 Published reports indicate that Defendant is working to have four business  locations in Washington within a short period of time, and that Defendant will open at least four  to six new business locations every few years.       90.060.  This violation, per statute, is a per se violation of Washington’s Consumer  Protection Act, RCW 19.86.010, et seq.      Representative Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and as a  representative of the following class of persons (the “National Class”) entitled to remedies under  federal law including, but not limited to, injunctive relief and damages:  All persons in the United States of America and its territories who  were sent, to their cellular telephone numbers, at least one  unsolicited text message by Defendant, or someone acting on  behalf of Defendant.    Representative Plaintiff also brings this class action on behalf of herself and as a  representative of the following persons (the “Washington Subclass”) who are entitled to  remedies under Washington State law including, but not limited to, damages:   All persons in Washington State who were sent, to their cellular  telephone numbers, at least one unsolicited text message by  Defendant, or someone acting on behalf of Defendant.    Plaintiffs’ class claims satisfy all of the requirements for class action certification  pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), and  23(b)(3).    Satisfying all requisite numerosity requirements, numerous consumers in  Washington State and numerous consumers throughout the United States are believed to be  members of this class. Joinder of so many class members in to a single action is impracticable. In  fact, given the number of class members, the only way to deliver substantial justice to all  members of the class is by means of a single class action.      Plaintiffs reassert and re-allege the allegations set forth in the above paragraphs as  if the same were alleged herein this count.     At all times material herein, Plaintiffs have been entitled to the rights, protections,  and benefits provided under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227.    Negligently, recklessly, willfully, and/or intentionally, Defendant directly and/or  vicariously engaged in acts, omissions, and/or other conduct as referenced herein this complaint  that violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant directly and/or vicariously  created, designed, deployed, and otherwise used an ATDS which initiated numerous telephone  calls to Plaintiffs’ cellular telephone numbers. These telephone calls transmitted unsolicited  commercial text messages to the cellular telephones of Representative Plaintiff and the other  Plaintiffs as referenced in this complaint.    Plaintiffs are entitled to recover $500 in damages from the Defendant for each  violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.    Additionally, Plaintiffs are entitled to all damages referenced herein and in accord  with proof, attorneys’ fees, costs, treble damages, and other remedies allowed by the Telephone  Consumer Protection Act or else otherwise permitted by law.     Plaintiffs reassert and re-allege the allegations set forth in the above paragraphs.    At all times material herein, Plaintiffs have been entitled to the rights, protections,  and benefits provided under the Washington Consumer Protection Act and related Washington  statutes.    Defendant’s practice of transmitting and/or assisting in the transmission of  electronic commercial text messages to Plaintiffs’ cellular phones is a violation of RCW    Defendant’s practice of transmitting and/or assisting in the transmission of  electronic commercial text messages to Plaintiffs’ cellular phones is conduct that vitally affects  the public interest and is an unfair or deceptive act in trade or commerce and an unfair method of  competition for the purpose of applying the Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.010, et seq.      Defendant conducted these practices in the scope of its trade and in furtherance of  the development and preservation of such business services.    Defendant’s violations of the Consumer Protection Act are intentional, willful,  and subject to treble damages under RCW 19.86.010, et seq.    Plaintiffs have suffered injuries to their persons and property as a direct result of  Defendant’s numerous violations of RCW 19.86.010, et seq.     Defendant’s practices are emblematic of organizational policies and agreements  which have caused and, if unabated, will continue to cause incidents, occurrences, and conduct  which violate RCW 19.86.010, et seq., and RCW 19.190.010, et seq.    Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages for each of the violations of RCW    Defendant and others acting on its behalf operate and market a profit-making  enterprise known as “Universal Men’s Clinic.”  Defendant advertises the business as a clinic  specializing in medication for erectile dysfunction and low testosterone.       Defendant previously conducted business as Hawaii Male Medical Clinic, from  multiple locations in Hawaii.  In early 2013, Defendant changed the business name in connection  with an aggressive growth business strategy.  Defendant re-branded the business “Universal  Men’s Clinic” and began working to generate revenue on the mainland United States.     Violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act  (Representative Plaintiff and the Washington Subclass vs. Defendant)   Violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Representative Plaintiff and the National Class vs. Defendant)  