1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

MICHAEL DREW, on behalf of himself and )

all others similarly situated, )

) Case No. 20-cv-00402

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

AMERICAN DIRECTIONS RESEARCH )

GROUP, )

) Jury Demanded

Defendant. )

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Michael Drew, on behalf of himself and a putative class, brings this action under

the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. (“TCPA”), and alleges:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 with respect to Plaintiff’s TCPA claims. Mims v. Arrow Financial 

Services, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 740 (2012).

2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant and venue is appropriate in 

this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) because Defendant do business in this District, sent the 

text messages that are the subject of this lawsuit to Plaintiff and others in this District, and 

because a substantial portion of the events giving rise to this cause of action occurred in this 

District.

Case: 1:20-cv-00402 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/20 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1
2

STANDING

3. Defendant sent text messages to Plaintiff’s cell phone using an automated dialer 

without his consent.

4. Plaintiff has a congressionally defined right to be free of automated texts to his 

cell phone for which he has not given his express consent.

5. Plaintiff has thus suffered an injury as a result of Defendant’s invasion of his 

privacy, giving rise to standing before this Court. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1544 

(2016), quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 580 (1992) (Congress has the 

power to define injuries and articulate chains of causation that will give rise to a case or 

controversy where none existed before.); Bellwood v. Dwivedi, 895 F. 2d 1521, 1526-27 (7th Cir. 

1990) (“Congress can create new substantive rights, such as a right to be free from 

misrepresentations, and if that right is invaded the holder of the right can sue without running 

afoul of Article III, even if he incurs no other injury[.]”).

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Michael Drew is a natural person who resides in this District.

7. Defendant, American Directions Research Group (“ADRG”) is a Washington, 

D.C. corporation that does or transacts business in Illinois. Its business address is 1350 

Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1102, Washington, D.C., 20036.

FACTS

8. Plaintiff received at least one text message to his cell phone from the Defendant. 

The message came from a telephone number ending with 5774.

9. On January 10, 2020, ADRG sent a text message to Plaintiff without his consent. 

The message included a website associated with ADRG.

Case: 1:20-cv-00402 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/20 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:1
3

10. Defendant’s business model is to knowingly use an autodialer to send text 

messages without consent to people’s cell phones.

11. On information and belief, Defendant obtain consumer’s cellular phone numbers 

by purchasing lists of telephone numbers collected by other companies.

12. As a result, many of these numbers receive text messages without express consent 

of the consumer, who did not provide the number to Defendant in the first place.

13. Upon information and belief, Defendant keep records and data from which it can 

determine which autodialed text messages it made without consent but has elected not to engage 

such to prevent TCPA violations for business reasons.

14. Defendant knew about the TCPA before sending the text messages to Plaintiff and 

the class but sent these autodialed texts to cellular phones in spite of such knowledge. 

15. Based on the impersonal, unsolicited nature of the texts and their origin from an 

unknown number Defendant used an autodialer to send the text messages. On information and 

belief, the autodialer is a combination of hardware and software that can send text messages to 

large lists of phone numbers in a sequential or random order. The autodialer also has the ability 

to generate random or sequential numbers and call or text those numbers.

16. The text messages were annoying to Plaintiff, invaded Plaintiff’s privacy 

interests, and temporarily blocked use of his cellular telephone line for other potential callers.

17. The text messages were intentionally, willfully and knowingly initiated. 

18. The text messages were not initiated by accident or mistake.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

Case: 1:20-cv-00402 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/20 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:1
4

19. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a class consisting of:

All persons in the United States whose cellular telephone number, on or 

after four years prior to the filing of this action, ADRG sent text messages 

to without their prior express consent using an autodialer.

20. Upon information and belief, in the four years prior to the filing of this action, 

there were more than 100 persons whose cell phone number Defendant sent a text message to 

without permission using the same equipment used to call Plaintiff.

21. Common questions of law or fact exist as to all members of each class, which 

predominate over any questions solely affecting any individual member, including Plaintiff. 

Such questions common to the class include but are not limited to:

a. Whether the text messages to Plaintiff and the class were made using an 

“automatic telephone dialing system” as such term is defined or understood under 

the TCPA and applicable FCC regulations and orders;

b. Whether Defendant had prior express consent to text the cell phone numbers of 

Plaintiff and the other members of the class; and

c. Damages, including whether any violations were performed willfully or 

knowingly such that Plaintiff and the other members of the class are entitled to 

treble damages under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

22. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the classes. 

The factual and legal bases of Defendant’s liability to Plaintiff and the other members of the 

classes are the same: Defendant violated the TCPA by causing text messages to be made to the 

cellular telephone number of each member of the class, without permission and using an 

autodialer.

Case: 1:20-cv-00402 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/20 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:1
5

23. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the classes. Plaintiff has 

no interests that might conflict with the interests of the classes. Plaintiff is interested in pursuing

his claims vigorously, and he has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and 

complex litigation.

24. Class action treatment is superior to the alternatives for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of the controversy alleged herein. Such treatment will permit a large number of 

similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, 

efficiently, and without the duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions

would entail. There are, on information and belief, thousands of class members, such that joinder 

of all members is impracticable.

25. No difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this action that 

would preclude its maintenance as a class action, and no superior alternative exists for the fair 

and efficient adjudication of this controversy.

26. Defendant have acted and failed to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the class, thereby making relief appropriate with respect to the class as 

a whole. Prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class, should they even 

realize that their rights have been violated, would likely create the risk of inconsistent or varying 

adjudications with respect to individual members of the class that would establish incompatible 

standards of conduct.

27. The identity of the class is, on information and belief, readily identifiable from 

Defendant’s records.

COUNT I – TCPA – AUTOMATED TELEPHONE DIALING SYSTEM – ADRG

28. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-36 above.

Case: 1:20-cv-00402 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/20 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:1
6

29. Defendant ADRG contacted Plaintiff using an automated telephone dialing 

system, in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Michael Drew, individually and on behalf of the class, 

respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment against Defendant for:

A. Certification of the class as alleged herein;

B. A declaration that ADRG violated the TCPA as to Plaintiff and the class;

C. Injunctive relief aimed at ensuring the prevention of ADRG from violating 

the TCPA in the future, including:

1. Requiring ADRG to hire a Court-approved, independent auditing 

company to (a) investigate all allegations of TCPA violations, and 

(b) audit no less than 10% of ADRG outbound calls to ensure that 

ADRG had consent and that the consumer had not previously 

asked that calls stop, and (c) report the results of the above 

investigations to the Court and Plaintiff’s counsel on a quarterly 

basis.

D. Damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), for each and every 

nonconsensual call to each and every class member;

E. Treble damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), as to each

violation;

F. Attorneys’ fees and costs, as permitted by law; and

G. Such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff requests a trial by jury of all claims that can be so tried.

Case: 1:20-cv-00402 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/20 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:1
7

Respectfully submitted, 

By: s/Michael Wood 

One of Plaintiff’s Attorneys

Michael Wood

Celetha Chatman

Community Lawyers Group, Ltd. 

20 N. Clark Street, Suite 3100

Chicago, IL 60602

Ph: (312) 757-1880

Fx: (312) 265-3227

cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com

Case: 1:20-cv-00402 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/17/20 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:1