 Plaintiff received the subject text messages within this judicial district and,  therefore, Defendant’s violation of the TCPA occurred within this district.    The purpose of Defendant’s text message was to promote and advertise its  restaurant.  12 .  Upon information and belief, Defendant caused similar text messages to be sent to  individuals residing within this judicial district.     Plaintiff never voluntarily disclosed his telephone number to Defendant.     Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number has consistently been registered on the  National Do Not Call Registry since 2 007.    Plaintiff solely uses his cellular telephone for personal purposes.     To send the text messages, Defendant used a text messaging platform (the  “Platform”) that permitted Defendant to transmit bulk SMS text messages.  Systems like the  Platform utilized by Defendant have the capacity to transmit thousands of messages per second  and are technologically more sophisticated in their availability to transmit messages than a  traditional smartphone.  Moreover, Defendant utilized a “short-code” to transmit the messages,  which cannot be done using a regular smartphone.      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 initiated telemarketing  calls to telephone numbers; [2 ] Whether Defendant can meet its burden of showing that it had  express 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.  32 .  The common questions in this case are capable of having common answers.  If  Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant routinely transmits text messages to telephone numbers assigned  to cellular telephone services is accurate, Plaintiff and the Class members will have identical  claims capable of being efficiently adjudicated and administered in this case.   Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth  herein.    Defendant violated 4 7 U.S.C. § 2 2 7(c)(5) because Plaintiff and the Do Not Call  Registry Class received more than one telephone call in a 12 -month period made by or on behalf  of Defendant in violation of 4 7 C.F.R. § 64 .12 00, as described above. As a result of Defendant’s  conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class suffered actual damages  and, under section 4 7 U.S.C. § 2 2 7(c), are entitled, inter alia, to receive up to $500 in damages for  such violations of 4 7 C.F.R. § 64 .12 00.  52 .  To the extent Defendant’s misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing, the  Court should, pursuant to 4 7 U.S.C. § 2 2 7(c)(5), treble the amount of statutory damages  recoverable by the members of the Do Not Call Registry Class.   On or about March 2 7, 2 02 1 and April 2 , 2 02 1, Defendant sent the following text  messages to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone:   CASE NO.   WILLIAM WARNER,   individually and on behalf of all others  similarly situated,  PROPOSED CLASS  2 7.  Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of himself individually and  on behalf of all other similarly situated persons as a class action pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil  Procedure 1.2 2 0(b)(2 ) and (b)(3).  The “Class” that Plaintiff seeks to represent is comprised of  class two classes and defined as:  NO CONSENT CLASS: All persons in the United States who,  within four years prior to the filing of this action, (1) were sent  a text message by or on behalf of Defendant, (2) using the same  equipment or type of equipment utilized to text message  Plaintiff, (3) regarding Defendant’s property, goods, and/or  services.  DO NOT CALL REGISTRY CLASS: All persons in the United  States who from four years prior to the filing of this action: (1)  were sent a text message, prerecorded message or phone call by  or on behalf of Defendant; (2) more than one time within any  12-month period; (3) where the person’s telephone number had  been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for at least  thirty days; (4) for the purpose of advertising and/or promoting  Defendant’s products and services.  2 8.  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.  VIOLATION OF 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) and 47 C.F.R. § 64.120 0   (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the No Consent Class)   Violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class)  4 5.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1-36 as if fully  set forth herein.  4 6.  The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 4 7 C.F.R. § 64 .12 00(c), provides that “[n]o  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.”  4 7.  4 7 C.F.R. § 64 .12 00(e), provides that § 64 .12 00(c) and (d) “are applicable to any  person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone  numbers.”  4 8.  4 7 C.F.R. § 64 .12 00(d) further provides that “[n]o person or entity shall initiate any  call for telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or entity  has instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing  calls made by or on behalf of that person or entity.”   4 9.  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” 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. 4 7 U.S.C. § 2 2 7(c).  