 a statement that the recipient is legally entitled to opt-out of receiving  future faxed advertisements – knowing that he or she has the legal right to request  an opt-out gives impetus for recipients to make such a request, if desired;    On or about August 13, 2014, Defendants transmitted by telephone facsimile  machine an unsolicited fax to Plaintiff.  A copy of the facsimile is attached hereto as Exhibit A.    Plaintiff had not invited or given permission to Defendants to send the fax.      On information and belief, Defendants faxed the same and other unsolicited  facsimiles without the required opt-out language to Plaintiff and more than 40 other recipients  without first receiving the recipients’ express permission or invitation.      There is no reasonable means for Plaintiff (or any other class member) to avoid  receiving unauthorized faxes.  Fax machines are left on and ready to receive the urgent  communications their owners desire to receive.     Defendants’ facsimiles did not display a proper opt-out notice as required by 47  C.F.R.  § 64.1200 because it does not contain: a) a toll free fax number to opt out, b) a statement  explaining that a recipient is legally entitled to opt out, c) a statement that the sender must honor  the request within 30 days and that failure to do so is unlawful, d) a statement advising recipient  how he or she may opt out all his or her fax numbers, and e) the notice is not clear and  conspicuous.    a statement that the sender must honor a recipient’s opt-out request within  30 days and the sender’s failure to do so is unlawful – thereby encouraging  recipients to opt-out, if they did not want future faxes, by advising them that their  opt-out requests will have legal “teeth”;    Class Size (F. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)):  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon  such information and belief avers, that the number of persons and entities of the Plaintiff Class is  numerous and joinder of all members is impracticable.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and  upon such information and belief avers, that the number of class members is over forty.    Typicality (F. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (3)):   The Plaintiff's claims are typical of the  claims of all class members. The Plaintiff received the same faxes as the faxes sent by or on  behalf of the Defendants advertising goods and services of the Defendants during the Class  Period. The Plaintiff is making the same claims and seeking the same relief for itself and all class  members based upon the same federal statute. The Defendants have acted the same or in a  similar manner with respect to the Plaintiff and all the class members by sending Plaintiff and  each member of the class the same faxes.      Fair and Adequate Representation (F. R. Civ. P. 23 (a) (4)):   The Plaintiff will  fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class. It is interested in this matter,  has no conflicts and has retained experienced class counsel to represent the class.    Common Conduct (F. R. Civ. P. 23 (b) (2)):   Class certification is also  appropriate because the Defendants have acted and refused to act in the same or similar manner  with respect to all class members thereby making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate.  The Plaintiff demands such relief as authorized by 47 U.S.C. §227.    The JFPA makes unlawful for any person to "use any telephone facsimile  machine, computer or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited  advertisement …" 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C).    The JFPA defines "unsolicited advertisement" as "any material advertising the  commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any  person without that person's prior express invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise." 47  U.S.C. § 227 (a) (5).    The Fax.  Defendants sent the on or about August 13, 2014, advertisement via  facsimile transmission from telephone facsimile machines, computers, or other devices to the  telephone lines and facsimile machines of Plaintiff and members of the Plaintiff Class.  The Fax  constituted an advertisement under the Act.  Defendants failed to comply with the Opt-Out  Requirements in connection with the Fax as previously set forth herein.  The Fax was transmitted  to persons or entities without their prior express permission or invitation and/or Defendants are  precluded from asserting any prior express permission or invitation because of the failure to  comply with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements.  By virtue thereof, Defendants violated the JFPA  and the regulations promulgated thereunder by sending the Fax via facsimile transmission to  Plaintiff and members of the Class.    The TCPA/JFPA provides a private right of action to bring this action on behalf  of Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class to redress Defendants’ violations of the Act, and provides for  statutory damages.  47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). The Act also provides that injunctive relief is  appropriate.  Id.    The JFPA is a strict liability statute, so the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff  and the other class members even if their actions were only negligent.    The Defendants knew or should have known that (a) the Plaintiff and the other  class members had not given express invitation or permission for the Defendants or anybody else  to fax advertisements about the Defendants’ goods or services; (b) the Plaintiff and the other  class members did not have an established business relationship; (c) Defendants transmitted an  advertisement; (d) the Faxes did not contain the required Opt-Out Notice; and (e) Defendants’  transmission of advertisements that did not contain the required Opt-Out Notice was unlawful.  