 On or about November 16, 2020, Defendant made a call to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone  number ending in 7799 (the “7799 Number”) using a prerecorded voice.    When Plaintiff listened to the voicemail, he was easily able to determine that it was  a prerecorded message. See Rahn v. Bank of Am., No. 1:15-CV-4485-ODE-JSA, 2016 U.S. Dist.  LEXIS 186171, at *10-11 (N.D. Ga. June 23, 2016) (“When one receives a call, it is a clear-cut  fact, easily discernible to any lay person, whether or not the recipient is speaking to a live human  being, or is instead being subjected to a prerecorded message.”).    Defendant’s prerecorded call constitutes telemarketing because it encourages the  future purchase or investment in property, goods, and/or services.    The prerecorded call Plaintiff received originated from (417-366-9171) a telephone  number owned and/or operated by Defendant.    Plaintiff received the subject call with a prerecorded voice within this judicial  district and, therefore, Defendant’s violation of the TCPA occurred within this district. Upon  information and belief, Defendant caused other prerecorded messages to be sent to individuals  residing within this judicial district.    At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with his express consent to be  contacted with a prerecorded call.    Plaintiff is the subscriber and/or sole user of the 7799 Number.    Defendant’s unsolicited prerecorded call caused Plaintiff actual harm, including  invasion of his privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.  Defendant’s prerecorded call also inconvenienced Plaintiff.     Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of  himself and all others similarly situated.    Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of a Class defined as follows:  All persons within the United States who, within the four years prior to the  filing of this Complaint, received a prerecorded voice call on their  telephone from Defendant or anyone on Defendant’s behalf, promoting  and/or advertising Defendant’s goods and/or services    Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. Plaintiff does not  know the number of members in the Class, but believes the Class members number in the several  thousands, if not more.   The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers. If Plaintiff’s  claim that Defendant routinely transmit prerecorded messages to telephone numbers assigned to  telephone services is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical claims capable of  being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.   Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.     Defendant transmitted calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice to the telephone  numbers of Plaintiff and members of the putative class without their prior express written consent.     These calls were made without regard to whether Defendant had first obtained  express permission from the called party to make such calls. In fact, Defendant did not have prior  express written consent to call the telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative  Class when its calls were made.     Defendant has, therefore, violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and § 227(b)(1)(B) of the  TCPA by using an artificial or prerecorded voice to make non-emergency telephone calls to the  telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class without their prior express  consent.     Defendant knew that it did not have prior express written consent to make these  calls, and knew or should have known that it was using an artificial or prerecorded voice. The  violations were therefore willful or knowing.     As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA,  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled to a  minimum of $500.00 in damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to an  injunction against future calls. Id.     Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1-43 as if fully  set forth herein.    It is a violation of the TCPA regulations promulgated by the FCC to “initiate any  telephone call…using an…artificial or prerecorded voice…To any telephone number assigned to a  paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common  carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call.”  47 C.F.R. §    Defendant transmitted calls using an artificial or prerecorded voice to the telephone  numbers of Plaintiff and members of the putative class without their prior express written consent.     These calls were made without regard to whether Defendant had first obtained  express permission from the called party to make such calls. In fact, Defendant did not have prior  express written consent to call the telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of the putative  Class when its calls were made.     Defendant has, therefore, violated § 64.1200(a)(1)(iii) and § 64.1200(a)(3) by using  an artificial or prerecorded voice to make non-emergency telephone calls to the telephones of  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class without their prior express consent.     Defendant knew that it did not have prior express written consent to make these  calls, and knew or should have known that it was using an artificial or prerecorded voice. The  violations were therefore willful or knowing.     As a result of Defendant’s conduct and pursuant to § 227(b)(3) of the TCPA,  Plaintiff and the other members of the putative Class were harmed and are each entitled to a  minimum of $500.00 in damages for each violation. Plaintiff and the class are also entitled to an  injunction against future calls. Id.    200(a)(1)(iii).    PROPOSED CLASS   Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   Violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  