AT&T Lawsuit: Verizon Response Calls It A Case Of Sour Grapes

After AT&T filed a lawsuit against Verizon's ad campaigns, the latter has finally responded. 

And very much like the ads in question, the court filing is nothing short of scathing attacks on Ma Bell. 

Shooting down AT&T's remark that the ads were misleading the customers, Verizon has said that its ads only portray the groud realities and AT&T was suing Verizon because truth hurts. In its filing, Verizon says:

"AT&T did not file this lawsuit because Verizon’s “There’s A Map For That” advertisements are untrue; AT&T sued because Verizon’s ads are true and the truth hurts…"

Requesting the courts to reject AT&T's request to issue a stay, Verizon further says:

"AT&T may not like the message that the ads send, but this Court should reject its efforts to silence the messenger"

Clearly, Verizon is on the offensive and is looking at the court filing as one more opportunity to thrash AT&T and gain PR points. While Verizon might succeed in getting mileage out of this, it still has not come clear. There is a fine line of difference in AT&T's accusation and Verizon's defence. AT&T has not called Verizon's ads untrue. Rather, the claim is on the ads being misleading, which it certainly is. 

To further elaborate on this, Verizon's ads are misleading on two counts:

1. 3G Coverage is not the same as Wireless Internet coverage, which is not discernible to a layman customer

2. Five times more coverage does not mean faster coverage. As we had mentioned in our earlier article, AT&T offers a better wireless internet infrastructure than Verizon and the clogging up of its network is merely because of the larger number of iPhone users it serves. 

AT&T's lawsuit was backed by an in-house survey that seemed to conclude that customers were indeed being misled, and this has been rightfully rejected by Verizon. However, there is a greater need to verify AT&T's claim once more with the help of independent third party studies. There is a lot at stake for both the companies with the ads coming, as it is, just before the peak shopping season of the year and it would be unfair on AT&T if it had to lose out on crucial revenues because of a prank played by a competitor. 

What is the middle path here? Though the case is sub-judice, it is only fair that the Court orders a stay on the ads until it can be determined whether or not the ads are misleading. Despite all the grouse we ourselves have on Ma Bell over clogged networks, we are always for healthy and fair competition between the carriers and in this case, Verizon clearly seems to have an unfair advantage. 

How do you think AT&T should respond? Please tell us your views. 

[via ZDNet]

Follow us on Twitter