117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997). The TCPA generally makes it unlawful to call wireless numbers using an auto-dialer without “the prior express consent of the called party.” 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A). In the debt collection context, the FCC has stated that “express consent” is given if a consumer gives a creditor a cellphone number “during the transaction that resulted in the debt owed.” 2008 TCPA Order at ¶ 10. The class definitions articulated by Jamison require either that class members’ cellphone numbers were obtained by skip trace methods or that class members’ cellphone numbers were obtained by skip trace methods and their cellphone numbers are not located in Honda’s records. Here, Honda contends that determi 528, 2011 WL 248511, at *8 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 25, 2011) (St. Eve, J.) (<HOLDING>); Versteeg v. Bennett, Deloney & Noyes, P.C.,
holding that because the defendant has the right to litigate the issue of each class members consent the trial court did not improperly exercise its discretion in finding that these issues would predominate over common questions holding that individualized issues of consent predominated over common issues because defendant set forth specific evidence showing large amount of the putative class consented to receive faxes holding that a showing that common issues predominated also established superiority and a presumption against dismissal for management reasons holding that individualized questions concerning the defendants responsibility for diminished sales prices of class members bonds predominated over any common questions rendering class certification inappropriate holding that individualized factual determinations precluded finding that common issues predominate reversing the class certification order