 On or about July 25, 2016 Defendant sent an advertisement to Plaintiff in the  County of St. Louis, Missouri by facsimile transmission. A true and correct copy of the facsimile  is attached as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference.  3    On or about August 16, 2016 Defendant sent an advertisement to Plaintiff in the  County of St. Louis, Missouri by facsimile transmission. A true and correct copy of the facsimile  is attached as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by reference.    Defendant approved, authorized and participated in the scheme to broadcast faxes  by (a) directing a list to be purchased or assembled; (b) directing and supervising employees or  third parties to send the faxes; (c) creating and approving the form of fax to be sent; and (d)  determining the number and frequency of the facsimile transmissions.    Defendant created or made Exhibit A, as well as other advertisements, which  Defendant distributed to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class via facsimile transmission  (collectively “Subject Faxes”).    Defendant sent multiple advertising facsimiles to Plaintiff and members of the  proposed Class, all without an opt-out notice compliant with 47 C.F.R. §  64.1200, throughout the  time period covered by the class definition.    Defendant faxed the same and similar facsimiles, all without an opt-out notice  compliant with 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, to the members of the proposed Class in Missouri and  throughout the United States.    The Subject Faxes are a part of Defendant’s work or operations to market  Defendant’s goods or services, to be performed by Defendant, and were sent on behalf of  Defendant.    The Subject Faxes constitute material furnished in connection with Defendant’s  work or operations.     The Subject Faxes constitute material advertising of the commercial availability of  property, goods, or services.  4    The transmissions of the Subject Faxes to Plaintiff and members of the proposed  Class did not contain a notice compliant with 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4)(iii) that informs the  recipient of the ability and means to avoid future fax advertisements.    The transmissions of the Subject Faxes to Plaintiff and members of the proposed  Class did not contain a notice compliant with 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4)(iii)(A) that is clear and  conspicuous.    The transmissions of the Subject Faxes to Plaintiff and members of the proposed  Class did not did not contain a notice compliant with 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4)(iii)(B) that states  that the recipient may make a request to the sender of the advertisement not to send any future  advertisements to a telephone facsimile machine or machines and stating that the sender’s failure  to comply within 30 days would be unlawful.    The transmissions of the Subject Faxes to Plaintiff and members of the proposed  Class did not did not contain a notice compliant with 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4)(iii)(C) that sets  forth the requirements listed under paragraph 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(3)(v).     The transmissions of the Subject Faxes to Plaintiff and members of the proposed  Class did not did not contain a notice compliant with 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4)(iii)(D)(1) that  includes a domestic contact telephone and facsimile machine number for the recipient to transmit  an opt-out request to the sender    The transmissions of the Subject Faxes to Plaintiff and members of the proposed  Class did not contain a notice that complied with the provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C), 47  U.S.C. §§227(b)(2)(D)(ii), (iii) and (vi), and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4).   5    The transmissions of the Subject Faxes to Plaintiff and members of the proposed  Class were required to contain a notice that complied with the provisions of 47 U.S.C. §  227(b)(1)(C), 47 U.S.C. §§227(b)(2)(D)(ii), (iii) and (vi), and 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(4).    There is no reasonable means for Plaintiff (or any other Class member) to avoid  receiving unlawful faxes. Fax machines are left on and ready to receive the urgent communications  their owners desire to receive.    Defendant knew or should have known that the Subject Faxes were advertisements  and the Subject Faxes did not display an opt-out notice compliant with 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.     The transmissions of Subject Faxes to Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class  caused destruction of the property of Plaintiff and each member of the proposed Class.    The transmissions of Subject Faxes to Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class  interfered with the exclusive use of the property of Plaintiff and each member of the proposed  Class.     The transmissions of Subject Faxes to Plaintiff interfered with the business and  personal communications of Plaintiff and the proposed Class.    Plaintiff brings Count I pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47  U.S.C. § 227, on behalf of the following Class of persons:   All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were  sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial  availability of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendant, (3)  which did not display an opt-out notice compliant with 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200.    On information and belief, the Class includes more than forty persons and is so  numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.  6    There are numerous questions of law or fact are common to the members of the  Class, which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and the answers  to which would drive class-wide resolution of this case, including:  a. Whether Defendant engaged in a pattern of sending fax advertisements;  b. Whether the Subject Faxes contains material advertising the commercial  availability of any property, goods or services;  c. Whether the Subject Faxes advertised the commercial availability of property,  goods, or services;  d. The manner and method Defendant used to compile or obtain the list of fax  numbers to which they sent the Subject Faxes and other faxed advertisements;  e. Whether Defendant violated the provisions of 47 USC § 227;  f. Whether Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to statutory  damages;  g. Whether Defendant should be enjoined from faxing advertisements in the  future;  h. Whether the Court should award trebled damages;  i. Whether the Subject Faxes displayed the proper opt-out notice required by 47  C.F.R. § 64.1200; and  j. Whether the Subject Faxes failed to include an opt-out notice compliant with   Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.    The TCPA, 47 U.S.C.§ 227, provides, in pertinent part:  (b)(3) Private right of action. A person may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or  rules of court of a state, bring in an appropriate court of that state:   (A) An action based on a violation of this subsection or the regulations  prescribed under this subsection to enjoin such violation,   (B) An action to recover for actual monetary loss from such a violation, or  to receive $500 in damages for each such violation, whichever is greater, or  (C) Both such actions.   8    The Court, in its discretion, may treble the statutory damages if the violation was  knowing. 47 U.S.C. § 227.    The TCPA is a strict liability statute and the Defendant are liable to Plaintiff and  the other Class members even if their actions were only negligent.    Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq. by transmitting the Subject Faxes to  Plaintiff and the other members of the Class by not displaying an opt-out notice compliant with 47  TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C. § 227  