1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 

TREVOR HOLDEN, individually and 

on behalf of all others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION

Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

v. 

ANGI INC., 

Defendant.

________________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Trevor Holden brings this class action against Defendant Angi Inc., and alleges as 

follows upon personal knowledge as to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s own acts and experiences, and, as to all 

other matters, upon information and belief, including investigation conducted by Plaintiff’s attorneys.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a putative class action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 

47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq. (the “TCPA”). 

2. To promote its business, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging, 

including to individuals who have registered their telephone numbers on the National Do-Not-Call 

Registry. 

3. Defendant engages in telemarketing without the requisite policies and procedures 

and training required under the TCPA and its implementing regulations. 

Case 0:22-cv-61981-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 1 of 15
2 

4. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks an injunction and statutory damages on behalf 

of himself and the Class members, as defined below, and any other available legal or equitable 

remedies resulting from the unlawful actions of Defendant.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff is, and at all times relevant hereto was, a citizen and resident of Broward

County, Florida. 

6. Defendant is a Delaware corporation whose principal office is located in Colorado. 

Defendant directs, markets, and provides its business activities throughout the state of Florida. 

7. Unless otherwise indicated, the use of Defendant’s name in this Complaint includes 

all agents, employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, 

sureties, subrogees, representatives, vendors, and insurers of Defendant. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. This Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as the action arises under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 

§§ 227, et seq. (“TCPA”). 

9. Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida because this suit arises out 

of and relates to Defendant’s contacts with this state. Defendant initiated and directed 

telemarketing and/or advertising text messages into Florida. Specifically, Defendant initiated and 

directed the transmission of unsolicited advertisement or telemarketing text messages to Plaintiff’s 

cellular telephone number to sell goods, services or products in Florida. Plaintiff’s telephone 

number has an area code (305) that specifically coincides with locations in Florida, and Plaintiff 

received such messages while residing in and physically present in Florida. 

Case 0:22-cv-61981-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 2 of 15
3 

10. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) because 

Defendant is deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction, 

and because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this 

District. 

FACTS

11. On or about September 17, 2022 and September 18, 2022, Defendant sent the 

following text message calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number: 

12. As demonstrated by the above screenshots, the purpose of Defendant’s telephonic 

sales call was to solicit the sale of consumer goods and/or services.

Case 0:22-cv-61981-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 3 of 15
4

13. As demonstrated by the above screenshots, when it sent its text message 

solicitations to Plaintiff, Defendant failed to identify (1) the name of the individual caller (only 

stating Angi in some of them); (2) the name of the legal entity on whose behalf the call was being 

made; and (3) a telephone number or address at which Defendant may be contacted.

14. Plaintiff is the regular user of the telephone number that received the above calls 

from Defendant.

15. Plaintiff utilizes his cellular telephone number for personal purposes and the 

number is Plaintiff’s residential telephone line.

16. Plaintiff registered his cellular telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call 

Registry over 30 days prior to the receipt of Defendant’s first text message on April 28, 2020. 

17. Plaintiff was in Florida when he received the above text message call, and

Defendant’s violative conduct occurred in substantial part in Florida. 

18. Upon information and belief, Defendant maintains and/or has access to outbound 

transmission reports for all text messages sent advertising/promoting its services and goods. These 

reports show the dates, times, target telephone numbers, and content of each message sent to 

Plaintiff and the Class members.

19. As demonstrated by the text message screenshots above, Defendant did not provide 

Plaintiff and the Class members with instructions on how to opt-out of future text messages by, 

for example, advising them that they could text “Stop” to get the messages to stop, which is a 

standard requirement outlined in the Principles and Best Practices manual published by CTIA, the 

trade association that represents every major wireless carrier in the country. See 190719-CTIAMessaging-Principles-and-Best-Practices-FINAL.pdf at 15 (“Message Senders should state in the 

message how and what words effect an opt-out. Standardized ‘STOP’ wording should be used for 

Case 0:22-cv-61981-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 4 of 15
5 

opt-out instructions, however opt-out requests with normal language (i.e., stop, end, unsubscribe, 

cancel, quit, ‘please opt me out’) should also be read and acted upon by a Message Sender except 

where a specific word can result in unintentional opt-out. The validity of a Consumer opt-out 

should not be impacted by any de minimis variances in the Consumer opt-out response, such as 

capitalization, punctuation, or any letter-case sensitivities.”).

20. Defendant’s failure to provide opt-out instructions to Plaintiff and the Class 

members is indicative of Defendant’s failure to 1) maintain written policies and procedures 

regarding its text messaging marketing; (2) provide training to its personnel engaged in 

telemarketing; and (3) maintain a standalone do-not-call list.

21. Defendant’s failure to (1) maintain the required written policies and procedures, (2) 

provide training to its personnel engaged in telemarketing, (3) maintain a standalone do-not-call 

list, (4) provide Plaintiff and the Class members with instructions on how to opt out of Defendant’s 

text message solicitations, (5) identify the individual caller, (6) identify the legal name of the entity 

calling, and (7) identify a telephone number or address at which the caller may be contacted, caused 

Plaintiff and the Class members harm, including violation of their legally protected rights and 

interests, and because they had no idea how to stop Defendant’s unsolicited text message calls or 

who to contact to get the messages to stop.

22. Defendant’s unsolicited calls caused Plaintiff actual harm, including invasion of his 

privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion. Defendant’s 

calls also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to his life. 

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

PROPOSED CLASSES

Case 0:22-cv-61981-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 5 of 15
6 

23. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of himself individually and 

on behalf of all other similarly situated persons as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23. The Classes that Plaintiff seeks to represent are defined as:

DNC Class: All persons in the United States who from four years 

prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification 

(1) were sent more than one text message call within any 12-month 

period; (2) where the person’s telephone number that had been 

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

(3) regarding Defendant’s property, goods, and/or services; (4) who 

did not purchase or transact business with Defendant during the 

eighteen months immediately preceding the date of the first 

message; and (5) who did not contact Defendant during the three 

months immediately preceding the date of the first message with an 

inquiry about a product, good, or service offered by Defendant. 

IDNC Class: All persons within the United States who, within the 

four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date 

of class certification, (1) were sent two or more text messages 

within any 12-month period, (2) regarding Defendant’s 

property, goods, and/or services.

Seller Identification Class: All persons within the United States 

who, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint 

through the date of class certification, (1) were sent two or more 

text messages within any 12-month period, (2) regarding 

Defendant’s property, goods, and/or services, (3) that did not 

disclose the name of the individual caller, the name of the person or 

entity on whose behalf the call is being made, or a telephone 

number or address at which the person or entity may be contacted.

24. Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class.

NUMEROSITY

25. Upon information and belief, Defendant has placed calls to telephone numbers 

belonging to at least 50 persons. The members of the Class, therefore, are believed to be so 

numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

Case 0:22-cv-61981-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 6 of 15
7 

26. The exact number and identities of the Class members are unknown at this time and 

can be ascertained only through discovery. Identification of the Class members is a matter capable 

of ministerial determination from Defendant’s call records.

COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT

27. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Classes which 

predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Classes. Among the 

questions of law and fact common to the Class are: 

(a) Whether Defendant initiated telemarketing calls to telephone numbers listed on the 

National Do Not Call Registry;

(b) Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing that it had prior express written 

consent to make such calls; 

(c) Whether Defendants maintain an internal do-not-call list and instruct their 

employees on how to use the list; and 

(d) Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages.

28. The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If 

Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant routinely transmits telephonic sales calls without prior express 

written consent is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of 

being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.

TYPICALITY

29. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class members, as they are all 

based on the same factual and legal theories.

PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF THE CLASS MEMBERS

Case 0:22-cv-61981-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 7 of 15
8 

30. Plaintiff is a representative who will fully and adequately assert and protect the 

interests of the Class and has retained competent counsel. Accordingly, Plaintiff is an adequate 

representative and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.

SUPERIORITY

31. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this lawsuit because individual litigation of the claims of all members of the Class 

is economically unfeasible and procedurally impracticable. While the aggregate damages sustained 

by the Class are in the millions of dollars, the individual damages incurred by each member of the 

Class resulting from Defendant’s wrongful conduct are too small to warrant the expense of 

individual lawsuits. The likelihood of individual Class members prosecuting their own separate 

claims is remote, and, even if every member of the Class could afford individual litigation, the 

court system would be unduly burdened by individual litigation of such cases. 

32. The prosecution of separate actions by members of the Class would create a risk of 

establishing inconsistent rulings and/or incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant. For 

example, one court might enjoin Defendant from performing the challenged acts, whereas another 

may not. Additionally, individual actions may be dispositive of the interests of the Class, although 

certain class members are not parties to such actions.

COUNT I

Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 64.1200(c)

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the DNC Class)

33. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

32 as if fully set forth herein.

34. The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides in 

pertinent part that “[n]o person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential 

Case 0:22-cv-61981-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 8 of 15
9

telephone subscriber who has registered his 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.”

35. Per 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e), § 64.1200(c) is “applicable to any person or entity 

making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone numbers.” 

36. 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 

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

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

37. Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) by initiating telephone solicitations to 

telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the DNC 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. 

38. Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff and DNC Class 

members received more than one text message in a 12-month period from Defendant in violation 

of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.

39. As a result of Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff and the DNC Class 

members suffered actual damages and, under section 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), are entitled receive up to 

$500 in damages for such violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200. 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 DNC Class.

Case 0:22-cv-61981-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 9 of 15
10

COUNT II

Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the IDNC Class)

40. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

32 as if fully set forth herein.

41. In pertinent part, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) provides: 

No person or entity shall initiate any call for telemarketing purposes 

to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or entity has 

instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request 

not to receive telemarketing calls made by or on behalf of that 

person or entity. The procedures instituted must meet the following 

minimum standards: 

(1) Written policy. Persons or entities making calls for telemarketing 

purposes must have a written policy, available upon demand, for 

maintaining a do-not-call list.

(2) Training of personnel engaged in telemarketing. Personnel 

engaged in any aspect of telemarketing must be informed and 

trained in the existence and use of the do-not-call list.

(3) Recording, disclosure of do-not-call requests. If a person or entity 

making a call for telemarketing purposes (or on whose behalf such a call 

is made) receives a request from a residential telephone subscriber not 

to receive calls from that person or entity, the person or entity must 

record the request and place the subscriber's name, if provided, and 

telephone number on the do-not-call list at the time the request is made. 

Persons or entities making calls for telemarketing purposes (or on 

whose behalf such calls are made) must honor a residential subscriber's 

do-not-call request within a reasonable time from the date such request 

is made. This period may not exceed thirty days from the date of such 

request. If such requests are recorded or maintained by a party other than 

the person or entity on whose behalf the telemarketing call is made, the 

person or entity on whose behalf the telemarketing call is made will be 

liable for any failures to honor the do-not-call request. A person or entity 

making a call for telemarketing purposes must obtain a consumer's prior 

express permission to share or forward the consumer's request not to be 

called to a party other than the person or entity on whose behalf a 

telemarketing call is made or an affiliated entity.

Case 0:22-cv-61981-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 10 of 15
11

42. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R § 64.1200(e), the rules set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) are 

applicable to any person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless 

telephone numbers. 

43. Defendant violated the requirements of section 64.1200(d) by failing to (1) 

maintain the required written policies; (2) provide training to its personnel engaged in 

telemarketing; and (3) maintain a standalone do-not-call list. 

44. Pursuant to section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA, Plaintiff and the IDNC Class members 

are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each text message sent by Defendant.

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 IDNC Class.

45. Plaintiff requests for this Court to enter an Order granting the relief outlined in the 

Prayer for Relief below.

COUNT III

Injunctive Relief Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) 

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the DNC Class)

46. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

32 as if fully set forth herein.

47. Pursuant to section 227(c)(5)(A), Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting

Defendant’s unlawful conduct in the future to protect Plaintiff and the DNC Class members from 

Defendant’s unsolicited calls and practices.

48. Defendant’s ongoing and continuing violations have caused, and in the absence of 

an injunction will continue to cause, harm to Plaintiff and the DNC Class members.

Case 0:22-cv-61981-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 11 of 15
12

49. Plaintiff and the DNC Class members will suffer irreparable harm if Defendants 

are permitted to continue their practice of violating 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c). 

50. The injuries that the Plaintiff and the DNC Class members will suffer if Defendant 

is not prohibited from continuing to engage in the unlawful practices described herein far outweigh 

the harm that Defendant will suffer if it is enjoined from continuing this conduct. 

51. The public interest will be served by an injunction prohibiting Defendant from 

continuing to engage in the unlawful practices described herein.

52. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the DNC Class members seek an injunction requiring 

Defendant to regularly scrub its database of telephone numbers against the National Do-Not-Call 

Registry before sending any text message solicitations. Plaintiff requests for this Court to enter an 

Order granting the relief outlined in the Prayer for Relief below.

COUNT IV 

Injunctive Relief Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) 

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the IDNC Class)

53. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

32 as if fully set forth herein.

54. Pursuant to section 227(c)(5)(A), Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief prohibiting

Defendant’s unlawful conduct in the future to protect Plaintiff and the IDNC Class members from 

Defendant’s unsolicited calls and practices.

55. Defendant’s ongoing and continuing violations have caused, and in the absence of 

an injunction will continue to cause, harm to Plaintiff and the IDNC Class members.

56. Plaintiff and the IDNC Class members suffer irreparable harm if Defendant is 

permitted to continue its practice of violating 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d). 

Case 0:22-cv-61981-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 12 of 15
13

57. The injuries that the Plaintiff and the IDNC Class members will suffer if Defendant 

is not prohibited from continuing to engage in the unlawful practices described herein far outweigh 

the harm that Defendant will suffer if it is enjoined from continuing this conduct. 

58. The public interest will be served by an injunction prohibiting Defendant from 

continuing to engage in the unlawful practices described herein.

59. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the IDNC Class members seek an injunction requiring 

Defendant to (1) implement policies and procedures as required under the TCPA and its 

implementing regulations; (2) honor consumer opt-out requests; (3) to implement a standalone 

internal do-not-call list; and (4) train its personnel on use of the list and abide by the list.

60. Plaintiff requests for this Court to enter an Order granting the relief outlined in the 

Prayer for Relief below. 

COUNT V

Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Seller Identification Class)

61. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

32 as if fully set forth herein.

62. In pertinent part, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) provides: 

(4) Identification of sellers and telemarketers. A person or entity 

making a call for telemarketing purposes must provide the called party 

with the name of the individual caller, the name of the person or entity 

on whose behalf the call is being made, and a telephone number or 

address at which the person or entity may be contacted. The telephone 

number provided may not be a 900 number or any other number for 

which charges exceed local or long distance transmission charges.

63. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R § 64.1200(e), the rules set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) are 

applicable to any person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless 

telephone numbers. 

Case 0:22-cv-61981-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 13 of 15
14

64. Defendant violated the requirements of section 64.1200(d)(4) by failing to identify 

(1) the name of the individual caller; (2) the name of the legal entity on whose behalf the call was 

being made; and (3) a telephone number or address at which Defendant may be contacted. 

65. Pursuant to section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA, Plaintiff and the IDNC Class members 

are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory damages, for each text message sent by Defendant.

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 IDNC Class.

66. Plaintiff requests for this Court to enter an Order granting the relief outlined in the 

Prayer for Relief below.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, prays for the following 

relief:

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

and appointing Plaintiff as the representative of the Classes and Plaintiff’s counsel as 

Class Counsel;

b) An award of statutory damages for Plaintiff and each member of the Classes as 

applicable under the TCPA;

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

d) An injunction requiring Defendant to cease all telephonic sales calls made without 

express written consent, and to otherwise protect the interests of the Class;

Case 0:22-cv-61981-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 14 of 15
15

e) An injunction requiring Defendant to comply with 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) by (1) 

maintaining the required written policies; (2) providing training to their personnel 

engaged in telemarketing; and (3) maintaining a do-not-call list

f) Such further and other relief as the Court deems necessary.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, hereby demand a trial by jury.

DOCUMENT PRESERVATION DEMAND

Plaintiff demands that Defendant take affirmative steps to preserve all records, lists, electronic 

databases or other itemization of telephone numbers associated with the communications or transmittal 

of the calls as alleged herein.

DATED: October 25, 2022

Respectfully Submitted,

HIRALDO P.A.

/s/ Manuel S. Hiraldo 

Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 030380

401 E. Las Olas Boulevard

Suite 1400

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

Telephone: 954.400.4713

EISENBAND LAW, P.A.

By /s/Michael Eisenband

Michael Eisenband

Florida Bar No. 094235

515 East Las Olas Boulevard Suite 120

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 

meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 0:22-cv-61981-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/25/2022 Page 15 of 15