 The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.  Although the  precise number of Class members is known only to Defendants, Plaintiff upon  information and belief asserts that the Class numbers in the hundreds, if not  thousands.    There are questions of law and fact common to the Class that predominate over any  questions affecting only individual Class members.  The questions include, but are  not limited to:  a. Whether, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3)(A) and 12 C.F.R. § 205.16,  Defendants were ATM operators at all relevant times during the Class  period that imposed a fee on consumers for providing host transfer services  to those consumers;   b. Whether, at all relevant times during the class period, Defendants failed to  comply with the notice requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3) and 12  C.F.R. § 205.16(c); and  c. The appropriate measure of damages sustained by Plaintiff and other  members of the Class.    Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class, which all arise from the same  operative facts and are based on the same legal theories, including:  a. Plaintiff and all putative Class members used an ATM operated by  Defendants;  b. Defendants failed to provide notices compliant with 15 U.S.C. §  1693b(d)(3) and 12 C.F.R. § 205.16(c) to Plaintiff and all putative Class  members; and  c. Defendants illegally imposed a fee on Plaintiff and all putative Class  members for their respective use of the ATM.    This action should be maintained as a class action because the prosecution of  separate actions by individual members of the Class would create a risk of  inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members which  would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties opposing the Class,  as well as a risk of adjudications with respect to individual members which would as  a practical matter be dispositive of the interests of other members not parties to the  adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.     Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class,  thereby making appropriate final injunction relief or corresponding declaratory relief  with respect to the Class as a whole.     A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy. The interest of Class members in individually controlling the  prosecution of separate claims against the Defendants are small.  Management of the  Class claims is likely to present significantly fewer difficulties than those presented  in many individual claims. The identities of the Class members may be obtained  from Defendants’ records.    Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully stated  herein.    Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3)(D)(i) and 12 C.F.R. § 205.16(a), Defendants  were ATM operators at all times relevant to this action.    Defendants were the operators of the ATM (Terminal #LK823326) located at  Fairmont Battery Wharf, Three Battery Wharf, Boston, Massachusetts, at all times  relevant to this action.    Defendants failed to comply with the notice requirements of 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3)  and 12 C.F.R. § 205.16(c) when providing ATM services to Plaintiff and all putative  Class members.    Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3)(C) and 12 C.F.R. § 205.16(e), Defendants,  therefore, illegally imposed a fee on Plaintiff and all putative Class members for their  respective use of the ATM.   The Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq. (“EFTA”), and its  implementing Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. § 205.1 et seq., require an automated teller  machine operator to provide notice to consumers that the operator will impose a fee  on consumers for conducting a transaction at an ATM and the amount of such a fee.    Specifically, 15 U.S.C. § 1693b(d)(3) and 12 C.F.R. § 205.16(c) require that an  ATM operator disclose (a) on the ATM (via placard/sticker) that a fee will be  imposed and (b) on the ATM screen that a fee will be imposed and the amount of  such a fee.   VIOLATION OF ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER ACT & REGULATION E  U.S.C. §1693 et seq. & 12 C.F.R. §205.1 et seq.    