AT&T Sues Verizon Over 'Misleading' Map Ad

AT&T (T) has filed a lawsuit against Verizon Wireless (VZ) over those “There’s a map for that” commercials - but not because AT&T is disputing the accuracy of those 3G coverage maps. (PDF of complaint) Nope, AT&T thinks that consumers are too dumb to differentiate between 3G and non-3G coverage and it wants those maps changed - specifically, the colors. (Techmeme)

The Verizon map is largely covered by red, meant to represent its 3G coverage areas. The AT&T map, by contrast, is sparsely covered by blue - meant to represent its 3G coverage - and has vast sections of the nation covered in white, representing areas without 3G coverage.

AT&T argues that the maps are confusing and that consumers are led to believe that there is no AT&T coverage of any kind in those white areas. From the complaint:

AT&T does not seek to stop Verizon from running its advertisements, nor does it seek to change the words Verizon uses in its advertisements. At this time, AT&T seeks only an order prohibiting Verizon from displaying, in the “Bench” advertisement, or in any other advertisement, a map of AT&T’s “3G” coverage in which AT&T’s non-”3G” coverage areas are depicted by white or blanks space. This limited relief is necessary to prevent consumers from being misled by the maps into believing that AT&T offers no wireless service in large parts of the United States. The Court should enter a temporary restraining order because Verizon should not be permitted to benefit from its misleading use of coverage maps while the Court sets a schedule for a preliminary and permanent injunction hearing, especially in light of the fact that we are approaching the busiest time of year for the purchase of wireless services.

Sure, Verizon could have been more creative with the colors - maybe using light blue for 2G coverage and dark blue for 3G, but why should Verizon go out of its way to advertise AT&T’s 2G coverage when it’s a commercial about 3G coverage? I could see if the commercial were about all of the services - but these commercials clearly show people doing things that need 3G, such as watching streaming video.

The funny part is that AT&T previously complained that a line about customers being “out of touch” and the ad was changed. But the company says it remains misleading.

So what have we learned from the filing of this lawsuit? Well, I know I’ve learned that AT&T’s 3G coverage in the U.S. looks a lot worse than I thought it did. I know I would be pretty upset if I were an iPhone owner living in middle America. And it appears that I made the right call when I decided to stay with Verizon Wireless.

You know what confuses me about this lawsuit? No one seems to be disputing the factual part of the ad - the 3G coverage areas. So, the only thing AT&T really stands to accomplish with this lawsuit is to raise awareness about the spottiness of its 3G service outside of major metropolitan areas.

Comments

[goldbug101]

Like tripping over dollars to pick up quarters.

I see AT&T's point, but I think their argument goes up in smoke since Verizon's map is also white, or blank, in the areas where VZW has no 3G coverage.

If VZW's map included 3G & 2G, and left it out of AT&T's map, then maybe AT&T would have an argument, but it's simply 3G coverage vs. 3G coverage.

2009 Nov 04 09:14 AM

[Chkrazer]

this is silly on T's part and I think it just brings more media/public attention to its 3G deficiency across the nation ... seems like the lawsuit is actually free publicity for VZ

2009 Nov 04 11:45 AM

[formeratt]

You nailed it. AT&T really does not want anyone to know how far behind they are in deploying 3G. This ad nails them with an accurate comparison of 3G. I hope they are laughed out of court. This is a great advertising campaign that simply shows the 3G gap between the companies. All's fair......

2009 Nov 04 01:49 PM

[JAMES CARLINI]

If AT&T HAD what they claim they have - they would splash it all over the media and crush Verizon. The truth is - they are behind.

One of the biggest challenges with AT&T is to find out where the broadband connectivity is within any area - this includes fiber optics (multiple gigabit connectivity) and not just wireless resources.

If you got it - flaunt it. If you don't, make up some proprietary mumbo-jumbo claiming you cannot release information on area availability because of security.

Funny, Verizon doesn't seem to have that concern.

2009 Nov 05 08:20 AM

[Longaustin]

Sprint is left out due to equal coverage on 3G and now 4G rolling out. Boy Genius had users on different networks test download speeds and Sprint's was by far the fastest on 3G with Verizon at almost half the speed. I believe Sprint's was around 1300kbps down. Sprint also rated the "Most Reliable." 4G is hear and Verizon is throwing FUD about their LTE, that does not have a certification yet, and I would say their bandwidth availability is constrained (along with AT&T-worse).

2009 Nov 05 09:27 AM

[mollytjm]

the maps don't bother international travelers who can use their iPhone abroad. i left Verizon with some trepidation in order to have the iPhone and last year there were dropped calls, but that is not the case now. ATT has a lot of increased revenue and they are beefing up the system, which needed it. but i do think other phone makers may do better on Verizon, at least until ATT catches up.

2009 Nov 05 10:26 AM

[bigeasy8]

AT&Tare even more misleading with their own ads - they advertise that they have the fastest 3G connection around (maybe they achieved the fastest reciordrd time once) where in fact they have the slowest average connection time as compared with Sprint and Verizon

2009 Nov 06 12:21 AM

[directcommunications.us]

lawsuits are just to confuse

2009 Nov 07 04:23 PM

[Nettligent]

Like divorce, lawyers are the only winners.

2009 Nov 11 03:48 AM