Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the PWPCL principally by taking impermissible deductions from their pay. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged a contractual obligation by Flowers to refrain from taking the deductions, and thus the PWPCL claim is not viable. Generally, courts characterize the PWPCL as "provid[ing] employees with a statutory remedy when an employer breaches its contractual obligation to pay wages." Ely v. Susquehanna Aquacultures, Inc., 130 A.3d 6, 13 (Pa. Super. 2015). The contractual obligation may be express or implied. See Rapczynski, et al. v. DIRECTV, LLC, & Mastec N. Am., Inc., 2016 WL 1071022, at *8-9 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2016); see also Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 24 A.3d 875, 954 (Pa. Super. 2011), aff'd, 106 A.3d 656 (Pa. 2014). Here, Plaintiffs have pled facts indicating that the parties entered into written agreements regarding Plaintiffs' work for Flowers, including Distributor Agreements, and that the Plaintiffs routinely worked in excess of forty hours a week for Flowers. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants have taken deductions that were not authorized by their agreements or law. Such facts are sufficient to allege, that at a minimum, Flowers created an implied contract to pay wages, and that the deductions were impermissible. See Rapczynski, 2016 WL 1071022, at *8 (in PWPCL context, "a promise to pay the reasonable value of the service is implied where one performs for another, with the other's knowledge, a useful service of a character that is usually charged for, and the latter expresses no dissent or avails himself of the service"). Accordingly, judgment on the pleadings is inappropriate.