Between November 2, 2017 and April 1, 2018, Peterson’s sent at least 5 texts to  Plaintiff’s cellular phone number, from short code 599-25, without Plaintiff’s consent:   Peterson’s unsolicited texts were a nuisance that aggravated Plaintiff, wasted his time,  invaded his privacy, diminished the value of the cellular services he paid for, caused him to  temporarily lose the use and enjoyment of his phone, and caused wear and tear to his phone’s data,  memory, software, hardware, and battery components.    In sending the unsolicited text messages at issue, Peterson’s, or a third party acting on  its behalf, utilized an automatic telephone dialing system; hardware and/or software with the  capacity to store or produce cellular telephone number to be called, using a random or sequential  number generator.  This is evident from the circumstances surrounding the text messages,  including the ability to trigger an automated response by replying “Y,” the text messages’  commercial and generic content, that substantively identical texts were sent to multiple recipients,  and that they were sent from a short code, which is consistent with the use of an automatic  telephone dialing system to send text messages.    Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure  23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and seeks  certification of the following Class:  All persons who, on or after four years prior to the filing of the initial complaint in  this action, (1) were sent a text message to their cellular telephone number by or on  behalf of Peterson’s, (2) using an automatic telephone dialing system, (3) for the  purpose of soliciting their purchase of Peterson’s products, and (4) from whom  Peterson’s (a) does not allege to have consent, or (b) alleges to have obtained  consent in the same manner it alleges to have obtained consent from Plaintiff.    Numerosity: The exact size of the Class is unknown and unavailable to Plaintiff at this  time, but it is clear that individual joinder is impracticable. On information and belief, Defendant  sent unsolicited text messages to thousands of individuals who fall into the Class definition. Class  membership can be easily determined from Defendant’s records.     Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the  Class. Plaintiff is a member of the Class, and if Defendant violated the TCPA with respect to  Plaintiff, then it violated the TCPA with respect to the other members of the Class. Plaintiff and  the Class sustained the same damages as a result of Defendant’s uniform wrongful conduct.     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 questions for the Class include, but are not  necessarily limited to the following:   a)  How Defendant gathered, compiled, or obtained the cellular telephone  numbers of Plaintiff and the Class;  b)  Whether the text messages were sent using an automatic telephone dialing  system;  c)  Whether Defendant’s text messages were sent for the purpose of  marketing Defendant’s products;  d)  Whether Defendant sent some or all of the text messages without the  consent of Plaintiff and the Class; and   e)  Whether Defendant’s conduct was willful and knowing such that Plaintiff  and the Class are entitled to treble damages.    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 practices challenged herein apply to  and affect the members of the Class uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinges  on Defendant’s conduct with respect to the Class as a whole, not on facts or law applicable only  to Plaintiff.     Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 22 of this  complaint and incorporates them by reference.    Defendant and/or its agents agent transmitted text messages to cellular telephone  numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class using an automatic telephone  dialing system.    These solicitation text messages were sent without the consent of Plaintiff and the other  members of the Class.    Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), and as a result, under  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B), Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to a minimum of $500.00 in damages  for each violation.     In the event that the Court determines that Defendant’s conduct was wilful and  knowing, it may, under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by Plaintiff and the Class.  Peterson’s is one of the oldest Harley Davidson dealers in the country.      As part of its marketing plan, Peterson’s sends consumers text messages promoting  Peterson’s Harley Davidson motorcycles, apparel, and other merchandise.   Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)  