Verizon's "There's a Map for That" Ads Draw AT&T Lawsuit

Verizon's "There's a Map for That" Ads Draw AT&T Lawsuit

Verizon has pulled no punches against AT&T and the iPhone of late. In addition to the "Droid Does" ad which has garnered rave reviews, they've also done the "There's a Map for That" ad which points at the lack of 3G support nationwide on AT&T. However, AT&T feels that ad is misleading, and has sued.

The "There's a Map For That" obviously mocks Apple's "There's an App For That" iPhone slogan, but really aims at noting the coverage differences between the two carriers. The ad makes its point quite graphically, and therein is AT&T's issue.

Verizon's ad puts up comparative maps showing 3G coverage for AT&T vs. Verizon. While sad enough for AT&T when taken in that context, the iPhone's carrier believes that consumers who see the ad may believe that the maps represent coverage period, not just 3G coverage.

Now, while those who pay close attention to the current version of the ad will note that the ad superimposes "Voice and data service available outside 3G coverage area" on the screen, who really pays that much attention to an ad?  In fact, the first version said AT&T users were "out of touch" and was changed after an initial complaint.



Despite the change, however, AT&T, citing in the lawsuit (.PDF) a survey it ran, notes that 53% of consumers (interviewed at a mall) interpreted the ad to mean that there was no AT&T coverage at all in any of the areas of the map that were not in blue.

Realistically, the point that there is a potential for confusion is a valid one.  Even given that, however, it's a sad thing to look at the AT&T map and realize just how poor its 3G coverage is.  Perhaps AT&T needs to work more on expanding that coverage, and less on excuses and lawsuits.

Watch one of the ads below (there has been more than one broadcast):


0
+ -

Well as far as it goes for At&t the damage is already done. The real point of all this is how poor there network is. Yes they may have phone service in more areas than what is shown. We already have 4G implementations going country wide, so what is there excuse for having last years technology in that low of an active implementation. I was an At&t customer who left them because of there coverage.

I was and am a field engineer, I traveled all over the country. There service was spotty outside of most major areas. However; I had heard about Verizon's coverage from others I worked with. I switched and have been with them for several years now. Just to note I have had a cell since they got to the smaller hand set model. SO I have had coverage at one time or another from almost all carriers. I will say At&t has better coverage than many. I will also say that Verizon seems to have the best coverage out of all cellular providers in the US. I know it is not flawless, but it is more wide spread and accessible than any other carrier from my experience.

0
+ -

First of all, isn't "There's an app for that" an *Apple* slogan? Where does AT&T get off suing anyone for a parody of it? Also, if it confused anyone, it would confuse them into buying an iPhone - with AT&T's service.

This appears to be a case of AT&T's lawyers trying to make their department a profit-center to justify their headcount during a bad economy. AT&T should fire the lawyer that filed this and spend the money expanding their coverage instead.

0
+ -

If the truth hurts,....Sue!

So it's misleading and people are getting the wrong idea from the Verizon adverts. TOO BAD!

Let them hash it out in court and may the best overpriced and under performing service win!

0
+ -

Making fraudulent claims in an advertisement, folks, is always grounds for a lawsuit. If AT&T's coverage isn't what Verizon claims it to be, they have every right to take them to court. This is why most of the time you have someone talking about their own individual experiences-- that's harder to prove is inaccurate.

Of course, my personal experience with Verizon was that they had spotty coverage, bad customer service, and draconian policies to boot (they charge $3 to report a threatening or harassing call)-- three of the reasons I jumped ship.

Login or Register to Comment
Post a Comment
Username:   Password: