to the wear and tear on the 

Case 1:22-cv-22929-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 8 of 17
9

phone’s hardware (including the phone’s battery) and the consumption of her phone line and the 

memory on the phone.

29. Seeking redress for these injuries, Plaintiff Woodburn, on behalf of herself and 

Classes of similarly situated individuals, brings suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection 

Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act, Fla. Stat. 501.059, which 

prohibit sending unsolicited telemarketing calls and text messages to cell phone numbers that are 

registered on the DNC, and without identifying the full name of the telephone solicitor and the 

name of the company on whose behalf the solicitation was sent.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

30. Plaintiff Woodburn brings this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) and seeks certification of the following Classes:

Pre-recorded No Consent Class: All persons in the United States who from four years 

prior to the filing of this action through class certification (1) Defendant Otto Insurance

called on their cellular telephone number (2) using an artificial or pre-recorded voice.

Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to 

the filing of this action through class certification (1) Defendant Otto Insurance called more 

than one time, (2) within any 12-month period, (3) where the person’s phone number had 

been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days.

Florida Autodial Class: All persons in the United States, who, on or after July 1, 2021, 

(1) received a telephonic sales call, (2) from Florida, (3) using the same equipment or type 

of equipment utilized to call Plaintiff.

Unidentified Telephone Solicitor Class: All persons in the United States, who, on or after 

July 1, 2021, (1) received an unsolicited telephonic sales call from or on behalf of the 

Defendant, (2) to and/or from Florida, (3) in which the solicitor failed to identify their own 

first and last names, and/or the name of the business on whose behalf the solicitation call 

was placed.

31. The following individuals are excluded from the Classes: (1) any Judge or 

Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, their 

subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which either Defendant or their 

Case 1:22-cv-22929-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 9 of 17
10

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 Classes; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons; 

and (6) persons whose claims against the Defendant has been fully and finally adjudicated and/or 

released. Plaintiff Woodburn anticipates the need to amend the Class definitions following 

appropriate discovery.

32. Numerosity: On information and belief, there are hundreds, if not thousands of 

members of the Classes such that joinder of all members is impracticable. 

33. Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact 

common to the claims of the Plaintiff and the Classes, and those questions predominate over any 

questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common questions for the Classes

include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:

(a) whether Defendant placed pre-recorded voice message calls to Plaintiff and

members of the Pre-recorded No Consent Class without first obtaining consent to 

make the calls;

(b) whether Defendant placed multiple calls to Plaintiff and members of the Do Not 

Call Registry class without first obtaining consent to make the calls;

(c) whether Defendant used automatic dialing software and/or recorded voice message 

to place multiple calls to Plaintiff and members of the Florida Autodial Class;

(d) whether Defendant placed telemarketing calls to Plaintiff and members of the 

Unidentified Telephone Solicitor Class, without identifying the first and last names 

of the solicitor who made the call, and/or the name of Defendant’s business; 

(e) whether Defendant’s conduct violated the TCPA and the FTSA; and

Case 1:22-cv-22929-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 10 of 17
11

(f) whether members of the Classes are entitled to treble damages based on the 

willfulness of Defendant’s conduct.

34. Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and 

protect the interests of the Classes, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class 

actions. The Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Classes, and Defendant have no 

defenses unique to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and her counsel are committed to vigorously 

prosecuting this action on behalf of the members of the Classes and have the financial resources 

to do so. Neither the Plaintiff nor her counsel have any interest adverse to the Classes.

35. Appropriateness: This class action is also appropriate for certification because the 

Defendant have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Classes and as 

wholes, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards 

of conduct toward the members of the Classes and making final class-wide injunctive relief 

appropriate. Defendant’s business practices apply to and affect the members of the Classes

uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinges on Defendant’s conduct with respect 

to the Classes as wholes, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff Woodburn. Additionally, 

the damages suffered by individual members of the Classes will likely be small relative to the 

burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex litigation necessitated by 

Defendant’s actions. Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the members of the Classes to 

obtain effective relief from Defendant’s misconduct on an individual basis. A class action provides 

the benefits of single adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single 

court.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Telephone Consumer Protection Act

(Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)

(On Behalf of Plaintiff Woodburn and the Pre-recorded No Consent Class)

Case 1:22-cv-22929-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 11 of 17
12

36. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the prior paragraphs of this Complaint and 

incorporates them by reference herein.

37. Defendant Otto Insurance and/or its agents transmitted unwanted telephone calls to 

Plaintiff Woodburn and the other members of the Pre-recorded No Consent Class using a prerecorded voice message.

38. These pre-recorded voice calls were made en masse without the prior express 

written consent of the Plaintiff Woodburn and the other members of the Pre-recorded No Consent 

Class.

39. The Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). As a result of 

Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff Woodburn and the other members of the Pre-recorded No Consent 

Class are each entitled to a minimum of $500 in damages, and up to $1,500 in damages, for each 

violation. 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Telephone Consumer Protection Act

(Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227)

(On Behalf of Plaintiff Woodburn and the Do Not Call Registry Class)

40. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 35 of this Complaint and 

incorporates them by reference.

41. The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that “[n]o 

person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential telephone subscriber 

who has registered her or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of persons who 

do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal government.”

42. Any “person who has received more than one telephone call within any 12-month 

period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the regulations prescribed under this 

subsection may” may bring a private action based on a violation of said regulations, which were 

Case 1:22-cv-22929-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 12 of 17
13

promulgated to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to avoid receiving telephone 

solicitations to which they object. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c).

43. Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) by initiating, or causing to be initiated, 

telephone solicitations to telephone subscribers such as the Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry 

Class members who registered their respective telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call 

Registry, a listing of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained 

by the federal government. 

44. Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff and the Do Not Call 

Registry Class received more than one telephone call in a 12-month period made by or on behalf 

of Defendant in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as described above. As a result of Defendant’s 

conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class suffered actual damages 

and, under section 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), are entitled, inter alia, to receive up to $500 in damages for 

such violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.

45. To the extent Defendant’s misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing, the 

Court should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), treble the amount of statutory damages 

recoverable by the members of the Do Not Call Registry Class.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Florida Telephone Solicitation Act

(Violations of Fla. Stat. § 501.059)

(On Behalf of Plaintiff Woodburn and the Florida Autodial Class)

46. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 35 of this Complaint and 

incorporates them by reference.

47. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the Florida Autodial Class 

Members against the Defendant. 

Case 1:22-cv-22929-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 13 of 17
14

48. It is a violation of the FTSA to “make or knowingly allow a telephonic sales call 

to be made if such call involves an automated system for the selection or dialing of telephone 

numbers or the playing of a recorded message when a connection is completed to a number called 

without the prior express written consent of the called party.” Fla. Stat. § 501.059(8)(a).

49. A “telephonic sales call” is defined as a “telephone call, text message, or 

voicemail transmission to a consumer for the purpose of soliciting a sale of any consumer goods 

or services, soliciting an extension of credit for consumer goods or services, or obtaining 

information that will or may be used for the direct solicitation of a sale of consumer goods or 

services or an extension of credit for such purposes.” Fla. Stat. § 501.059(1)(i).

50. Defendant failed to secure prior express written consent from Plaintiff and members 

of the Autodial Class.

51. In violation of the FTSA, Defendant made and/or knowingly allowed telephonic 

sales calls to be made to Plaintiff and the Autodial Class members without Plaintiff’s and the Class 

members’ prior express written consent.

52. Defendant made and/or knowingly allowed the telephonic sales calls to Plaintiff 

and the Class members to be made utilizing an automated system for the selection or dialing of 

telephone numbers.

53. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, and pursuant to § 501.059(10)(a) of the FTSA, 

Plaintiff and Class members were harmed and are each entitled to a minimum of $500.00 in 

damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the Class members are also entitled to an injunction 

against future calls. Id.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Florida Telephone Solicitation Act,

(Violations of the Fla. Stat. § 501.059)

Case 1:22-cv-22929-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 14 of 17
15

(On Behalf of Plaintiff Woodburn and 

the Unidentified Telephone Solicitor Class)

54. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 35 of this Complaint and 

incorporates them by reference herein.

55. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the Unidentified Telephone 

Solicitor Class Members against Defendant.

56. The FTSA requires “any telephone solicitor who makes an unsolicited telephonic 

sales call to a residential, mobile, or telephonic paging device telephone number” to mandatorily 

“identify himself or herself by his or her true first and last names and the business on whose behalf 

he or she is soliciting immediately upon making contact by telephone with the person who is the 

object of the telephone solicitation.” Fla. Stat. § 501.059(2)

57. A “telephonic sales call” is defined as a “telephone call, text message, or voicemail 

transmission to a consumer for the purpose of soliciting a sale of any consumer goods or services, 

soliciting an extension of credit for consumer goods or services, or obtaining information that will 

or may be used for the direct solicitation of a sale of consumer goods or services or an extension 

of credit for such purposes.” Fla. Stat. § 501.059(1)(i).

58. In violation of the FTSA, Defendant failed to identify the name of the telephone 

solicitor or the business on whose behalf those unsolicited telephonic sales calls were made and/or 

caused to be made to the Plaintiff, and other members of the Unidentified Telephone Solicitor 

Class.

59. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, and pursuant to § 501.059(10)(a) of the FTSA, 

Plaintiff and Class members were harmed and are each entitled to a minimum of $500.00 in 

damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the Class members are also entitled to an injunction 

against future calls. Id.

Case 1:22-cv-22929-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 15 of 17
16

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Classes, prays for the 

following relief:

a) An order certifying this case as a class action on behalf of the Classes as defined 

above; appointing Plaintiff as the representative of the Classes; and appointing her 

attorneys as Class Counsel;

b) An award of damages and costs;

c) An order declaring that Defendant’s actions, as set out above, violate the TCPA and 

the FTSA;

d) An injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited calling activity, and to 

otherwise protect the interests of the Classes; and

e) Such further and other relief as the Court deems just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Woodburn requests a jury trial.

JENNIFER WOODBURN, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

DATED this 14th day of September, 2022.

By: /s/ Stefan Coleman

Stefan Coleman

law@stefancoleman.com

COLEMAN PLLC

66 West Flagler Street

Suite 900

Miami, FL 33130

(877)333-9427

Avi R. Kaufman*

kaufman@kaufmanpa.com

Case 1:22-cv-22929-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 16 of 17
17

KAUFMAN P.A.

237 South Dixie Highway, Floor 4

Coral Gables, FL 33133

Telephone: (305) 469-5881

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the putative Classes

* Lead Counsel for Plaintiff and the putative 

Classes

Case 1:22-cv-22929-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/14/2022 Page 17 of 17