 The 2015 FCC Order also clarified that telephone calls and text messages have  the same protections under FCC rules, and that text messages are “calls” for purposes of the   Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) &  (b)(3) on behalf of herself, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a member of the  “Class,” defined as follows:  All persons in the United States of America to whom Defendant has  placed any automated phone calls or sent any automated commercial text  message for whom Defendant has no record of prior express consent  and/or for whom Defendant has no record of providing the required  disclosures between October 16, 2013 and the date of class certification of  this action.    Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendant, its assigns, successors, and legal  representatives; (ii) any entities in which Defendant has controlling interests; (iii) federal, state,  and/or local governments, including, but not limited to, their departments, agencies, divisions,  bureaus, boards, sections, groups, counsels, and/or subdivisions; (iv) all persons presently in  bankruptcy proceedings or who obtained a bankruptcy discharge in the last three years; and  (v) any judicial officer presiding over this matter and person within the third degree of  consanguinity to such judicial officer.    Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or otherwise alter the class definition  presented to the Court at the appropriate time, or to propose or eliminate sub-classes, in response  to facts learned through discovery, legal arguments advanced by Defendant, or otherwise.    Numerosity: Members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members  is impracticable. While the exact number of Class members is presently unknown, and can only  be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believes that Class members number in  the thousands of persons, if not more.    This action is properly maintainable as a class action for the reasons set forth  herein.    Adequacy: Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class she seeks to  represent because her interests do not conflict with the interests of the absent Class Members.  Plaintiff has retained highly competent counsel experienced in complex class action litigation,  and Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action vigorously. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel have the  necessary financial resources to adequately and vigorously litigate this class action, and the  interests of members of the Class will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiff and her  counsel.    Superiority and Substantial Benefit: The class action is superior to other  available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of Plaintiff’s and the Class members’  claims. The damages suffered by each individual Class are limited and prescribed by law.  Damages of such magnitude are small given the burden and expense of individual prosecution of  the complex and extensive litigation necessitated by Defendant’s conduct. Further, it would be  virtually impossible for the Class members to redress the wrongs done to them on an individual  basis. Even if members of the Class themselves could afford such individual litigation, the court  system could not. Individualized litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties and the  court system, due to the complex legal and factual issues of the case. By contrast, the class- action device presents far fewer management difficulties, and provides the benefit of single  adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.    Certification of Plaintiff’s claims for class-wide treatment is also appropriate  because Plaintiff can prove the elements of her claims on a class-wide basis using the same  evidence as would be used to prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same  claims.    Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s counsel are unaware of any difficulties that are likely to be  encountered in the management of this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class  action.   Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the  preceding paragraphs of this complaint, as though fully set forth herein.    Defendant sent commercial text messages (“calls” in FCC parlance) to the mobile  cellular telephones of Plaintiff and the Class.    On information and belief, Defendant used an ATDS to place commercial phone  calls and send commercial text messages to the mobile cellular telephones of Plaintiff and the  Class.    Defendant did not obtain express written consent prior to placing commercial  phone calls or sending commercial text messages to Plaintiff or the Class.    Defendant did not provide to Plaintiff or the Class the disclosures required by the  FCC concerning the use of an ATDS.    Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to, and seek, awards of $1,500.00 in statutory  damages for each and every violation because Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s conduct was and is  willful, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C).    Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to, and seek, injunctive relief prohibiting such  conduct in the future.    Plaintiff and the Class are also entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and  costs.   The purpose of the TCPA is to protect consumers from unwanted calls and text  messages, such as those that Defendant placed and sent to Plaintiff.    Under the FCC’s July 10, 2015 Order (the “2015 FCC Order”), Rules and  Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991; American  Association of Healthcare Administrative Management, Petition for Expedited Declaratory  Ruling and Exemption; et al, Federal Communications Commission, 30 FCC Rcd. 7961 (July 10,  2015), companies wishing to place certain call or text messages must obtain prior express written  consent.   Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 227, et seq.  On behalf of Plaintiff and the Putative Class   The TCPA  