TCPA “prohibits any person, absent the prior express consent of a telephone-call recipient, from ‘makfing] any call ... using any automatic telephone dialing system .,. to any telephone number assigned to.a paging service [or] cellular telephone service.’” Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct, 663, 667, 193 L.Ed.2d 571 (2016). (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(l)(A)(iii)). Text messages are considered a “call” for the purposes of the TCPA, Id. The predominant and dis-positive issue in this case is whether Opt It’s software platform constitutes an automatic telephone dialing system (“ATDS” or “autodialers”) as defined by the TCPA.' If Akira did not use an ATDS, there' can be no TCPA violation. See Norman v. AllianceOne Receivables Mgmt., Inc., 637 Fed.Appx. 214, 215 (7th Cir. 2015) (<HOLDING>); Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, No. C
recognizing that settlement discussions do not constitute an offer of judgment holding that isolated criminal attacks do not constitute persecution holding manually dialed calls do not constitute a violation of the tcpa holding damages do not constitute other equitable relief holding that personal disputes do not constitute persecution