Verizon’s defense against ATT’s request for a temporary restraining order was blazing, and a fantastic read. Its like they let their savage ad team help write the brief.
- ATT demanded that Verizon pull five disputed ads from the air as they were “misleading”.
- Verizon’s defense was, literally, “the truth hurts.”
Defense’s introduction nails its theme in the opening sentence:
“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.”
It establishes the inherant lameness, of ATT’s claim:
“Remarkably, AT&T admits that the 3G coverage maps — the one thing that is common to all five ads — are accurate and that the ads’ express statement that Verizon has “5X More 3G Coverage” than AT&T is true. Nonetheless, AT&T asserts that Verizon’s ads about 3G coverage are “false and misleading” because they allegedly imply a message that confuses consumers regarding AT&T’s non-3G coverage.” (As if…)
Then Verizon spanks ATT in court, just as it does in its own advertising:
“In the final analysis,” the introduction concludes, “AT&T seeks emergency relief because Verizon’s side- by-side, apples-to-apples comparison of its own 3G coverage with AT&T’s confirms what the marketplace has been saying for months: AT&T failed to invest adequately in the necessary infrastructure to expand its 3G coverage to support its growth in smartphone business, and the usefulness of its service to smartphone users has suffered accordingly. AT&T may not like the message that the ads send, but this Court should reject its efforts to silence the messenger.”
You can read the well written defense brief here.