 Supercuts has over 2,700 salons across the U.S. that provide haircut services to  consumers that are either corporate-owned or owned by a franchisee.3     As part of its business practice, Supercuts places solicitation text messages to  consumers in order to solicit them to purchase haircutting services from Supercuts locations  across the country.    For example, in Plaintiff Shipman’s case, Defendant sent multiple unsolicited text  messages to his number registered on the national do not call registry.    Consumers have posted complaints online about unsolicited text messages they  received from Supercuts including:  • “Spam text from Supercuts”4  • “Received a text asking to reply Y to sign up for rewards at Supercuts….Delete”5    In response to these text messages, Plaintiff Shipman files this lawsuit seeking  monetary and injunctive relief requiring the Defendant to cease from violating the Telephone  Consumer Protection Act, as well as an award of statutory damages to the members of the Class  and costs.   Plaintiff Shipman registered his phone number on the DNC on August 27, 2011.    Plaintiff Shipman’s phone number is not associated with a business and is used  for personal use only.    At the beginning of November 2020, Plaintiff Shipman received an unsolicited  text message from Supercuts using shortcode 71441 stating, “Supercuts Supercuts Pick 2! Get  your coupon at: https://mcpn.us/x?i=904894&c=13f27 OR to redeem by text reply: 81703.”    On December 14, 2020 at 9:03 AM, Plaintiff Shipman received a fourth  unsolicited text message from Supercuts, again from shortcode 71441:    None of the text messages that Plaintiff received provide instructions on how to  opt-out of receiving additional text messages.    When the links in any of the first 3 text messages that Plaintiff received are  visited, they showed 2 coupons that Plaintiff could redeem until the end of November 2020.     The December 14th text message shows that the coupon can be redeemed until  the end of December 2020 and is valid at participating locations without indicating any specific  location.    Plaintiff has never provided Defendant with consent to send him unsolicited text  messages or calls to his cell phone.    The unauthorized solicitation text messages that Plaintiff received from  Supercuts, as alleged herein, have harmed Plaintiff Shipman in the form of annoyance, nuisance,  and invasion of privacy, and disturbed the use and enjoyment of his 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.     Plaintiff Shipman brings this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3) and seek certification of the following Class:  Do Not Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States who from four years prior  to the filing of this action through class certification (1) Defendant (or an agent acting on  behalf of the Defendant) texted more than one time, (2) 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 substantially the same reason Defendant texted  Plaintiff, and (5) for whom Defendant claims (a) they obtained prior express written  consent in the same manner as Defendant claim they supposedly obtained prior express  written consent to text Plaintiff, or (b) they did not obtain prior express written consent.    The following individuals are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or  Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, their  subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which either 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 Class; (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 Shipman anticipates the need to amend the Class definitions following  appropriate discovery.    Numerosity: On information and belief, there are hundreds, if not thousands of  members of the Class such that joinder of all members is impracticable.     Adequate Representation: Plaintiff Shipman will fairly and adequately represent  and protect the interests of the Class, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in  class actions. Plaintiff Shipman has no interests antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendant  has no defenses unique to Plaintiff. Plaintiff Shipman and his counsel are committed to  vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the members of the Class, and have the financial  resources to do so. Neither Plaintiff Shipman nor his counsel have any interest adverse to the  Class.    Appropriateness: This class action is also appropriate for certification because  Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class and as a  whole, thereby requiring the Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards  of conduct toward the members of the Class and making final class-wide injunctive relief  appropriate. Defendant’s business practices apply to and affect the members of the Class  uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinges on Defendant’s conduct with  respect to the Class as wholes, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff Shipman.  Additionally, the damages suffered by individual members of the Class 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 Class 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.   Plaintiff Shipman repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Complaint  and incorporates them by reference.    The TCPA’s implementing regulation, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c), provides that “[n]o  person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential telephone subscriber  who has registered his or his 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.”    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,  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 text message in a 12-month period made by or on behalf  of the 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, under section 47 U.S.C. § 227(c), are entitled, inter  alia, to receive up to $500 in damages for such violations of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.  