 On or about January 16, 2019, Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s text messages with  the word “Stop” as shown below, “Stop” was the “opt-out” preference provided by Defendant in its text  messages:    Defendant’s text messages constitute telemarketing and advertising because they  promote Defendant’s business, goods and services.    The text messages also include a hyperlink to a landing page website  (www.govideodeal.com)  which upon information and belief, is owned and/or operated by or on behalf  of Defendant.     Plaintiff received the subject text message within this judicial district and, therefore,  Defendant’s violation of the TCPA occurred within this district.      At no point in time did Plaintiff provide Defendant with her express consent to be  contacted by text messages using an ATDS.      Plaintiff is the sole user of the 1992 Number.     The number used by Defendant (480-977-0116) is known as a “long code,” a standard  10-digit code that enables Defendant to send SMS text messages en masse, while deceiving recipients  into believing that the message was personalized and sent from a telephone number operated by  an individual.    Long codes work as follows: Private companies known as SMS gateway providers have  contractual arrangements with mobile carriers to transmit two-way SMS traffic. These SMS gateway  providers send and receive SMS traffic to and from the mobile phone networks' SMS centers, which  are responsible for relaying those messages to the intended mobile phone. This allows for the  transmission of a large number of SMS messages to and from a long code.    Upon information and belief, the number (480-977-0116) that transmitted the text  messages is operated by or on behalf of Defendant.      To send the text messages, Defendant used a messaging platform (the “Platform”) that  permitted Defendant to transmit thousands of automated text messages without any human  involvement.      The Platform has the capacity to store telephone numbers, which capacity was in fact  utilized by Defendant.    The Platform has the capacity to generate sequential numbers, which capacity was in  fact utilized by Defendant.    The Platform has the capacity to dial numbers in sequential order, which capacity was  in fact utilized by Defendant.      The Platform has the capacity to dial numbers from a list of numbers, which capacity  was in fact utilized by Defendant.    The Platform has the capacity to dial numbers without human intervention, which  capacity was in fact utilized by Defendant.      The Platform has the capacity to schedule the time and date for future transmission of  text messages, which occurs without any human involvement.    Additionally, the Platform has an auto-reply function that results in the transmission of  text messages to individual’s cellular telephones automatically from the system, and with no human  intervention, in response to a keyword (e.g. “STOP”) being sent by a consumer.    Defendant then created the content of the text messages, selected the telephone numbers  to transmit the messages to, and selected a date and time for transmission.     In making these selections, Defendant was simply creating a set of instructions that were  subsequently executed automatically (i.e. with no human intervention), by the Platform.      The Platform automatically executed Defendant’s instructions as follows:  (1)  The Platform retrieved each telephone number from the list of numbers  uploaded by Defendant in the sequential order the numbers were listed by  Defendant;  (2) The Platform then generated each number in the sequential order listed by  Defendant and combined each number with the content of Defendant’s  message to create “packets” consisting of one telephone number and the  message content;  (3) Each packet was then transmitted in the sequential order listed by Defendant to  an SMS aggregator, which acts an intermediary between the Platform, mobile  carriers (e.g. AT&T), and consumers.    (4) Upon receipt of each packet, the SMS aggregator transmitted each packet –  automatically and with no human intervention – to the respective mobile carrier  for the telephone number, again in the sequential order listed by  Defendant.  Each mobile carrier then sent the message to its customer’s mobile  telephone.      Further, the Platform “throttles” the transmission of the text messages depending on  feedback it receives from the mobile carrier networks.  In other words, the platform controls how  quickly messages are transmitted depending on network congestion.  The platform performs this  throttling function automatically and does not allow a human to control the function.    The following graphic summarizes the above steps and demonstrates that the dialing of  the text messages at issue was done by the Platform automatically and without any human intervention:     Defendant’s unsolicited text message caused Plaintiff actual harm, including invasion  of her privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.  Defendant’s  text messages also inconvenienced Plaintiff and caused disruption to her daily life.    Plaintiff brings this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, on behalf of  herself and all others similarly situated.    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.   There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Class which predominate  over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class.  Among the questions of law and  fact common to the Class are:  (1) Whether Defendant made non-emergency calls to Plaintiff and Class members’  cellular telephones using an ATDS;  (2) Whether Defendant can meet their burden of showing that they obtained prior  express written consent to make such calls;  (3) Whether Defendant’s conduct was knowing and willful;  (4) Whether Defendant is liable for damages, and the amount of such damages; and  (5) Whether Defendant should be enjoined from such conduct in the future.    Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.     It is a violation of the TCPA to make “any call (other than a call made for  emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any  automatic telephone dialing system … to any telephone number assigned to a … cellular telephone  service ….” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii).     The TCPA defines an “automatic telephone dialing system” (hereinafter “ATDS”)  as “equipment which has the capacity – (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be called,  using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.”  Id. at § 227(a)(1).    Defendant – or third parties directed by Defendant – used equipment having the  capacity to store telephone numbers, using a random or sequential generator, and to dial such  numbers and/or to dial numbers from a list automatically, without human intervention, to make  non-emergency telephone calls to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and the other members of the  Class.     Defendant violated § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the TCPA by using an automatic  telephone dialing system to make non-emergency telephone calls to the cell phones of Plaintiff  and the other members of the putative Class without their prior express consent.     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.   WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Elizabeth Boriskin, on behalf of herself and the other members  of the Class, prays for the following relief:   a.  A declaration that Defendant’s practices described herein violate the Telephone  Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227;   b.  A declaration that Defendant’s violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection  Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, were willful and knowing;  c.  An injunction prohibiting Defendant from using an automatic telephone dialing  system to call and text message telephone numbers assigned to cellular telephones without the  prior express consent of the called party;   d.  An award of actual, statutory damages, and/or trebled statutory damages; and   e.  Such further and other relief the Court deems reasonable and just.  PROPOSED CLASS   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  