 Defendant Princess sent multiple unsolicited text messages to consumer phone  numbers, regardless of whether they were registered on the DNC.   Plaintiff Received Unsolicited Autodialed Text Messages to Her Cell  Phone Despite Being on the DNC List     Plaintiff Wammack’s cell phone number was registered on the DNC on April 5,  2013.     Her cell phone number is not associated with a business and is for personal use.    The text message shown above directs the recipient to call Sam Nguyen at 919- 589-1759. When 919-589-1759 is called, it is directed to Sam Nguyen, a Princess employee.     On July 26, 2019 at 5:49 PM, Wammack received a second autodialed text  message from Defendant, this time from phone number 919-446-5486:     Plaintiff has never had a relationship with Princess and has never provided  Princess with express written consent to contact her.    The unauthorized text messages sent by Princess, as alleged herein, have harmed  Plaintiff in the form of annoyance, nuisance, and invasion of privacy, and disturbed Wammack’s  use and enjoyment of her cellular phone, in addition to the wear and tear on the phone’s  hardware (including the phone’s battery) and the consumption of memory on the phone.     Seeking redress for these injuries, Wammack, on behalf of herself and two  Classes of similarly situated individuals, brings suit under the Telephone Consumer Protection  Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., which prohibits unsolicited autodialed text messages to cellular  telephones, including solicitation text messages to a phone number protected by the DNC.   The following individuals are excluded from the Classes: (1) any Judge or  Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, its  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents  have a controlling interest and their current or former employees, officers and directors; (3)  Plaintiff’s attorneys; (4) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion  from the Classes; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded  persons; and (6) persons whose claims against Defendant have been fully and finally adjudicated  and/or released.     Plaintiff anticipates the need to amend the Class definition following appropriate  discovery regarding the type of equipment used, the purpose of the text messages, and other  appropriate discovery.     Numerosity: On information and belief, there are hundreds, if not thousands of  members of the Classes such that joinder of all members is impracticable.    Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and  protect the interests of the Classes and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class  actions. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of the Classes, and Defendant has no  defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff and her counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting  this action on behalf of the members of the Classes, and they have the financial resources to do  so. Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel has any interest adverse to the Classes.    Appropriateness: This class action is also appropriate for certification because  Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Classes as  respective wholes, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure  compatible standards of conduct toward the members of the Classes and making final class-wide  injunctive relief appropriate. Defendant’s business practices apply to and affect the members of  the Classes uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinges on Defendant’s conduct  with respect to the Classes, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff.     Additionally, the damages suffered by individual members of the Classes will  likely be small relative to the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the complex  litigation necessitated by Defendant’s actions. Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the  members of the Classes to obtain effective relief from Defendant’s misconduct on an individual  basis. A class action provides the benefits of single adjudication, economies of scale, and  comprehensive supervision by a single court.    Defendant and/or its agents sent unwanted solicitation text messages to cellular  telephone numbers belonging to Plaintiff and the other members of the Autodialed No Consent  Class using an autodialer.     These solicitation text messages were sent en masse without the consent of the  Plaintiff and the other members of the Autodialed No Consent Class to receive such solicitation  text messages.     The equipment used to send the text messages had the present capacity to transmit  text messages en masse and did not function similar to a simple cellphone.     The text messages were sent without human intervention.     Defendant’s conduct was wilful or knowing. Defendant knew or should’ve known  that its text messages violated the TCPA.    Defendant has, therefore, violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). As a result of  Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and the other members of the Autodialed No Consent Class are  each entitled to between $500 and $1,500 for each and every text message.   Plaintiff repeats and realleges the paragraphs 1 through 38 of this Complaint and  incorporates them by reference.    47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e), provides that § 64.1200(c) is “applicable to any person or  entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to wireless telephone numbers.”3    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. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c).    Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) by initiating, or causing to be initiated,  repeated telephone solicitations to telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the Do Not Call  Registry Class members who registered their respective telephone numbers on the National Do  Not Call Registry, a listing of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is  maintained by the federal government.     Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff and the Do Not Call  Registry Class received more than one phone call/text message in a 12-month period by or on  behalf of Defendant in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, 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 are entitled to $500 per violation.    Defendant’s conduct was wilful or knowing. Defendant knew or should’ve known  that its text messages violated the TCPA.  Class Treatment Is Appropriate for Plaintiff’s TCPA Claims    Princess Sends Unsolicited Text Messages Using an Autodialer    Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Do Not Call Registry Class)   Telephone Consumer Protection Act  (Violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227)  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Autodial No Consent Class)  