 However, Defendant does not solicit individuals and businesses for their  permission to list their information in its online directories. Instead, Defendant collects contact  information from several data aggregation and collection companies, such as Acxiom and  Infogroup.    As such, Defendant publishes the information without the listed individuals or  companies verifying the accuracy of the information.      Nevertheless, once Defendant has collected and published the acquired  information, it places marketing calls to the phone numbers listed. Defendant makes these calls  in an attempt to sell to the recipient upgraded, paid-for directory offers (e.g., enhanced or  prioritized business listings).     These marketing calls primarily come from 913 area codes, which covers the  Overland Park, Kansas area, which is home to Defendant’s $20 million call center.1 The phone  numbers used by Defendant include, but are not limited to, (913) 725-7588, (913) 725-7773,  (913) 725-7738, (913) 725-7971, and (913) 725-7784.    Recipients of these marketing phone calls, like Plaintiff and the putative Class,  did not request or desire to be called by Defendant, and did not provide any form of consent to  receive such calls.    Plaintiff registered his landline telephone number with the National Do Not Call  Registry on January 20, 2011 for the express purpose of preventing unwanted telemarketing  calls.       As Plaintiff did not recognize the numbers the calls were coming from, he did not  answer them. However, on at least one occasion, Defendant’s telemarketer left a message on  Plaintiff’s voicemail. The message indicated that it was Defendant Dex Media calling and that  the telemarketer wanted to speak with Plaintiff about opportunities related to his “listings.”         Plaintiff had no knowledge of any of the listings mentioned by the telemarketer,  and he had not created any listing on SuperPages or DexPages.      Upon investigation, Plaintiff viewed that Defendant had published his full name  and residential landline number (as well as his city and state) on its business directory websites  under the category “Psychologists.”       Plaintiff is not, and never has been, a psychologist. Plaintiff’s wife, on the other  hand, is a licensed psychologist but does not currently practice and has not for several years.  Nevertheless, neither Plaintiff nor his wife has ever used their residential landline telephone  number for any purpose related to a psychologist practice. Likewise, neither Plaintiff nor his wife  ever requested or desired that anything related to any psychologist practice be placed on  Defendant’s business websites.      Defendant is and was aware that the unsolicited phone calls at issue were (and are  continuing to be) made, and that the calls were being made to consumers and entities that had not  consented to receive them.     Plaintiff Stephen Dierks brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil  Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals  and entities defined as follows (the “Class”):  All individuals in the United States (1) who had his or her telephone number(s) registered  with the National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; (2) to whom Defendant  Dex Media, Inc. initiated more than one telephone call promoting Defendant’s products  or services; (3) within a 12-month period; and (4) for whom Defendant has no current  record of consent to place such calls to him or her.  The following persons are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over  this action and members of their families, (2) Defendant, Defendant’s subsidiaries, parents,  successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or its parents have a controlling  interest and their current or former employees, officers and directors, (3) persons who properly  execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the Class, (4) persons who have had their  claims in this matter finally adjudicated and/or otherwise released, (5) the legal representatives,  successors, or assigns of any such excluded persons, and (6) Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s  counsel.     Commonality and Predominance: There are many questions of law and fact  common to the claims of Plaintiff and the Class, and those questions predominate over any  questions that may affect individual members of the Class. Common and predominant questions  for the Class include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:  (a)  Whether Defendant’s conduct constitutes a violation of the TCPA;   (b)  Whether Defendant and/or its agents systematically made telephone calls  to members of the Class who Defendant and/or its agents did not have a  current record of consent to make such telephone calls;  (c)  Whether Defendant and/or its agents systematically made telephone calls  to members of the Class whose telephone numbers were registered with  the National Do Not Call Registry; and  (d)   Whether members of the Class are entitled to treble damages based on the  willfulness of Defendant’s conduct.    Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the  Class in that Plaintiff and the members of the Class sustained damages arising out of Defendant’s  uniform wrongful conduct and making of unsolicited telephone calls.    Policies Generally Applicable to the Class: This class action is appropriate for  certification because Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the  Class as a whole, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible  standards of conduct toward the members of the Class, and making final injunctive relief  appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole. Defendant’s policies challenged herein apply  and affect members of the Class uniformly and Plaintiff’s challenge of these policies hinges on  Defendant’s conduct with respect to the Class as a whole, not on facts or law applicable only to  Plaintiff. Defendant has acted and failed to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff and  the other members of the Class, requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure  compatible standards of conduct toward members of the Class. The factual and legal bases of  Defendant’s liability to Plaintiff and to the other members of the Class are the same, resulting in  injury to the Plaintiff and to all of the other members of the Class. Plaintiff and the members of  the Class have suffered harm and damages as a result of Defendant’s unlawful and wrongful  conduct.    Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.    47 U.S.C. §227(c) provides that 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” 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.    The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that “No  person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential 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.”    Defendant violated § 64.1200 (c) by initiating, or causing to be initiated,  telephone solicitations to wireless and residential telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the  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. These individuals requested to not receive calls from  Defendant or its agents, as set forth in § 64.1200 (d)(3).     Defendant and/or its agents made more than one unsolicited telephone call to  Plaintiff and members of the Class within a 12-month period without their prior express consent  to receive such calls. Plaintiff and members of the Class never provided any form of consent to  receive telephone calls from Defendant (or its agents) and/or Defendant (and/or its agents) does  not have a current record of consent to place telemarketing calls to them.     Defendant violated § 64.1200 (d) by initiating calls for telemarketing purposes to  residential and wireless telephone subscribers, such as Plaintiff and the Class, without instituting  procedures that comply with the regulatory minimum standards for maintaining a list of persons  who request not to receive telemarketing calls from them.    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 Class.  200.   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  